Ukraine, Syria and Iran

William Cash Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has returned safely, and I will pass on his thanks to our ambassador. We are already conveying those messages through our embassy. I have asked to talk to the Speaker who has been declared the acting President—[Interruption.] I am not sure about encouraging that thought, Mr Speaker. I have asked to speak to the acting President to convey the message from the UK that the new Government should not be as divisive as the old one so evidently was. They should seek reconciliation and be a true unity Government who try to establish a new political culture. If they do those things, they will receive a great deal of international support.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary may know that the EU-Ukraine association agreement is still under scrutiny in the European Scrutiny Committee and will certainly require a debate. It is important that he has mentioned the fact that the International Monetary Fund, and not the EU, should be the lead on this. The amount of money that could be required of the United Kingdom in the light of an EU financial deal could be so horrendous as to make it completely unacceptable.

[Mr Hague]

I have consciously tried to reassure my hon. Friend on that matter. I deliberately mentioned IMF support. There will be opportunities for European Investment Bank or European Bank for Reconstruction and Development support as part of a broader international package, but those options do not involve a quick fix. The focus now needs to be on ensuring that the IMF is at the front and the centre of any package of assistance to Ukraine. I will be discussing that with it in Washington later this week, as I am sure other EU countries will do as well.

Commission Work Programme 2014

William Cash Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 15521/13 and Addendum, a Commission Communication: Commission Work Programme 2014; agrees that this document is a useful tool for planning the Government’s and Parliament’s engagement with the EU in 2014; and supports the Government’s view that measures which promote growth and jobs in the EU, including measures towards completing the Single Market, are the top priority.

This year’s work programme is the last for the current European Commission. It covers what the Commission is giving priority to in the final months of its mandate as well as some new initiatives and, of course, it does not cover everything that the European Union and its institutions are doing.

In last year’s debate on the annual work programme, right hon. and hon. Members focused in particular on the process of our scrutiny of European legislation. Prior to this year’s debate, the House’s European Scrutiny Committee published a report on reforming scrutiny in this place. I want to give the House an assurance that the Government are considering that report with the seriousness that it would expect and we will publish our response as soon as we can.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

As the Minister has referred to the report and to the formal response that the Government must give to it under the conventions of the House, I think it might be appropriate to mention the reactions of some members of the Government—I will not say everybody—to the proposals. They were described as “unrealistic” by one Minister and “unworkable” by another. That is not entirely consistent with the formalities of the convention that applies, but I think we will find that we will get a good response, as the Government have also said that it is a very important study.

[Mr Lidington]

This is an important study, which makes a large number of recommendations. The recommendations in my hon. Friend’s report have a bearing on business, which is the responsibility of pretty much every Government Department. The discussions that we are having at both official and ministerial level reflect the breadth of the areas of policy covered by my hon. Friend’s Committee.

The Committee noted, in its report recommending today’s debate, that—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the European Commission’s work programme for 2014. I thank the European Scrutiny Committee for its useful report. The Committee suggested that a debate before Christmas would be timely, and given the thinness of the Government’s agenda for this House, it is surprising that this debate has not taken place earlier.

The work programme published on 22 October is shorter than usual, not least because European Parliament elections are coming up in May and because the new college of commissioners will take office later this year. Our ability to influence the work programme’s direction to achieve UK objectives and protect our national interest depends in no small part on having good relationships with our allies in Europe. Yet, instead of defending our interests in Europe, the Prime Minister all too often puts party before country, opting for policy positions and language that appease Eurosceptic Back Benchers and alienate allies in Europe.

The result is that the Prime Minister finds himself in an increasingly isolated position in Europe. Indeed, the Prime Minister has been attracting an increasing number of openly hostile comments from crucial European allies. Germany, Poland, France and Bulgaria are our allies in Europe, and yet senior figures in their Governments—most recently the German Foreign Minister, Mr Steinmeier—have given briefings on their profound disagreement with our Prime Minister’s views. The political weight of the people in those countries who have made their disagreement with the Prime Minister known and the tone in which they have done so are concerning. Once again, the Conservative party is pushing Britain into the isolated corner that John Major’s Government left us in.

The Prime Minister has promised to renegotiate the terms of Britain’s membership of the European Union. He said that treaty change will deliver important opportunities to repatriate a series of powers that are apparently held by the EU and which he thinks ought to be back with the United Kingdom. Having looked at the work programme, I confess that I cannot see a major treaty change in preparation. It is far from clear that the treaty change on which the Conservative party is banking is likely to happen soon. If the Minister were to be honest with the House about that, I suspect that he would say that he is starting to realise that the game is up. The Chancellor’s recent plaintive call for treaty change in the context of banking union gave the impression that he knows that the possibility of such treaty change is retreating. Even if we assume that treaty change will happen, we still have absolutely no idea which powers the Conservative party wants to repatriate. The Minister has once again failed to tell us today.

The work programme priorities for 2014—economic and monetary union; smart, sustainable and inclusive growth; justice and security; and external action—are critical to the UK. In particular, a strong and stable economy in Europe is crucial to British jobs, security and prosperity. As the UK continues to battle through the Government’s cost of living crisis, with falling wages, rising prices and stagnating growth, our continued membership of and active engagement in the European Union are crucial to Britain’s economic prosperity. Almost half the UK’s trade and foreign investments come from the European Union. More than 3.5 million jobs in the UK depend on our membership of the EU.

[Mr Cash]

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the figure of 3 million jobs is a monumental myth. It came out 10 years ago and was denied by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which described it as Goebbels propaganda.

[Mr Thomas]

The information that I gave was confirmed as recently as 2011 in a written parliamentary answer from the Foreign Secretary. Who am I not to believe the Foreign Secretary on a matter of such importance? If the Foreign Secretary’s view is not good enough for the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, perhaps I could point him towards recent research by the CBI, which estimates that our membership of the EU is worth between £62 billion and £78 billion, which equates to about 4% to 5% of the country’s total economic output or about £3,000 per UK household per year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

It is important that the House considers the European Commission’s work programme, as we have done before.

The Greek presidency has the potential to make a major difference to the EU at this critical time, and we should have every hope that it will attempt to make those changes, bearing in mind the recent history of the Greek Government. Greece is arguably one of the greatest victims of the bungled “integration at any price” agenda of those behind the European project and should be well placed to showcase the dangers of recent approaches. This was an opportunity for European integration to change course, but the message from the programme of the Greek presidency is that that process of political integration and state building continues apace regardless. This document and agenda do little to address the very real concerns of ordinary voters across the EU and convey that detached superiority of a complacent unaccountable elite. At a time when Europe teeters on the brink, this work programme presents an agenda for ever-more integration, justified in language that would cause even the most cynical to take note.

We are promised that the Greek presidency will

“reverse the current trend of youth unemployment”

as part of the effort on economic growth and job creation, but it seems that the main output is to

“enhance the implementation of the Compact for Growth and Jobs”,

whose relevance is worthy, to say the least, of deep scrutiny. If we want to reverse the trend of youth unemployment as well as put right many of the wider ailments of the European economy, we need to revisit the entire economic model on which the European project is based. Instead of a burdensome, overbearing single market driven by a social model that is neither desirable nor affordable, we need a much lighter, more flexible and trade-focused agenda for wealth creation and prosperity.

That is not, however, the priority of the Commission. Instead, we are promised a further push on the integration of the EU and the eurozone. The work programme undertakes to push hard on banking union, and promises to

“create a well coordinated Economic and Monetary Union with a view to ending the instability and uncertainty observed in particular in the ‘periphery’.”

Are they talking about the fastest-growing economy in the world when they talk about the periphery? One wonders whether that is how they see Britain.

Perhaps of the greatest concern is that we are promised

“a particular focus on the social dimension”

of European monetary union,

“which, for the first time, will be integrated into the European Semester cycle”.

[Mr Cash]

My hon. Friend refers to banking union. For the last two and a half days, I have attended a conference in Brussels, in which it was explicitly said, over and over again, that it was crucial to get the banking union proposals through. They pleaded with national Governments to get those proposals through before the European elections, because they fear that if they do not get them through before then, they will never get them through.

[Mr Binley]

My hon. Friend is, of course, right. We know that banking union was proposed as a last-ditch effort to give some confidence to the market, but I doubt whether these are the key economic promises for businesses across the EU—that is the truth of the matter. They are a long way from where voters would like the political emphasis to be placed—especially, if I may say so, in this country.

It is difficult to reconcile these priorities with the economic realities, particularly within the eurozone. As we emerge tentatively from recession, alongside the United States, the eurozone continues to face a crisis of existential proportions. The promising picture in Ireland and Spain, as well as improved confidence, is more than offset by the risk of a widespread deflationary spiral and the worrying travails of the French economy, which, being socialist-driven, frightens most of the people in most of the countries across Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bain]

I am grateful for that intervention, but I remember that major employers such as Hitachi established themselves in the north of England precisely because we are in the EU and have access to the single market as a result. Many investors have said that if we were no longer part of the single market, many jobs in this country would be put at risk. I simply ask my hon. Friend to reflect on that point.

[Mr Cash]

If the hon. Gentleman were to read not only The Guardian but also The Daily Telegraph today, he would see references to what the chairman of Unilever said. His comments were much more in line with the arguments made from the Government Benches because he was saying that reform was needed and that far more concern was being expressed about that reform than was necessary.

[Mr Bain]

I am conscious that other Members wish to speak and I do not want to do a survey of all of today’s British newspapers, but I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that the main story on the front page of the Financial Times this morning was headlined “City warns UK over loss of EU influence”, so I think we are hearing precisely the voices of business, who want to promote job creation and who are expressing the view that isolating ourselves in the way that the Government are trying to do, in a vain attempt to placate the hon. Gentleman, is simply not going to work in our long-term interests.

There are several points I want to develop in the remainder of my remarks. First, on economic and monetary union, yesterday the International Monetary Fund’s world economic outlook predicted growth in the eurozone for this year at a mere 1% and for next year at an only slightly higher 1.4%. At the same time, there are 26.5 million people out of work across the EU28, and 5.6 million of them are under the age of 25. That is a youth unemployment rate of nearly 24%. That should shame all of us. It should represent a call to action for every politician who has influence to shape the EU’s priorities to focus on job creation for the next few years.

Over the year to last November our trade deficit with the EU rose to £3.2 billion and the continued low growth in the eurozone area was one of the main contributory factors to dampened demand for our manufacturing exports. By contrast, our trade in services, including financial services, is in surplus. So it is in the interests of business and workers here in the UK to see the fault-lines in economic and monetary union repaired by putting in place a strong set of common institutions such as a single resolution mechanism and processes to allow for the resolution of distressed banks in the eurozone area. The question of whether there should be a common deposit insurance guarantee, or commonly issued debt, is certainly a more divisive issue among the eurozone members, but now that a new coalition is in place in Berlin, we should at least begin to have greater certainty about Germany’s intentions on both those fronts.

We should also welcome the fact that, contrary to many expectations—not least from Members on the Opposition Benches—the eurozone has not broken up. Indeed, Latvia became its 18th member this month. Nevertheless, in this work programme the Commission has acted on the widespread sense among peoples in Spain, Portugal, Greece, Cyprus and Ireland that monetary union lacked a sufficiently social or democratic dimension, with little regard being given to the effects on inequality, wages and, most devastatingly of all, youth unemployment in some of the programmes imposed upon those member states in the name of deficit reduction. It is interesting to note that the Commission’s work programme refers to the further priority for work in this area in the coming 12 months.

As Commissioner Andor’s report today makes clear—this certainly was covered in The Daily Telegraph, to which the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) referred earlier—eurozone members should not be left with the only options being internal devaluations or wage cuts as the means of escape from any future downturns. The price for that would simply be paid by ordinary working people with substantially lower living standards. A eurozone with a strong fiscal union component will help to avoid that possibility in the future.

When Government Members visited Brussels in October last year we heard from the office of President Van Rompuy that eurozone member states now recognise that sharing a currency and a common interest rate was not enough to avoid the effects produced by the economic shock of the great recession. So plans are now being developed to establish limited pooled resources that could help share out or equalise economic demand when some states suffer a severe dent in their output. We should welcome that. It has also been proposed that a revision of some of the terms of the fiscal pact could allow eurozone states greater flexibility to boost demand through fiscal policy in times of economic trouble. We should also welcome those proposals.

In common with weak lending to small and medium enterprises in this country, the Commission should also focus in much greater depth on how the European Investment Bank increases lending to businesses in the coming months, so that Europe’s growth rate can be expanded. In that sense, there are real parallels between the debate on the flaws of monetary union in the eurozone and the debate that will take place in my constituency and the 58 other constituencies in Scotland on the future of the economic, political and fiscal union that is the United Kingdom, which will have its resolution this September. There is a strong recognition that a properly functioning currency union requires both fiscal and political union too.

Secondly, on markets for trade and future growth, the work programme refers to the potential for a second Single European Act to complete the free movement of goods and services in areas such as energy and telecommunications. This is vital so that the EU can establish a proper digital single market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Having listened to what the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) has just said, I think he really needs to take into account the fact that we have a Queen’s Speech every year at about the time the work programme comes out. That Queen’s Speech is put forward on behalf of an elected Government; it contains Government proposals that come from a democratic process. We are discussing a work programme that comes from an unelected bureaucratic organisation that lays out its priorities and expects people to respond to them. There is a serious difference in character between the two. Many of the proposals in the work programme—some of which are not legislative proposals but initiatives—are brought into effect by regulation or directive.

The proposals in the Queen’s Speech, being democratically driven and debated in the House, are brought into effect by Bills of Parliament. Those Bills have Second Readings, they are amended and they have a Report stage. They go through both Houses of Parliament. However, a single paragraph in a regulation or directive could have the most profound effect on us in this country. The provision would almost certainly be driven through by a qualified majority vote. That could involve our being pushed into a consensus or being outvoted; it could also involve a co-decision with the European Parliament. We have less and less control over what goes on.

The Commission programme is, as a matter of principle, based on undemocratic systems. That is why the European Scrutiny Committee report, which has received quite a lot of attention recently, has put forward proposals relating to those provisions that could, in the national interest, be considered for disapplication or—in the case of the proposals that we do not want—subjected to a veto.

In regard to the Minister’s opening remarks, I should point out that the Government are resolutely against several provisions in the work programme, including those relating to the European public prosecutor’s office, and to the single resolution mechanism, in which we will not participate. That Government also oppose the provisions on free movement rights, to which they will not subscribe, and to those relating to the European anti-fraud office. All those matters will still be produced by the work programme, however, and we will be unable to prevent them from happening. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East is perfectly entitled to say that he would like to have the single resolution mechanism—in fact, I recall him saying that he thought we should have it. However, I can assure him that that is not the view in the City of London, and it is not the view of many people who have a great deal of knowledge of these matters.

A serious constitutional question lies in the difference between the Commission work programme and legislation that originates in this House, based on manifestos. The work programme is completely different in character and consequence for the voters we represent, in a way that is profoundly undemocratic. That is point No. 1. As Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I know that our job is to look at all these matters—and point No. 2 is that we do. We do that diligently throughout the year. Let us leave aside the disapplication and veto matters to which I have just referred. When I was in Brussels yesterday, I was told by very senior members of other national assemblies, “We would give our intense support to anything that would enable us in our own countries to have flexibility to prevent the imposition of legislation on banking union and so on.” Their list is endless, but they just cannot do it because of the way their constitutions are tied in. Our report recommends that the departmental Select Committees could be brought in to make assessments—

[Mr Lidington]

indicated assent.

[Mr Cash]

I am glad to see the Minister nodding, because we believe our constructive suggestion will help to make more sense of the proposals in this work programme. Not only would each Select Committee have a rapporteur who is a specialist in European matters, if that were agreed by the House, the Procedure Committee, the Liaison Committee and so on, but the generality of departmental Select Committees would consider whether they wanted to prioritise proposals that came out of the work programme and make their own political judgment on whether they thought it was in the interests of the United Kingdom to go along with those proposals. They might even absorb some of the ideas and say they were good. The bottom line is that there should be a proper democratic discussion about it all, as that would be very helpful.

The Minister has referred to a number of initiatives, but I wish to say one thing about the repeal of legislation. This relates to actions under the regulatory fitness and performance—REFIT—programme where we must be realistic. There is far too much of a burden on British business and, indeed, on businesses in the European Union as a whole. I hear that view from all my colleagues in the other national Parliaments when I visit them. I shall be going back to see them in Athens this weekend, having just come back from Brussels. They all say the same thing: they want small businesses to be much more effective; they want more opportunities for entrepreneurship; they want to have more free trade; and they want there to be the opportunity to make money, so that the taxation can be provided for public expenditure. If not, they find that they have terrible problems with their economises.

Finally, we must all be very pleased about today’s employment figures. It is a great tribute to the Government that we have seen this dramatic increase in employment. I just add, however, that a great deal of it comes from our expansion of non-EU trade. We see that in the premium selling points of Jaguar Land Rover and the companies where the money is really being made internationally. We have a deficit on current account transactions, trade and services, and imports and exports—the golden criteria. On that principle, we run a deficit with the other 27 member states of £49 billion a year. We had a surplus in the figures for the last accounts of £12 billion, but the figures for the two quarters for the beginning of the next projected flow are £5.6 billion and £6.1 billion. If that continues, as I think it will, by the end of this year we could find that, in one year, business, with the assistance of the Government—I give them credit for this, because they have been listening—will have doubled our non-EU surplus with the rest of the world. That is where the machinery for more employment and the drive for prosperity for this country will come from, which is why I am so pleased to have the opportunity to congratulate the Government on the figures. At the same time, I issue one small word of caution: we should not put all our eggs in the European basket.

European Council

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

First, I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s words of welcome. Let me respond to her first question by reminding her that since May 2010 my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made no fewer than 18 oral statements here following Councils that took place while Parliament was sitting—that is double the number of such oral statements given by his immediate predecessor. It has been the practice of successive Governments not to make an oral statement following Councils taking place during a recess, and my right hon. Friend therefore made a full written ministerial statement on Monday, which set out in detail the key outcomes from this Council.

On the hon. Lady’s important points about common security and defence policy, the key is to understand the distinction between ownership by the EU of defence capabilities, which we do not support and have resisted successfully, and co-operation by European countries in providing greater defence and security capabilities. What was good about the conclusions both of the December European Council and of the previous week’s Foreign Affairs Council on CSDP matters was that they made it very clear that the EU first had to work with, and not duplicate, the efforts of NATO and work alongside other partners in different parts of the world. Secondly, they made it clear that the EU would look for ways in which to encourage co-operation on capabilities, for example, on drones, which she mentioned. That is not some new EU-directed operation, but a facility that individual members of the EU can decide whether or not to take part in. There is no secret plan to direct some Euro drone out of the Berlaymont; it is very different. It is about co-operation between willing member states.

On the defence industry point, the conclusions made it clear that the European defence sector needed to become more competitive and efficient. The language that we successfully negotiated makes it clear that rather than there being any question of European national champions, the defence sector must comply with European law, which means that there must not be illegal state subsidies, except where subsidies are explicitly protected under the treaties. The language also makes it very clear that we, or indeed any other country, are not in any way constrained from continuing to work with the United States or other international partners on our defence industries. When the hon. Lady comes to look in more detail at the conclusions, I hope that she will agree that it was a good outcome for the United Kingdom and a successful negotiation.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

This morning, the European Scrutiny Committee cross-examined the Minister for Europe on these issues. I have written to the Prime Minister accordingly in relation to the fact that he is not here today, as he should be and as our Committee recommended in our recent European scrutiny report. The substantive matter is that, on the one hand, the Prime Minister did say in his press statement that defence must be driven by the nations and not by Brussels diktat, but, on the other, Mr Van Rompuy states that we must have credible European scrutiny and

“a strong, credible, common security and defence policy”.

He also suggests that there is a greater role for European defence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is impossible to compare and to reconcile those different approaches given that there is an ever-increasing competence towards European defence irrespective of what the Minister has just said?

[Mr Lidington]

On my hon. Friend’s first point, I am aware that he has written to the Prime Minister about the matter of oral statements. There is of course that recommendation in his Committee’s report. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will reply to the letter. For the record, I repeat the Government’s commitment to give their full detailed response to the European Scrutiny Committee’s report in due course, and I pledge to do that as soon as we are able.

On his point about CSDP matters, I do not agree with him. I, too, want to see a European arm of the Atlantic alliance that is more credible and effective than it is at the moment. That is certainly a message that I hear consistently from the other side of the Atlantic as well. But there is a difference between that and the European Union and its institutions owning and directing those policies. What we support and advocate is a system in which European countries take more seriously their obligations to deliver effective security and defence contributions to that trans-Atlantic alliance, and that is where the conclusions of the European Council represented a clear victory for our vision. It advocated an emphasis on capabilities and political commitment, not on new EU institutions and not on the EU ownership. Rather, it insisted on the EU complementing NATO and working with the grain of member state responsibility and competence over defence policy.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

William Cash Excerpts

Friday 29th November 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the former shadow Europe Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), and the current shadow Europe Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), for providing the Bill with what we judge to be an appropriate and necessary level of scrutiny both in Committee stage and on Report. I thank the other Committee members and the contributors to those debates. Indeed, the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), who spoke today—that was a particular pleasure—has at least been present when the Bill has been debated and discussed over recent weeks.

Let me briefly address the points raised in Committee and on Report. Alas, the Bill comes to Third Reading with all the fundamental issues and concerns that were raised still unresolved, with the exception of the issue of Gibraltar, where, I am glad to say, we were able to make some progress from the Labour side.

In truth this is a Bill not about the Conservatives trusting the public but about Conservative Back Benchers not trusting a Conservative Prime Minister.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Alexander]

I will make a little progress, and then I will be happy to take some interventions. Let us be clear about what has happened over the course of recent weeks. The Bill started with a breakfast at Downing street for Conservative Back Benchers. Last week the Prime Minister again offered Conservative Back Benchers breakfast at Downing street. It is not clear whether it was a continental breakfast, but it was certainly breakfast at Downing street. The Prime Minister seems to be seeking unity through a strategy of obesity. He is clearly worried that if he is not doing the cooking, then all too shortly he will be on the menu. Any judgment about an in/out referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union has to be based on what is in the UK’s national interest. We do not believe that the Bill’s proposal for an in/out referendum in 2017 is in the national interest, which is why we are not supporting it.

The Bill anticipates an arbitrary timetable for an in/out referendum in 2017 in the United Kingdom divorced from any serious assessment of the likely timetable for treaty change across Europe. When the Prime Minister first announced his new policy back in January, he argued that treaty change was inevitable, necessary and indeed desirable. He said in April:

“I am sure there will be treaty change.”

He went on to say:

“I’m absolutely convinced that there will be the need to reopen at some stage these treaties”.

Yet the prospect of treaty change seems less likely today than it was when the Prime Minister made those remarks about which the Foreign Secretary spoke only a moment ago. Indeed it is significant that the German Government now seem less inclined to push for immediate treaty change, instead favouring intergovernmental agreements under article 114 of the EU treaty. Indeed in May this year, the German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble, said explicitly:

“Banking union is a central project, we need institutional changes but we cannot wait for a treaty change.”

Only this week, the grand coalition document, which will form the basis of the German Adminstration’s governing agenda, was agreed, and it made not a single reference to the prospect of treaty change. The truth is that the date of 2017 had more to do with Tory party management than EU-wide treaty change.

[Mr Cash]

Given the fact that the former Prime Minister Tony Blair promised a referendum on the constitution, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us, in the context of this incredibly important Bill, whether or not the Labour party has ruled out having a referendum on the European Union?

European Union (Referendum) Bill

William Cash Excerpts

Friday 22nd November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes]

It might be, but we do not necessarily need to have a referendum. We could say that those who wish to vote to leave the European Union on 7 May 2015 should vote for the UK Independence party, that those who wish to stay in the European Union and work for its improvement should vote Labour and that those who are unclear what they are doing one way or the other should vote for the Conservatives. That would be much better and would mean that, in effect, the general election was the referendum.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. On the status quo, given the urgent question that I had to raise about the charter of fundamental rights, for example, as well as many other things, does he agree that we need fundamental change in the relationship and not necessarily nibbling at the treaties? In fact, we do not want nibbling at the treaties at all.

[Mike Gapes]

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, just as other Members, including his predecessor as Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, disagreed with his argument the other day. However, I do not think I would be in order if I went down that route, because that is not the subject before us.

Let me come to the detail of my amendments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) said in his intervention, amendment 21 proposes that the referendum be on the same day as the next general election. One argument for that is that it would save a great deal of money, because the polling stations would already be there, and the publicity and the campaign could be part of the general campaign. There is also a second argument. Moving the referendum to that date would clarify the debate and resolve the issue at the beginning of the next Government, rather than allowing their first 18 months in office to be dominated by this so-called renegotiation, which would divert attention from their priorities for health, education and housing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Wilson]

Again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. That proves the importance of our role in Europe now and in the future.

[Mr Cash]

Despite everything the hon. Gentleman is saying, does he agree that it is essential that we have a referendum before the end of 2014, because we are already in a process of constitutional and fundamental change? Renegotiating the treaties will do no more than nibble at things, so it is absolutely essential that we have a referendum in the interests of the British people.

[Phil Wilson]

I thought that the hon. Gentleman would make an intervention during my speech, so I looked at the number of jobs in Stone that are reliant on Europe. The number is nearly 6,000, so he should think carefully about supporting the Bill.

The hon. Member for Stockton South should also have consulted Steve Elliott, the chief executive of the Chemical Industries Association. That industry is very important in Teesside, and Mr Elliott said:

“With 50% of our exports destined for continental Europe, the UK’s largest manufacturing exporter—the chemical industry—has every reason for the country to remain as part of the European Union. It is earlier and smarter engagement at all levels—member state, the Commission and the Parliament—that will address our sector’s chief concerns around energy and regulation and strengthen Britain’s chances when competing globally for sustained economic growth and jobs.”

I shall finish by saying this—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] Conservative Members obviously do not want to hear the facts of how the Bill would impact on the north-east of England and the UK economy. I honestly do not know how the hon. Gentleman will be able to explain to his constituents the need to extend the age of uncertainty that he intends to thrust on them through the Bill, but I believe that they will pay him back at the ballot box in 2015 by returning a Labour MP for Stockton South.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was in no way seeking to be critical of him. His amendment was a big improvement on what was available in the Bill. There is a very real concern across the country and in the business community, which has been articulated by senior business leaders, that the referendum and the date on which it is held could jeopardise a huge benefit to the country, because the single market is worth between £62 billion and £78 billion to this nation. That is £3,000 per household, so if we are to have a referendum, getting the date right is crucial. We do not want to put in further jeopardy that huge benefit to the British economy and all those millions of British workers who rely on the European Union for their livelihood.

[Mr Cash]

When the hon. Gentleman refers to extremists, is he aware that France, Ireland, Holland and Denmark have all had referendums? There is nothing extreme about that. Furthermore, to hold a referendum before the end of 2014 has enormous attractions and I will vote for it. I raised the issue in my debate against Nigel Farage in the party conference this year, and I also made a speech and put out a press release the previous year, calling for the same position.

[Chris Williamson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I was not referring to extremists in France and Denmark. I was referring to extremists on the Conservative Benches who have taken the Prime Minister hostage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Thomas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and it is one of the reasons why I have always supported the campaign to get him on to his party’s Front Bench. I hope that the Minister for Europe has listened to the call for clarity from his Back Benches, and even at this point will intervene on me to tell the House what powers and competences he wants to get back.

[Mr Cash]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Thomas]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to make a bit more progress on something in which I think he will be very interested.

The hon. Member for Windsor tabled his amendment before the European Scrutiny Committee had completed its task of reviewing the significance of the justice and home affairs opt-out decision, and all those responsibilities that the Government want to opt back in to. At paragraph 552 on page 148 of its report, it said that the Home Secretary had made it clear that the block opt-out was

“first and foremost about bringing powers back home.”

That is a view apparently shared by the Justice Secretary, who is also quoted in the report as saying that he regarded it as

“part of a process of bringing powers back to this country.”

But, sadly, the European Scrutiny Committee reached a very different conclusion. After examining a series of witnesses, it said:

“We see little evidence of a genuine and significant repatriation of powers.”

Given that the balance of competences review has dragged on and on, and will no doubt drag on some more, if the Minister for Europe cannot tell the House soon what powers and competences the Prime Minister wants to repatriate, the scepticism in his own party’s ranks, never mind throughout the country, will just grow and grow.

[Mr Cash]

What we really want is to bring the government of the United Kingdom back to the United Kingdom, which will require fundamental constitutional change, so nibbling at the treaties will make no difference to that.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

William Cash Excerpts

Friday 8th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Adam Afriyie]

As I said, we are completely united as a party in wanting to give the British people a say. There are differences between us on timing, and I will come to that point in a moment.

It strikes me that, at a time when the majority of our constituents want a referendum before the next election, I have never known a period in British politics when the political establishment has been so disconnected from public opinion, and so remote from, opposed to and out of touch with it. Politicians have wilfully kicked the can further and further down the road, and we will be in danger of doing that again if neither my amendment 3 nor amendment 22 is supported.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Jenkin]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

The right hon. Gentleman has massive pro-European credentials, as he puts it, so will he explain why he voted against the Maastricht treaty Bill on Third Reading?

[Mr Hain]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention because I am about to name-check him—and to answer his question.

The City must be properly consulted, as new schedule 2 and amendment 68 would provide, and its concerns, like those of CBI members, need to be understood by the electorate well in advance of a short and compressed campaign so that voters are not bamboozled by newspapers and stampeded into a referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hain]

I want to make some progress so that others have a chance to speak.

A consultation with the Institute of Directors, the CBI or the independent economic think-tanks would also endorse the notion that joining the EEA would cost Britain about £6 billion. Yes, that is about £1 billion —or 17% less than our membership of the EU—but it is still a large amount in comparison and assumes that our EU partners would, after our departure, be in an open frame of mind to accept us back into some kind of trading relationship. I am sure that the CBI and all the other business organisations, including the British Chambers of Commerce, would want to have a say on that.

As members of the European economic area, we would still be bound by the regulations that the anti-EU camp denounce. In return for access to the single market, Norway and all the other relevant countries, such as Switzerland and Iceland, must adopt nearly all European Union legislation relevant to the free movement of goods, services, capital and people, together with laws in areas such as employment, consumer protection, environmental policy and competition.

There would, of course, be the chance properly to assess such a move. A report would be placed before Parliament and we would spend days debating on the Floor of the House whether to accept the report and the assessment. We would also be able to assess one point made by the CBI, which would also have a greater chance to have its say than it would during the compressed period of a short referendum campaign. That point is that we would also be bound by future European law in those areas, even though we were outside the European Union.

[Mr Cash]

Will the right hon. Gentleman address the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) about the date of 23 October 2014, which has not yet been debated? Does he agree that a referendum on that date would get totally entangled with the Scottish referendum, which will take place only a month before? Furthermore, it is dangerous to choose a specific date, as was the case in 2007 when we had to delay the local elections because of the foot and mouth outbreak. There are a whole stack of reasons for not having a specific date for a referendum.

[Mr Hain]

As in 1992 and 1993, when the hon. Gentleman and I were on the same side of the argument on the Maastricht treaty, I completely agree with him. His logic on this point is absolutely faultless, even if it often is not on many other European matters.

I believe—perhaps I am wrong—that all the business organisations, if consulted, would take the view of the CBI report and dismiss a customs union as an alternative to European Union membership—the “Turkey option”—as the very worst of all the halfway alternatives, leaving the UK with very limited EU market access and zero influence over trade deals.

Persecution of Christians (Middle East)

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Westminster Hall

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

I thank—and we should all thank—my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for bringing such an important issue to the House in such a timely manner. In her three and a half years in the House, she has consistently worked hard to champion oppressed Christians. Many members of the all-party group on religious freedom or belief are present, and I pay tribute to all those who speak up against such oppression. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) said that not everyone present in the Chamber is a Christian, and I looked around for humanists or others, but I think probably most of those here are Christian in one way or another; certainly they support religious freedom.

The Government believe that people of all religious faiths or none should be deeply concerned about this issue, which touches on the fundamental human right of the freedom to choose what to believe, how to practise one’s faith and whether to change one’s belief. Such a right should be a precious part of any society. That is why the Government utterly condemn all instances of violence and discrimination against individuals or groups because of their faith or belief. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton asked me to ask the Department for International Development to recognise freedom of religion as a priority, and I shall pass her request on to the Secretary of State, about whom she rightly made some extremely nice points.

I should mention the work done by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as a member of the high-level panel advising on the post-2015 millennium development goals. An excellent report has been produced, recognising rights and freedoms as a crucial part of the development debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton will also recognise the work done by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, on the initiative on the prevention of sexual violence, which more than 134 countries have now signed up to and which addresses some of the issues my hon. Friend discussed in relation to rape.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Those of us who went to the Holy See the other day met the cardinals in charge of the matter. Would the Minister be good enough to speak to the ambassador to the Holy See? We had interesting discussions about that very question.

[Mr Swire]

I shall certainly take my hon. Friend’s point on board.

The Government base their position on article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, which states:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his or her religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his or her religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

Promoting human rights, including religious freedom, is an important part of British foreign policy. Ministers and officials at our embassies and high commissions regularly raise concerns with host Governments about violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief. I shall ensure that our ambassador to the Vatican does that. For example, when they met at the UN General Assembly on 23 September, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary urged his Egyptian counterpart to ensure that Egypt’s new constitution would include a protection for the rights of minorities. We also regularly meet leaders of religious communities and civil society organisations from around the world, with a view to understanding their concerns better. We actively work with them to promote a universal commitment to religious freedom and to promote tolerance and understanding for, between and within all faiths, in line with article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights.

I hope that the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who urged Ministers to engage, will support the Prime Minister’s trip to Sri Lanka for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in the next few weeks. He will be the first western leader to go to the north of the country to engage with the minority Tamil community. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that that is the right way to proceed, despite the alternative view taken by the Front Bench in his party, that the UK should not attend.

We continue to work with the international community to combat religious intolerance and protect human rights. In September, at the UN General Assembly, my noble Friend Baroness Warsi convened a group of Foreign Ministers and officials from international organisations for the second in a series of meetings to discuss international efforts to fight violence in the name of religion and to promote freedom of religion and belief for all. We intend that to be a continuing initiative to build up greater political will to tackle the issue in the countries where it matters most.

Some right hon. and hon. Members who spoke were tempted to go slightly further afield than the middle east in their remarks, but I shall confine my remarks to the middle east. Some interesting points were made about the middle east as the birthplace of Christianity, Islam and Judaism, which makes the religious persecution there all the more poignant. My hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) and for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) mentioned Israel and Palestine. It is true that less than 2% of the population of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories is Christian today, compared with 22% at the end of the British mandate in 1948. I heard what my hon. Friends said, but we continue to be concerned about access to holy sites for all, including Christians and Muslims. On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy raised about the Syrians who came to his constituency surgery, if he would like to write to me, I shall respond and lay out our policy on asylum seekers.

The period since 2011 has indeed been a difficult one for various religious communities across the region. Many are suffering and, tragically, there is a risk in some countries of the disappearance of religious communities that have existed there peacefully for centuries. As right hon. and hon. Members—in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate—have said, the great majority of communities that are suffering are Christian. It is right to continue to highlight that, but also to be concerned with all persecuted minorities. We want freedom of religion or belief for all: a universal human right.

The effects of the crisis in Syria are particularly on our minds. Life in Syria for Christians and other minorities continues to be extremely difficult. We have serious concerns about rising sectarian tension and believe that President Assad is deliberately attempting to stir up such tensions in his efforts to hold on to power. Non-Alawite minorities, including Christian communities, are in a vulnerable position, not only because of the relatively small size of their communities and their geographic dispersal, but because they are neither Sunni, like the majority of the opposition, nor Alawite, like the core of the regime. The largest Christian communities in the country were in Aleppo and Homs, where some of the most intense clashes between the regime and the opposition have happened. We are working hard, with the moderate Syrian National Coalition, to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict and to support the building of a Syria that respects the rights of all its citizens, whatever their race, religion or lack of religion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton is right to point out that we have provided more than £500 million of humanitarian aid—the largest ever UK response to a single crisis. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development announced that her Department would support UNICEF’s Syrian children appeal by matching public donations pound for pound. We also support a number of projects designed to increase dialogue and reduce tensions between different communities to promote minority rights, including almost £520,000 to train Sunni, Alawite, Christian, Druze, Armenian and Kurdish community and religious leaders. We have also provided support to create a network of peace-building committees in Syria by training and providing guidance and mentorship to nearly 500 activists.

On 16 October, the Foreign Office Minister with responsibility for human rights policy, Baroness Warsi, met Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch Gregorius III, and they discussed the Geneva II process to establish peace negotiations, the plight of Christians in Syria and the humanitarian crisis affecting Syria and the region. The Minister underlined our commitment to speaking up on behalf of all those who are targeted for their religion or belief. We have made it clear that those responsible for human rights violations and abuses should be held to account. We believe that the International Criminal Court will have a role to play, and I confirm that we have condemned the kidnapping of the bishops and called for their release, as my hon. Friend asked.

In Egypt, the Coptic Church continues to experience many challenges. For example, we have just marked the second anniversary of the Maspero massacre, in which 28 Christians taking part in a demonstration were killed. Following the military intervention to remove Mohammad Morsi on 3 July this year, there has also been a rise in the number of violent sectarian attacks. Churches, homes, businesses and individuals have been attacked. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has publicly condemned the attacks and urged that there should be inclusive political dialogue. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), condemned the killing of four guests at a Coptic Christian wedding as recently as 20 October.

We are also concerned about the situation for religious minorities in other countries of the region. In Iran, the Baha’i are subject to mounting pressure. We are concerned by state efforts—

International Criminal Court (Kenya)

William Cash Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

This is an interesting and important debate. I am chairman of the all-party parliamentary groups on Kenya and on Uganda and, as chairman or secretary of various other all-party groups, I have been much involved in all matters relating to east Africa since the 1980s. I have a strong sense that that part of the world is extremely important both in its own right and in relation not only to the United Kingdom but to the world as a whole. Economically, it is one of the fastest-growing areas in the world and, as with all countries—and I exclude none—there is a process of evolution and a necessity to ensure that justice and fairness prevail.

At the heart of all this lies the question whether domestic matters should be adjudicated by a methodology applicable through international law when the better route could well be to have them dealt with in the country in question. That important issue is illustrated by the fact that in many, many countries in the world—I do not need to set them all out, but Vietnam is a case in point—terrible things happen. There are civil wars. We had a civil war, as did the United States, and there are times when innocent people get caught up. We have a vast range of civil wars going on all over the middle east; it is a very disturbing picture. Not unnaturally, people will attribute blame to individuals who have been involved in the process, but it is an unwise person who makes assumptions about who was responsible for any particular causal event or incident.

[Jim Shannon]

One concern is that if the ICC case collapses, and there is every possibility that it might, the credibility, security and safety of the witnesses who have been called come into question. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about those independent witnesses who may feel under threat if the case collapses?

[Mr Cash]

I certainly do. There must be a significant review of the methodology that is applied in relation to the ICC process, which can be encapsulated in an expression from Maine’s “Ancient Law” that says that justice is to be found in the interstices of procedure. It sounds grandiloquent, but it is extremely important given the incredible number of events that are taking place. We have to look at not just what is happening in countries such as Syria, where people from both sides commit atrocities all the time, but the motivation for such atrocities and the extent to which they are politically driven. Some would argue that the use of atomic weapons or chemical weapons is a matter where distinctions need to be drawn. It could also be said that all weapons of mass destruction should automatically be regarded as of one kind, which they are not.

In relation to the terrible events that took place in Kenya some years ago, the methodology that was applied in the prosecution and indictment is a matter that requires very careful consideration. There are good grounds, I believe, for taking a step back and looking at the matter again, taking into consideration the evidence and who is responsible for the conduct of the prosecution and the manner in which it is being deployed. It is also extremely important to bear in mind that the most incredible sensitivities will arise, and have arisen, which may lead to the African Union and other individual countries, many of which I am familiar with, withdrawing from the ICC.

There are several issues to be considered. One relates to justice, fairness and the question of procedures and methodology. Another relates to the impact of what is being done in relation to the African Union and individual countries there, and the extent to which they are taking a position, which, to say the least, is radical. Then there is the question whether the matter should really be dealt with in domestic courts. Is there the political impetus to prosecute a Head of State or one or two people when the evidence could as well be addressed in a domestic arena?

I was shadow Attorney-General for several years, and have always had certain reservations, to say the least, about the assumptions that lie behind some human rights trials. I will not enlarge on that, but what I will say is that with the massive number of conflicts and potential conflicts in the middle east—in countries such as Egypt, Libya, Syria and Tunisia—Somalia and elsewhere in Africa, a complete analysis of the whole matter is required. In addition, some of the most significant countries, not only numerically but in terms of power and influence, are not members of the ICC. How can we have a system of justice that is based on differentiation between those countries that are not involved in the process because they have not signed up, and others that are? There are so many interwoven complexities that it makes me seriously wonder about the whole question of justiciability and the methodology that lies at the heart not only of the procedures but of the underlying consequences of the ICC system.

I do not want to say any more, because I want everyone to stand back and ask themselves some central questions. The Minister, for whom I have the highest regard, has a very difficult task here. I have raised the matter with the Foreign Office, both after and in the run-up to elections, because I was concerned about the politicisation of what could be regarded as a matter of domestic legal process. Justice and fairness are key, and how we arrive at that, and whether the ICC can do so in this case and in many others, is a very big question. I will rest my argument there, but I shall continue to pursue such questions, because I believe that fundamental issues arise for not only us, but many other countries.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce) for calling this debate, which has been very interesting. The speeches and interventions have added to our consideration and understanding of an intensely difficult issue. Although I will be seeking to find out the Minister’s position in due course, I do not envy his having to respond on so difficult an area, but such difficult questions are those faced in government. This reflective debate will assist us in analysing the difficult questions that international politics currently involves.

From what my hon. Friend said, he clearly understands about the security and the importance of Kenya. He has great respect for the Kenyan people, who are looking at the issue extremely closely. I know from communications I have received that the matter is of profound import. We have also heard from the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who has a particular role in the all-party group on Kenya.

Kenya always provokes interest because of our long-standing link with it and its people, and because of its significance in what, at the moment, is an important part of north Africa. Some of the biggest political issues on the planet are being played out in complex geographical areas across north Africa, with cultures, faiths and economies colliding and causing enormous issues. We must grapple with those issues if we are to make progress. Kenya, whose relationship with the UK is massively significant, is hugely important in that regard, for instance in addressing the difficulties in Somalia and the horn of Africa. That cause has been carried out at great cost to the people of Kenya over several years, most recently, of course, in Nairobi. The country is strategically important, and we all want it to be a strong international player.

Before I turn to Kenya’s membership of the ICC, I want to refer, as other Members have, to the dreadful recent attack in the Westgate shopping centre. Right across the world, the focus has been on Kenya because of what happened there. The confirmed death toll was 61 civilians and six security officers, and Britons were among those killed. Our thoughts are with all those affected by these tragic events. We must of course support the Kenyan Government in showing leadership in dealing with a problem that, as I have said, transcends the borders and boundaries of countries across the world, but is a specific issue across north Africa.

[Mr Cash]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a massive dilemma in what he says? On the one hand, we want to support the Government of Kenya, but on the other hand, are we to encourage the prosecution of the Kenyan Head of State in the International Criminal Court? That is the simple dilemma, but it is not only a dilemma: the question is whether justice and fairness are at the root of the matter. In my opinion, that is as yet uncertain and, in fact, I am deeply worried about it.

[Ian Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent intervention, and puts the difficult question very well. It is, however, important to remember that Kenya has chosen to be a member of the International Criminal Court. If it withdraws, it will leave an international institution that it chose to join. As we have already heard, several countries have refused to join the International Criminal Court. If we are a member of an institution, we have to accept that it has rules that it must apply to its members without fear or favour. The reason why we need to support the Kenyan Government is that they face the very difficult situation caused by the Westgate shopping centre attack, but equally, the fact is that Kenya chose to be a member of the International Criminal Court and, as a consequence of decisions made in Kenya, the court has been seized of the case and is proceeding with it.

To return to the Westgate shopping mall, rigorous inquiries are taking place, and must continue to do so, into the circumstances leading to the attacks. We need to support the Kenyan Government in their taking steps to bring those involved to justice and to ensure that such an incident does not recur. We must also, however, conduct rigorous inquiries into the perpetrators of the violence that followed the 2007 election, because we cannot take action in one area, but not in another, and I therefore turn to the Kenyan Government’s possible attempts to withdraw from the ICC.

We must reflect on the violence in 2007, when, as we have heard, more than 1,000 people were killed and 600,000 people were displaced. The investigations into the violence culminated in the ICC bringing charges, including against the Kenyan President, of crimes against humanity and of orchestrating ethnic violence. For that reason, charges have been brought against President Uhuru Kenyatta and Deputy President William Ruto.

[Ian Lucas]

That would be massively controversial, but we are a member of an international institution. We are discussing international problems, and the world has to deal with more and more internationally connected issues every day: events in Africa profoundly affect our constituencies in the UK. Far from this being a time for us to withdraw from international action, we should be more involved. If we submit ourselves as a nation to the authority of the International Criminal Court, we must accept that that court has jurisdiction. Such an issue would be difficult and many in the United Kingdom would not want to accept the court’s jurisdiction, but if we have submitted to the court through legislation, as has been mentioned, we must accept the consequences. We cannot duck out when it gets difficult; we must accept that such difficult issues need to be addressed, as they should be by the nations involved.

It is a difficult problem of that sort—nobody pretends that it is not difficult—that we now have to address. The Parliament of Kenya is dealing with the difficulty that, in the hypothetical case mentioned by my hon. Friend, might apply in the United Kingdom. The two politicians are not the only individuals facing charges. I understand that the ICC has also issued an arrest warrant for a journalist called Walter Barasa for offering bribes to prosecution witnesses in the trial of Deputy President William Ruto. However, I believe that this trial is the first time that sitting leaders have been tried before the court.

In September 2013—last month—Kenyan MPs, having tabled a motion, voted to pull out of the ICC, and a Bill is likely to be introduced. The withdrawal will still have to pass through Parliament and could take more than a year to come into effect. The ICC will in the meantime continue with the trials of the President and the Deputy President, but if Kenya does pull out, no charges will be able to be brought in this way in the future.

I listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Falkirk and I am aware, of course, of the perception that exists in Africa, linked to the United Kingdom’s role on the continent—its “imperialist past”. Although I respect the hon. Gentleman’s views, I cannot agree with him in this case. I have to say to him that this is about the creation of international institutions and dealing with the very difficult issues to which the hon. Member for Stone referred. We talk about what is happening in Syria, Egypt, Somalia, and Mali. All these matters have in some way involved international capacity and interventions, whether they be military or non-military interventions, in different places at different times. The process of dealing with the problems has been one of using international institutions, because these are international problems.

[Mr Cash]

I am getting slightly worried; in fact, I am getting very worried about the line of route of the hon. Gentleman’s argument. I referred to civil wars and the total chaos that there is in the middle east and in parts of north Africa. Is he seriously suggesting that, ultimately, all these matters, because they have an international dimension, should, given the competing claims and counter-claims made by people who are engaged in political processes, be dealt with in an international court? We would spend all our time, and without any beneficial result, arguing about the legal questions, which are essentially political, tragic as they may be. I do ask the question.

[Ian Lucas]

I was not specifically, in the context in which I was speaking, talking about the International Criminal Court. I was talking about international problems being dealt with through international institutions. The United Nations and the Security Council of the United Nations are the most obvious example. I was making the general point that international institutions and countries, working together, need to deal with international problems, which manifest themselves within individual countries.

We know that in north Africa, for example, many of the things that have caused major problems in the region have involved groups of people crossing borders at different times. Those borders are often ill defined and not policed in any way. Mali would be one example, and Somalia and Kenya are another. I am talking about a collective approach, through organisations such as the United Nations, and a progression of that. I am saying that, in particular cases, the use of the International Criminal Court is appropriate. For that reason, when countries choose to join the ICC process, it is appropriate that we, as a country that has also submitted itself to that process, support the process.

I think that we need to respect the role of the ICC and international principles of justice and democracy and apply those principles in the future, so I would be extremely concerned about the implications of Kenya withdrawing from the ICC if Kenya were to withdraw, because that would be a step away from dealing with very difficult, shared problems in a collective way. It would be a step backwards, because it would be a step towards more isolation. Ultimately, that would bring about a lower level of capacity to solve the problems that we want to address.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to be under your chairmanship and guidance this morning, Mr Caton. I congratulate the hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce) on securing this important debate, and on his continued interest in and knowledge of Africa, and Kenya in particular. I thank him for referring to the importance of having a detailed knowledge and understanding of the significant bilateral relationship, historically and today, between the United Kingdom and Kenya. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who has significant knowledge and experience of east Africa and Kenya, and who shows a continuing energetic commitment to improving the lives of those who live in Africa. My hon. Friend and the hon. Members for Falkirk, and for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), powerfully articulated the complexities and sensitivities of the issue.

I will endeavour to address all the points that have been raised. First, I will take stock, as the hon. Member for Wrexham did, of our wider bilateral relationship, particularly in the aftermath of the horrific terrorist attack on the Westgate shopping centre in Nairobi on 21 September. I am sure that the whole House will join me in re-emphasising our deep sympathy and profound condolences to the Kenyan Government and people, and to the other countries affected by that abhorrent act. As the Prime Minister has said, it was a sickening and despicable act of appalling brutality.

Hon. Members may have spotted that yesterday my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary laid before Parliament a written statement setting out the UK Government’s response to the crisis. On the day of the attack, the Prime Minister spoke to President Kenyatta, and I spoke to the Kenyan Foreign Minister, Amina Mohamed, to express the UK’s solidarity and to offer assistance. The UK has provided assistance at the scene in identifying victims and collecting forensic evidence. We have also provided medical supplies and rations to the Aga Khan university hospital, where many of the wounded were taken.

We are determined to work with Kenya on the shared challenge of addressing regional terrorism and building stability in Somalia. The close co-operation and understanding that underpin the UK response to the Westgate attack is a reminder that the UK and Kenya share many priorities and interests. The relationship between the countries today is one of partnership, shared mutual interests and shared concerns, through being members of the Commonwealth, through strong commercial security and through personal ties. The UK is the largest commercial investor in Kenya and the second-largest trading partner, with bilateral trade worth more than £1 billion a year. Thirty thousand British nationals reside in Kenya, and 180,000 British nationals visit Kenya every year. Kenya is also one of the largest bilateral recipients of DFID aid, with the UK contributing £135 million annually in support of Kenya Vision 2030. Our projects tackle conflict, increase stability and improve education and health care.

I have read what the hon. Member for Falkirk said in a similar debate that he secured in March. In that debate, he highlighted the fact that we have a strong defence and security relationship. The British Army trains 10,000 British soldiers in Kenya every year, which benefits not only the UK but the Kenyan defence forces and the wider economy. We want that co-operation to continue and develop for the mutual benefit of the UK and Kenya.

Before I move on to specifics about the International Criminal Court, I will address a couple of points that arose in interventions on the hon. Member for Falkirk. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) rightly raised the importance of trying to reduce, if not eradicate, corruption in Kenya. Department for International Development programmes are involved in supporting greater transparency and accountability at national and county level. The hon. Member for Falkirk mentioned the Mau Mau settlement. It is important to understand that that did not constitute reparation; it was a settlement of claims that recognised the pain and suffering experienced by people on all sides during those events many years ago.

At the heart of our relationship with Kenya is counter-terrorism engagement, through which we assist Kenya in defending itself and countering cross-border security threats, many of which stem from Kenya’s leading role in the African Union Mission in Somalia. Kenya made significant sacrifices during that mission in its attempts to secure peace and stability in Somalia, and we recognise and welcome the significant contributions that Kenya and others have made.

I turn to the issue at the heart of the debate, namely the International Criminal Court. I think it would be helpful if I briefly set out what the ICC is about and why it is so important before I address some of the complexities and sensitivities involved in the issue that we are talking about. The UK and Kenya are among the 122 countries that are signatories to the ICC’s founding Rome statute. Of those countries, 34 are African states; that is the biggest bloc anywhere in the world. As the hon. Member for Wrexham pointed out, we strongly support the ICC’s work around the world as an impartial, independent guardian of the rule of law. It is a court of last resort for the most serious crimes, including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. It takes up cases only when national authorities are unable or unwilling to do so. It provides no immunity for those in positions of power, even Heads of State—a point that has been made powerfully. That universality is one of its strengths. It plays a vital role in ending impunity, holding perpetrators to account and delivering justice for victims.

In July, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary launched the Government’s ICC strategy, which sets out our thinking on how we can ensure that the ICC retains its independence—that is vital—delivers justice, increases its membership, builds more support for its decisions from states and the UN Security Council, gains wider regional support and completes its work more efficiently.

As I have said, the ICC will take on cases only where national authorities lack the capabilities or the will to undertake prosecutions, as was the case in Kenya. The UK is committed to helping to provide training and mentoring to national authorities to help them develop their own laws and systems.

The hon. Member for Falkirk powerfully highlighted the common perception that the ICC is anti-Africa, and I want to address that point. In Africa, the court is working tirelessly to deliver justice for millions of Africans who endured appalling treatment at the hands of fellow Africans. African states have been some of the most important supporters of the creation and effective functioning of the ICC. African states played an active role in the negotiations that led to the establishment of the court, and 22 African countries were among the founding ratifiers of the Rome statute. Interestingly, the first and most recent states to ratify the Rome statute, Senegal and Côte d’Ivoire, were African. The majority of African Union member states—34 African states—are now ICC state parties. It is important to recognise that Africans are among the highest level of ICC officials, and they serve as judges and prosecutors at the court.

The ICC investigates situations, not people, and only after situations have been investigated do prosecutions occur. Suggestions that the ICC focuses solely on Africa do not tell the full story. Preliminary investigations are already under way in cases outside Africa, including in Afghanistan, Colombia, Georgia and Honduras. The majority of cases brought against Africans have been lodged with the ICC by Africans.

I turn to specifics that all hon. Members raised about the ICC and Kenya. Of course I accept that the topic is controversial and sensitive, and creates difficulties for the Kenyan Government, but after the appalling post-election violence in 2007-08, many believe that justice is essential for national reconciliation and healing, and that the trials must continue to give the victims and the accused access to justice. We should remind ourselves of the numbers involved. I underline the figures that hon. Members have mentioned: more than 1,000 people were killed; 3,000 people suffered serious sexual violence; and more than 600,000 people were displaced. We strongly welcome the Kenyan Government’s co-operation with the court and urge them to continue to co-operate, as they have pledged to do.

The UK Government recognise that President Kenyatta and Deputy President Ruto have constitutional obligations and important responsibilities at home, as the Westgate attack illustrated so graphically. We therefore believe that the court’s decision to alternate the trials of the President and Deputy President, to ensure conformity with the Kenyan constitution, and to agree a short delay to allow Deputy President Ruto to take part in the Kenyan Government’s response to Westgate, showed welcome pragmatism.

The hon. Member for Wrexham raised the issue of witness intimidation. We remain deeply concerned by reports of witness intimidation, and call on all state parties to assist the court in preventing it. That would mean Kenya responding to the arrest warrant the court issued last week.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of the Kenyan Parliament’s vote in support of a motion to withdraw from the Rome statute. We must be clear: it is for Kenya, as a sovereign country, to decide whether to withdraw. We, of course, very much hope that it does not. Withdrawing from the Rome statute would not remove Kenya’s obligation to co-operate with the court on the current investigation, as the hon. Members for Falkirk, and for Wrexham, pointed out. The UK Government support the process, but we are clear that it must be recognised that defendants remain innocent until proven guilty. It is for a competent court—in this case the ICC—not the UK or any Government or individual, to pass judgment. The strength of the court lies in its independence, and its processes are, rightly, independent of the UK. I do not share the analysis of the hon. Member for Falkirk that the court process is political, not judicial; it is very clearly a judicial process. We are determined to ensure that the UK’s support for international justice and the ICC does not jeopardise our wider bilateral relations with Kenya.

[Mr Cash]

Is the Minister entirely satisfied that the methodology and process adopted in respect of President Kenyatta and Mr Ruto have been followed in what one would objectively regard as the appropriate manner?

[Mark Simmonds]

As I said earlier, the ICC only takes up matters when the country in question does not put in place the requisite judicial process to allow relevant prosecutions or investigations to take place. Specifically, the Waki commission, to which the hon. Member for Falkirk referred, gave the Kenyan authorities time to put in place the necessary and appropriate structures to deal with the judicial process, as it relates to the terrible atrocities that occurred in 2007-08. It is only because the Kenyan authorities did not do that at the time that the matter was referred to the ICC.

There are seven cases before the ICC, including the Kenyan issue. Of the other six, four were referred to the court by Africans themselves, and two were referred by the UN Security Council. The hon. Member for Falkirk raised the issue of the speculation that the African Union summit could result in some states withdrawing from the Rome statute. He will not be surprised to hear that I will not engage in speculation, but I shall make two points. Although there is a perception that the ICC is focused only on Africa, there is a broad range of views, as there would be in the UK, across the African Union. Only a couple of days ago, 130 groups from across Africa called for not only sustained but greater co-operation with the ICC. He will not be surprised to hear that we urge African states to continue their support for the court, and encourage those African states not party to the Rome statue to consider ratification or accession and other ways that they can support the court’s work. African support and expertise continues to be vital to enable the court to fulfil its mandate of delivering justice for victims and tackling impunity.

I am the first to acknowledge that the court is a young institution. The UK is among those, not only in Africa, but elsewhere, who would like to see improvements. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone made a powerful point about other countries around the world that are not signatories to the Rome statute, and the terrible atrocities in Syria, which we have seen on our television screens. I am sure that he is aware of the UK Government’s position: those who perpetrated those horrific crimes should face justice.

Before I conclude, I shall reflect for a moment on the Kenyan elections in March. The Kenyan people and politicians need to be congratulated on the peaceful nature of the elections, which was in stark contrast to the violence which marred the election in 2007-08. That demonstrated the determination of the Kenyan people to express their democratic right to elect a Government of their choosing in an environment free from violence and intimidation. Kenyans should be proud of that significant achievement. The UK played a role in supporting the democratic process, including by providing £16 million to support free and peaceful elections. The UK position has been consistent and clear: it is for the Kenyan people to elect their leaders and for the courts to resolve any disputes that stem from the election process.

[Mr Cash]

Is the Minister willing to continue this dialogue after the debate, in light of my remarks regarding my uncertainties about the manner in which the ICC goes about a lot of its business?

[Mark Simmonds]

As always, I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend about his views. I will of course be pleased to hear how he thinks the ICC could work better.

The UK-Kenyan relationship is significant, and we want it to continue to develop. We want trade to grow. We want more UK companies to invest in Kenya and more Kenyan entrepreneurs and businesses to invest in the UK. We want to strengthen our partnership in a range of areas, from counter-terrorism co-operation to defence matters, as well as help, through Department for International Development programmes, to alleviate poverty, build capacity and assist those in Kenya who are less fortunate than all of us here today. However, the UK also supports the ICC. We acknowledge, respect and welcome President Kenyatta’s pledge to respect Kenya’s international commitments and to continue co-operation with the ICC.

National Parliaments and the EU

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Westminster Hall

[Ms Stuart]

Indeed. Ten years ago, the British Parliament was seen as having some of the toughest and most extensive scrutiny functions. We were also the first Parliament to open an office in the European Parliament so that we had representation there. Ten years ago we were a model that other people looked towards, and now we have fallen behind. We are doing less than others.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am sure the hon. Lady would not want to move on to another subject without noting that the European Scrutiny Committee has now set up an inquiry into European scrutiny, to which she has given some very good evidence. Furthermore, last night the European Scrutiny Committee and two other Committees worked together to ensure that we changed the Government’s approach to the whole business of opt-outs and opt-ins and that the Government accepted the amendment that had essentially been drafted by the European Scrutiny Committee.

[Ms Stuart]

I fear to tread on the subject of the European Scrutiny Committee in the hon. Gentleman’s presence, because I know I would get it wrong. I would also rather rely on his intervening to tell the Chamber about the Committee’s work. It is significant that last night it was agreed that the negotiating positions had to be brought back to Parliament, but we all know that we are still only talking to each other in Committee Rooms rather than on the Floor of the House.

What would really improve national Parliaments? I am caught between a rock and a hard place, because I do not want national Parliaments to become separate institutions within the architectural framework of the EU. The EU has the Commission and the Council, but national Parliaments provide the majorities to form the Governments that send Ministers to the Council. There is, however, a little-known organisation that is known only to those who have been to some of its meetings—COSAC, which is the conference of European scrutiny committees.

Ten years ago, I was trying to broker a deal in that working group between national Parliaments so that COSAC would be strengthened in the red and yellow card system, but for that the MEPs would have had to leave COSAC. It is difficult for COSAC to arrive at a decision, because there are, say, four representatives from each country, two from the Government and two from the Opposition. If there is a coalition Government, in our case the representatives could be a Tory, a Lib Dem and two Labour Members, so there are probably three views among the four representatives. Consensus then has to be reached across 27 or 28 countries within extremely tight time limits. What then happens is that MEPs are the only people who are sufficiently united in their view and who caucus—they are usually united in the view that the European Parliament is good and national Parliaments are bad. The card system will not work unless the national Parliaments that exercise the veto have a network to talk to each other. If that network has an in-built number of MEPs who can outvote the national parliamentarians, it simply will not work. I do not know whether it is possible to change the job that COSAC does in such a way, but we will see.

[Ms Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman has gone to the nub of the matter. We need to decide what we think the role of national Parliaments is. Is it only to scrutinise? If so, we need to widen the base so that more Members take part more regularly. Or is it to get Governments to change their decisions at times? I think that it needs to be the latter, but a number of things have to happen to allow that. Early information is key.

We also need information about how people actually act in the Council of Ministers. I have sat in the Council of Ministers, and I know that there is rarely a vote. If there is, it is seen as a failure by the civil servants that they have allowed the situation to arise. They do a head count to see whether they have a qualified majority, and if they do not think they will get the decision they want, they give in gracefully.

That takes me to what really needs to change. We need a proper Europe Minister. That is not to cast any aspersions on the current Europe Minister, but the position is a fallacy. Why are matters involving the European Union, which deals essentially with domestic legislation, placed in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? Numerous Governments have tried at times to get the Europe function out of the Foreign Office. From what I gather, the trade union of Foreign Office Ministers usually gets together and it does not happen, but there is a question to be addressed there.

If the Europe Minister is in the Foreign Office and makes decisions and strikes bargains regularly, they might say, “There’s an idea here that affects agriculture on which we want some compromise”, or it might be on cigarette advertising, the working hours of junior doctors or any number of issues on which we can get a deal. Such deals are struck across various Departments. At that level of political bargaining, the House has no ability to scrutinise, take a role or even know what happens. We are simply given the end results. A Europe Minister should have accountability for our permanent representative in Brussels, UKRep, which does all those dealings, and be answerable to the House of Commons for the bargains struck. There was a stage when a previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair, seriously envisaged such a role, but for whatever reason it did not happen.

I can hear the outcry: “You can’t politicise UKRep!” I am not saying that I would do it the way that the Finns do it, for example—they call their civil servant before them every Friday morning—but Select Committees can call civil servants. There could be a regular slot for UKRep representatives when they come on a Friday to brief Whitehall Departments about what they have done. They could stay until the Monday morning or come on the Thursday afternoon to give evidence. If we do not want to do it at the civil service level—actually, I would rather do it at the political level—there should be a Minister who is answerable to the House across Whitehall Departments for negotiations, compromises and deals struck in Brussels. It would be such a far-reaching brief that the Minister would almost function as a Deputy Prime Minister.

[Mr Cash]

I am extremely interested in what the hon. Lady is saying, and I have often thought along similar lines. However, does she acknowledge that due to the critical mass of the European Union’s relationship with the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister and Downing street ultimately want to control all those matters? I suppose that that is understandable from their point of view. During the constitutional treaty discussions and the run-up to Lisbon, it was thought that the Foreign Secretary was out of the loop, because Tony Blair and the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) were in discussions but the Foreign Secretary was scarcely involved at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) not only for securing the debate, but for the way in which she has deployed her arguments. She has been in the House for about 10 years, I suppose—

[Ms Stuart]

Seventeen years.

[Mr Cash]

Seventeen years! I am only getting close to 30 years. It is extremely refreshing to hear such cogent and well thought out concern about the whole European issue, which has dogged our political debates for the 30 years or so that I have been in the House—whether there is any connection, I cannot say. Today, the one thing that saddens me slightly and, I dare say, her, too, is that so few people are participating in a debate about what is at the heart of our democratic system. I regard this matter as being not “about Europe” but about Britain, and about democracy, which is not peculiar to any one country.

Our democratic systems have, in real terms, emerged since the 19th century, because of John Bright and others. I mention his name because the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston represents part of his old constituency, before it was Birmingham Central. His fight for the working-class vote was in essence the beginnings of our democratic system. The Conservative party, under Disraeli, gave in to the pressures. There is no need to go into the detail, but it was incredibly important and was based on the assumption that when people went into the polling booth and cast their vote secretly in a ballot box—that was the system that was devised in the late 19th century to ensure that the people had their say—we had a democracy. Other countries have run parallel with that, so the issue is not exclusively British but applies elsewhere in the whole of the European continent and the rest of the world.

I fear that with the movement towards bigger regional systems, even those who claim that they want world government ignore national identity, traditions and democratic systems, and therefore in essence national Parliaments, at their peril. The European Union, which I voted for as the European Community in 1975—I said yes—has since moved inexorably along a trajectory towards more and more centralisation and less and less national involvement.

The Minister for Europe is here. He and I have engaged in debates and discussions on the matter since at least 1988 or 1989, when I was first elected chairman of the backbench committee on European affairs in hostile circumstances. It was interesting that the national parliamentarians who then represented the Conservative party elected me in a secret ballot because I had put out a note explaining why I was standing, which was all about national Parliaments. I had written a pamphlet for the Bow Group called “A Democratic Way to European Unity: Arguments against Federalism” and I followed that up the following year with another called “Against a Federal Europe—The Battle for Britain”. I think I can fairly say—I do so without presumption—that what I set out in those two documents has remained the central problem.

The difference is that the evidence now demonstrates the analysis of where we were going wrong, which was further and further integration, and that was in the 1988 to 1991 period. Since then, we have had Amsterdam, Nice and Maastricht, and we have had the constitutional and Lisbon treaties. Irrespective of the evidence, both economic and political, there is increasing distrust not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the whole of Europe. I need not give all the Eurobarometer’s figures, but 72% of those in countries such as Spain and Italy have now decided that they do not trust the European Union. I presume to say that riots, unemployment and the rise of the far right are all things that I said would happen when I wrote those pamphlets back in 1988-91 and since.

Despite all that, as well as the Bloomberg speech and the movement towards a referendum—I believe that there will be a money resolution this afternoon on the European Union (Referendum) Bill—if I am being completely objective, nothing has changed except public opinion. The facts demonstrate that those of us who have argued this case consistently over a long period have been proved right. I am not saying, “I told you so.” The matter is far too serious for that because, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston said, it is about our democratic system.

National parliamentarians are elected by virtue of manifestos in general elections. We ultimately control taxation and spending. That is what determines the nature of our economy, and it also determines public services. If circumstances arise in which the economic and political situation in this country, let alone other countries, becomes dysfunctional and as a result we cannot deliver the prosperity that people want, not only will they become completely alienated from laws that are generated to exclude them from participation in a prosperous business and social environment, but the entire fabric of the European system will disintegrate.

The real problem is the treaties. The issue is no longer just a call for reform. I was anxious for reform, and I have called for renegotiation for as long as I can remember, because I thought the treaties would go wrong. Now that they have gone so wrong, there is no prospect of their improving the situation and, as I will explain, there is absolutely no sign that any Government in any European country are seriously grappling with the intrinsic problem at the heart of the treaties. Governments talk about renegotiation, but we are past that. The reality is that we must leave the existing treaties—I make this point in the context of our national Parliament and our own country—because unless other countries are prepared to face up to the fact that there has been a cataclysmic failure of the system, they will not be impelled to make the changes that are needed to achieve what I still believe in: co-operation on the European continent and in trade.

I need not go into the arguments about trading, because we are talking about national Parliaments, but one reason why the British Chambers of Commerce and others have become so deeply disillusioned by the European Union in business terms is precisely the legislation that has come about as a result of being passed under the aegis of the treaties. Those treaties, because of the concrete framework of the acquis communautaire, cannot be changed without unanimity among all member states, and there is absolutely no intention whatever to make fundamental changes to the treaties.

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Gentleman is making a profound point about the inflexibility of the European Union structure. Does he agree that the reason why European Union countries, with the possible exception of Sweden, are unlikely to withdraw support from the current treaties is that they have a history of fascism, communism or of being defeated in wars and controlled by other nations? They do not have the same confidence in their national democracies that we have in this country.

[Mr Cash]

That is absolutely correct, and is not disrespectful or a criticism of those countries. In the past month I have been to Lithuania twice, and I have great affection for that country. One has only to look at the way in which it has been brutalised for 150 years by successive dictatorships—the Nazis, Russians and Soviet Union—to realise why it would want the security of working within the framework of something bigger. The same applies to Estonia, Latvia and many other countries in central and eastern Europe, so there is an understandable reason for their wanting to play safe, as it were. However, it is not playing safe that is the problem, because the price that people will pay for allowing that democratic system to be so much at risk will be another collapse of those countries if the democratic freedom that they fought for disintegrates as a result of the European Union’s failures.

The fact is that tinkering with the treaties is not the only thing required. It is about the very foundations of the EU, which brings me on to the question of ever-closer union. Certainly that was embedded in the early treaties, including in the treaty of Rome. However, it was not capable of being implemented, unless and until the genie was gradually eased out of the bottle as a result of successive treaty changes. People are cynical about the 1975 referendum, and I understand why. There is plenty of reason to believe that, in fact, it was done with some cynicism by the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson. However, the reality is that people such as Tony Benn and others, who were involved in arguments on the other side, challenged whether it would ultimately lead to political union.

Although I freely state that I voted yes in 1975, it was because, as far as I was aware, it was going to be a common market. It was not only that, however. It could only become more of an integrated, ever-closer union as a result of further treaties, which is why I most emphatically put my foot down on the Maastricht treaty—I tabled about 200 amendments, or whatever it was—and fought the arguments right the way through from beginning to end, because that was about the creation of European government. There is no disputing that, and I am very glad that the present Prime Minister stated in the House the other day that he thought that there should have been a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. He was right.

We do not need to go into the past too much, but the Maastricht treaty remains at the epicentre of the Lisbon treaty, because the Lisbon treaty is simply a consolidation of all the others. Anyone who cares to get those treaties out can see that, although I have to say that there are not many people who would. Sometimes even I have a great disinclination to get out the consolidated treaties and plough through them, although I notice that the Minister has them on his desk, with lots of little yellow flashes so that he can immediately leap to one article or another. However, I do not think this is about individual articles, nor is it about the intricacies of bits and pieces. It is about the fundamental structure.

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Gentleman is right about the Lisbon treaty to a point, but does he agree that there is a fundamental difference between the Lisbon treaty and all the treaties that went before it, inasmuch as the passerelle clauses provide the right to change treaties without going back to the sovereign Governments and Parliaments?

[Mr Cash]

One of the most offensive kinds of provision that appear in our domestic legislation is the Henry VIII clause, as we call it. The passerelle clause has all the same characteristics; it is a capacity to make changes without having to go back to the source of authority. However, we have to pin our main concerns to the source of authority, which is the European Communities Act 1972 itself. I allude to the White Paper, which was brought out, preceding that treaty, in 1971, and upon which, as a result of a huge amount of discussion in Parliament but not so much outside, the United Kingdom Parliament decided to pass the Act on an apparently—I say “apparently”—free vote. It happened, however, because certain Labour Members at that time decided that they would back Edward Heath’s proposals for what was to be enacted in the 1972 Act.

That White Paper is the foundation of our national parliamentary commitment to the whole panoply, the tens of thousands of lines—millions, I suspect; I have never counted them, thank God—the fabric, the labyrinth and the inexplicable and completely impossible complexities of the legislation, as was clearly demonstrated in yesterday’s debate on the opt-out. The fact is that all that ultimately turns on one piece of legislation, which we entered into voluntarily in Parliament—no doubt some, or perhaps most, did so for the best of motives. What it said was that we will accept all the decisions that are ultimately taken in the Council of Ministers as the legislation of the United Kingdom.

At the same time, we set up a scrutiny process, which I shall come on to in a moment. However, the fundamental issue is that the White Paper stated unequivocally—I do not have the quotation to hand, but I am sure that I will in no way fail to express it clearly—that we must retain the veto in our own national interest and to do otherwise would not only undermine our national interest, but endanger the very fabric of the European Community itself. That was a very wise remark, because as Members will note from what I said at the beginning, the whole of Europe is in convulsion. It is faced not only with a democratic deficit, but with a democratic crisis, and there is not only a eurozone crisis, but a European crisis. It affects the whole of Europe, which is being contaminated by a complete refusal to look at the essential ingredients of the treaties.

Those fundamental questions are now being completely ignored. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston referred to COSAC, which, as she rightly said, is not a well-known body. It is the meeting—periodically, but much more frequently these days—of the national chairmen of each of the European scrutiny committees in each of the member states. Believe it or not, its proceedings are recorded. They are even webcast—not, I suspect, that anyone knows that, but it is a fact.

In Dublin, only a month ago, I was invited by the EU presidency—then the Irish Government—to respond officially as the main respondent for the national Parliaments on the question of democratic legitimacy. Viviane Reding, who was meant to turn up, did not bother to. She sent a video, and I can assure Members that the Dublin parliamentarians were not at all amused. That is the manner in which we are being treated—that is all the member states. She said, unequivocally—I paraphrase her remarks—that we need a federation of nation states. It was completely and totally without any attempt to enter a dialogue or a debate. That was the line that she wanted to take; it had already been written. Viviane Reding is the vice-president of the European Commission and is responsible for justice and home affairs—the very matters on which we scored that notable result last night in upholding national scrutiny. However, they are not listening.

In Vilnius, the following month—only last week— Mr Sefcovic, the Commissioner responsible for relations with the national Parliaments and the European Parliament, made his position clear. I arrived in Vilnius at 1 o’clock in the morning, and I was back in London by 7 o’clock that evening. People said, “What on earth did you think you were doing going all the way to Vilnius for four hours?” I explained very simply that, as the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee—one of 28 national Chairmen—I had the right to be there and that, when I saw that the meeting was about the next steps towards political and economic union, I knew, in the light of what I know from other sources, that the EU has not the slightest interest in renegotiation; all it wants to do is to press on with the process of integration.

Leaving aside the scrutiny process, it was interesting that an increasing number of member state Parliaments are conscious of the impact that these issues are having on their populations, on which they rely for re-election, and of the fact that they must respond. A silent revolution is in the making. I am not going to exaggerate these things, but there is an issue when the Belgian representative gets up and starts talking about Belgium’s problems with democratic legitimacy. I cannot think of one of the 28 member states that does not, in the relevant chamber or outside, in the margins, over coffee, lunch or dinner, refer to the problem of democratic legitimacy.

The issue is terribly simple: if we do not get rid of the existing treaties and deal with the fundamental structure, there is no answer to the question of democratic legitimacy. We do our best in the European Scrutiny Committee. When I was first elected Chairman, at the end of 2010, the first thing I did was to set up an inquiry into the European Union and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament, which is basically what we are discussing. I wanted to get expert evidence, and we did. Our report came out, and we made it clear that national Parliaments actually have the last say. We voluntarily introduced the 1972 Act; that is what the principle involved in the Factortame case is all about. It is not, as some people believe, that we are locked into a completely irreversible situation. Although the treaties say, as the Maastricht treaty did, that the euro, once entered into, is irrevocable, individual member states must voluntarily decide to accept that system.

At the moment, there is no recognition whatever that things are going wrong. There is not the slightest intention to change the foundations of the treaties, which is absolutely what is needed if we are to preserve democracy in each member state, including in the United Kingdom. Whether we are in the euro is by the bye; the fact is that all the other legislation that affects our economy every day must be subject not merely to a competence review, but to a clear decision. I look to the Minister, because the issue is his responsibility, although he will, quite understandably, take his instructions from No. 10.

I admired the fourth principle of the Bloomberg speech, which said that the fundamental principles of our national democracy depend on our national Parliaments. The Prime Minister was right; the question is whether we do anything about that. We are promising a referendum in 2017, but that is far too late. The fact is that it should be held before the general election, because we have profound reasons for getting on with it. In Dublin, when I had finished making my rather strong remarks about the state of the European Union and the role of national Parliaments, the chairman of the Bundestag’s European affairs committee said, “We must have a referendum in the United Kingdom as soon as possible, because people do not like the uncertainty,” and that is right.

We now have two Governments and two Parliaments, both dealing with the same subject matter. That inherent contradiction is completely unworkable. There are attempts at assimilation, but they just create a more complicated labyrinth, as a result of which the whole situation becomes increasingly dysfunctional. What is more, the creation of a two-tier, two-Government, two-Parliament Europe with no real connection to anything is happening before our very eyes, without any treaty changes. That is why a referendum is required.

The fundamental reason for holding a referendum is that a fundamental change is taking place now in the relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom. We are not talking about change in 2017; indeed, there may not be another treaty—I cannot say, although the Minister probably knows. However, whether or not there is another treaty, and whether or not there is renegotiation and some nibbling here and there—some of it may sound attractive to some people—that will not change the basic structure. That is what is wrong, and that is why national Parliaments must reassert themselves. They have the power to deal with their respective parties, particularly from the Back Benches, including by persuasion. I was extremely glad that the Government listened yesterday. It was partly a numbers question; we live in a civilised world, and we appreciate that there are times when Ministers recognise that they do not have the support that they need. Three Select Committee Chairmen got together—other members of the Liaison Committee were also involved—and that created a bit of a problem for the Government. None the less, we are grateful for what happened.

The hon. Lady mentioned consensus and the fact that there are rarely votes. I simply recommend that people read VoteWatch, which is produced by Simon Hix of the London School of Economics. It has demonstrated that where there could be different outcomes, all countries end up agreeing on 90% of the legislation, and I believe that the figure has increased since Simon Hix looked at that. Part of the problem is the qualified majority voting system and part of the problem is the co-decision system, but I shall park those issues. However, that is how the system overcomes the issue of what national Parliaments could decide for themselves if they regained the power that they should regain for themselves. I also recommend that people read Professor Damian Chalmers’s paper on democratic self-government, which will prove to be a seminal contribution to this debate. He will give evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee quite soon.

What worries me about the red card system is that it is a further indication of a refusal to grapple with the essential question—that we should end up as an association of nation states that have a veto where necessary, but that co-operate where possible. We should also be able to trade and to work in political co-operation with our neighbours, without being governed by them. The red card system is liable to increase federal arrangements. I do not see why, when this Parliament, as a national Parliament, says that it does not want a measure, we should then be obliged to say yes to it, just because we do not reach a certain threshold when other member states, for completely different reasons, say they want the measure or are not prepared to stand up and say that they do not want it.

That goes back to the fundamental question on which I will end. It is about the ballot box, freedom of choice and those questions that people fought and died for, and that should determine our attitude towards not merely nibbling at, revising or reforming the European Union, but dealing with the real problem: the foundations of the treaties themselves. It may be a big ask to expect the Minister to agree, but if we do not deal with that, just as those of us who found that what we said in the 1990s has not exactly been proved wrong, we will be in a similar place in 10 or 15 years’ time, and, regrettably, by then I fear it will be too late.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope, in a debate that is of great interest to you. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on securing the debate and on a characteristically thorough and forensic speech, which drew on not only 17 years in the House, but many weeks and months—I do not know how many—on the Convention on the Future of Europe. She is a real expert and it was a great pleasure to hear her this morning.

I agree in particular with my hon. Friend’s overall argument that national Parliaments need to play a much greater role in holding to account not only the European Union, but our own Government’s decisions on Europe and the formulation of European legislation and policy. She and many other right hon. and hon. Friends, some of whom are here this morning, want parliamentary scrutiny of the EU and what our Government do in Europe to be enhanced and improved. That objective unites pro-Europeans and Eurosceptics, and hon. Members from different parties alike.

I agree with my hon. Friend’s specific point that it is regrettable that one of the first actions of the Government when they came into power in 2010 was to do away with pre-European Council debates. It is unsurprising that she, and others present and beyond our debate today, complained repeatedly about the decision, but unfortunately it was to no avail. While other member states are improving their scrutiny of their Governments’ decision-making and negotiating strategy ahead of European Councils, our Government have taken a retrograde step and have in effect decreased scrutiny. The Government have not simply done away with the pre-Council debates, but the post-Council debates are now combined with major issues of concern—whether Afghanistan or the horrific murder in Woolwich. Such subjects and the post-European Council report need to be separate. They are too important to be combined. Notwithstanding the scrutiny of the European Scrutiny Committee, it is vital that scrutiny also takes place on the Floor of the House, as she set out, so that all right hon. and hon. Members have the opportunity to scrutinise how the Government represent the UK in the EU.

The starting point from which I approach the debate is perhaps different from that of some hon. Members who have spoken. I am a passionate believer in our membership of the EU. I am both pro-European and passionately in favour of reform. Just because I believe in our membership, that does not mean that I think the EU is perfect—far from it. I spent six years of my life working and living in Brussels; I have seen at first hand the many imperfections of the EU. A vital part of EU reform lies in the issue that we are focusing on today: strengthening the accountability that national Parliaments have over European decision-making.

The shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), in a speech in January this year, set out proposals for a red card system. It took the Government five months to come to the same conclusion, but we were encouraged—better late than never. As hon. Members are acutely aware, the current yellow card system was introduced by the Lisbon treaty, which the Labour Government negotiated. It gives national Parliaments the ability to force the European Commission to reconsider its proposals if they believe that a proposal violates the subsidiarity principle.

[Mr Cash]

I do not think that anyone could honestly say that the yellow card system has been a stunning success, given the number of occasions we have reached the threshold. That is also a problem with respect to any possibility of a red card system, leaving aside the federalisation they both imply.

[Emma Reynolds]

I do not claim that the yellow card system has been a stunning success. As the hon. Gentleman set out, it has been used successfully on only one occasion —the so-called Monti II proposals, which were then withdrawn by the European Commission. Just because the yellow card system is not a success at the moment, that does not mean that it could not be made to work better. I will move on to that and better co-ordination of national parliamentarians in a moment.

The Labour party is committed to pushing for a red card system when in government. It would, in effect, turn the yellow card into a red card, by stating clearly that a third of national Parliaments being against a proposal is a veto. It would not force the European Commission to reconsider, but would say, “No. Stop. Stop that proposal. One-third of national Parliaments have great concerns, therefore withdraw it.”

Even within the current treaties, the yellow card system could be made to work better, which brings me to the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Charles Grant, the director of the Centre for European Reform—a think-tank that is well reputed and thorough on such matters—has suggested creating a national parliamentary forum in Brussels of MPs from different member states. I would be interested to know whether the Minister for Europe has considered that proposal. I regret to hear that European Commissioner Viviane Reding did not turn up to the meeting when the hon. Gentleman was in Dublin. Perhaps a new forum, made up of MPs—not necessarily including Chairs of Scrutiny Committees—meeting in Brussels could better hold to account European Governments, who have permanent representations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston suggested, there should be better political oversight of such representations.

[Mr Cash]

Holding a gathering of MPs to talk about issues is not the same as holding people to account. Holding people to account means that there is a vote, within a constitutional structure that requires people to answer questions, and if the people who have the numbers on their side do not like a proposal, the Government’s position changes, as happened last night. The hon. Lady is suggesting a Parliament of fools.

[Emma Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman has not even allowed me to finish my point. If he considers the proposals from the Centre for European Reform, he will see that they are not about a talking shop. With great respect, I know that he sits on COSAC, which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston mentioned, and that committee needs to be vastly improved from its current formulation and in its make-up. Mr Grant says that it does not give MPs a big enough stake, is only consultative and is often treated “disdainfully” by MEPs—his word, not mine.

There is clearly a great—[Interruption.] Would the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) at least give me the courtesy of listening to my response to his intervention? There is clearly a great problem with the current set-up, and having a presence in Brussels of national parliamentarians who could have a vote and scrutinise more closely the decisions taken by our and other Governments deserves closer consideration, rather than just saying that it would be a gathering of fools—a statement with which I profoundly disagree.

I recently met the Speaker of the Dutch House of Representatives, and she has an appetite, as do colleagues in other member states with whom I have discussed the matter, for Parliaments to work more closely together. The Government could give greater consideration to the successes in the Dutch, Danish and German Parliaments. For example, in the Netherlands, the standing committees—akin, I think, to our Select Committees—choose proposals from within the Commission work programme that they see as priorities and about which they might have concerns, and they refer them to their European affairs committee.

Our departmental Select Committees are not involved enough in proposals at an early stage, or even at later stages, and I would be grateful if the Minister could say something about what the Government could do to drive greater consideration and scrutiny on a policy-by-policy basis, given that, as has been said, a lot of European policy is not foreign policy—as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston said, it is an anomaly that it is often treated as such. Our departmental Select Committees could learn from the experience of the Netherlands.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on securing the debate, and on the presentation of her arguments. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) that I have never had any intention of seeking to appear before his Committee via a video link. I have always much preferred that he and I look each other straight in the eye, person to person.

[Mr Cash]

It was not a video link—it was a video.

[Mr Lidington]

Well, that is something best avoided in any meeting with parliamentarians, if humanly possibly.

I will try to respond to the various points that were made, in particular by the hon. Lady. She posed a number of questions and challenges, some of which focused on how we do European business here in Westminster, and others that centred on what might be done in the broader European Union context, and how national Parliaments should fit into the legislative process and decisions taken at European level.

I shall start with the hon. Lady’s points about how we deal with European business here at Westminster. Her most important point was that it was vital to find a way to engage and involve a rather larger number of Members in European business. I have to confess that when I go in to the Chamber for a debate on Europe, or in to a Committee, I feel at times like a cut-price version of Henry V before Agincourt. It is a matter of:

“We few, we happy few”

that are gathered together, and it is very familiar faces, from both sides of the House, that tend to feature. It is, however, not a Government matter, but a problem for Parliament. Parliament must take more seriously its collective responsibility as an institution to see, rightly or wrongly—individual hon. Members will have their own views on this—that we live in a world in which European Union business should be treated as mainstream political business, and not as something that can be quietly shoved off to some annexe next door and left to specialists to get on with in peace and quiet. The decisions that British Ministers of any party take in the Council of Ministers have an impact on the lives of the constituents of every Member of this House and I agree, therefore, with the thrust of what the hon. Lady said.

I disagree with the hon. Lady, however, in that I feel that the focus should not be just on the Chamber. The Chamber is clearly important, but we need to consider the role of Committees, including departmental Select Committees. In various evidence sessions with the European Scrutiny Committee over the past couple of years, I have tried to emphasise my growing belief that part of the answer lies in persuading the departmental Select Committees to give greater priority to that aspect of their work that covers European Union business. That is a matter for Select Committees, and it would be wrong for the Government to get into the business of seeking to give them instructions—the powers are already there within the terms of resolutions. It is primarily for those Committees to take ownership of those agendas and drive them forward. They can by all means invite European Commissioners to give evidence and by all means go to Brussels every now and then to take evidence and meet informally with people in the European institutions who are involved in legislation.

I look forward to the forthcoming report from the European Scrutiny Committee on the scrutiny process. I am sure that many of the matters that have been touched on this morning, such as whether we should move towards a mandate model of scrutiny along the lines of what the Scandinavian countries have, will be addressed in that report, and I obviously do not want to pre-empt the Government’s response to it. I say to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) that one of the characteristics of that mandate system—she rightly drew attention to some of its virtues—is that the sessions between the Minister and the committee to discuss a negotiating mandate take place in closed session. The public and press are not admitted and the report is not public, at least until after the negotiations are concluded.

[Mr Lidington]

That is a very good point. To my mind, it means that one needs to focus the collective memory of elected Members through the members of the Liaison Committee, which is composed of relatively senior Members of Parliament, and through the system of the Committee Clerks. If we look at our Parliament’s representation in Brussels, we have some very talented people representing the two Houses, but that amounts to three staff. The Bundestag and the Bundesrat have 18 or 19 people between them, and that is on top of the German federal representation and the representative offices from each of the German Länder that are present in Brussels. Again, Parliament should consider the question of whether our level of representation and the number of people we have on the ground in Brussels are sufficient, but the Government cannot, or should not, issue instructions on that.

The hon. Lady asked whether COSAC could be improved, and my answer is definitely yes. It is an imperfect organisation, and it could be strengthened through reforms to the secretariat or through a formal power to summon commissioners, rather than expecting commissioners by convention to come and give evidence. It is not just about the formal meetings of COSAC, because if any system of red or yellow cards is to be effective, there has to be a culture of talking and working together that means that different parliamentary representatives, and in particular the chairs of the relevant committees, are used to having contact with each other in networking and co-ordinating an approach to a particular Commission draft measure.

The hon. Lady asked about the role of the Europe Minister, and she was very fair in how she put it. There is a perfectly legitimate debate to be had in this country about where that office sits. Some argue that it should sit in the Foreign Office. Others argue that it should sit in the Cabinet Office and so be directly accountable to the Prime Minister. Some argue that it should be a self-standing Department or be located in Brussels, in effect performing the political office of the permanent representative. In France, Germany, Poland and Spain my counterparts sit in their respective Foreign Ministries. In Sweden, however, the Europe Minister sits in the Prime Minister’s office and reports directly to the Prime Minister, although she represents a different political party from the Prime Minister in the current coalition.

The key thing is not where the Europe Minister sits, but how the right level of co-ordination and accountability is achieved across Government. The Europe Minister could be put in the Cabinet Office, but that raises the question of how the work at Brussels, which is certainly cross-departmental in Whitehall terms, is co-ordinated with the bilateral diplomatic work that has to be done with 27 other member states, because European business cannot be done in Brussels alone. I would be worried about a gap opening between a Minister dealing with Brussels business and a Minister dealing with our diplomatic efforts on, for example, Germany. We try to co-ordinate our conversations with German Ministers across all relevant political dossiers. When I see German counterparts, I do not talk strictly about Foreign Office business; I talk about financial services, the European budget and whichever European issues are high on the agenda at that moment.

The key is to have effective co-ordination through a Cabinet system, which we do through the European Affairs Committee of the Cabinet. I repeat the point I have made elsewhere: the permanent representative, who is a professional civil servant, follows the mandate set by the Cabinet. If he wishes to move from the mandate he has already been granted, he has to go back to Ministers and seek their agreement and authority to go beyond it.

On the question of yellow and red cards, under the current system national Parliaments or chambers of national Parliaments can submit a reasoned opinion that a draft directive or regulation fails to comply with the principle of subsidiarity. They have to submit that within eight weeks of the formal communication from the Commission about a draft measure. One third of the voting weight of national Parliaments needs to be signed up for the Commission to be compelled to carry out a formal review, and the reasoned opinion may only be submitted on the grounds of subsidiarity. We could make more use of reasoned opinions than we do. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone is meticulous in looking at the legal grounds of a directive and whether it meets the subsidiarity test.

The Westminster Parliament has so far submitted fewer reasoned opinions than some Parliaments in other member states, but we could look to reform the system. Is eight weeks long enough? Should we not give national Parliaments longer to consider their response? There is an obvious problem with recesses. Should we reduce the threshold below a third? Should we widen the grounds for challenge? If we have subsidiarity, why not have proportionality as well? Why not have some sort of test on excessive burdens on business, or on whether there is evidence that a draft measure would have a harmful impact on European growth? Why not make provision for the yellow card to become a red card under certain circumstances, with an outright veto that national Parliaments could impose? Could we give national Parliaments the power to impose an emergency brake in certain circumstances?

[Mr Cash]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Lidington]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I have very little time left. Could we give national Parliaments an emergency brake to throw an issue to consideration by the European Council? Should we provide powers for a yellow or red card retrospectively, so that national Parliaments could, as a group, insist that the institutions consider repealing or amending a directive that was part of the acquis? Should we give national Parliaments the power to bring forward an own-initiative report? In the hands of the European Parliament, that instrument has been significant in helping to shape policy development.

I liked the idea from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston of some act of oblivion at the end of a Commission’s term. Under that idea, a measure that had not completed all stages would be deemed automatically to fall and would be reconsidered in the next Commission and the next European Parliament.

Ideas about a conference of national parliamentarians or a second chamber for the European Parliament are part of the discussion, although there are some serious practical issues to be considered. How would such an institution fit into the legislative process? How could it be made to work in practice, given the other parliamentary and constituency duties that Members of this House have to carry out?

I am conscious of the fact that giving a stronger voice to national Parliaments is only one aspect, though a significant one, of the reform that is necessary to make the European Union more accountable and more democratic than it is currently. It is in all our interests that a way is found to overcome the profound public disaffection that we see throughout the continent on European decisions. There is no European demos, and strengthening the voice of national Parliaments is the right way forward to restore greater democratic accountability to the EU.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

William Cash Excerpts

Friday 5th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The Prime Minister and I are in exactly the same position. Of course we will vote to stay in a successfully reformed European Union. Now perhaps the right hon. Lady will tell us how she will vote on this Bill—[Interruption.] No, Opposition Members still do not know how they will vote on this Bill.

When Ministers from other countries ask me why public opinion here is disillusioned with the European Union, I point out that there have been referendums on the EU in France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Luxembourg, Sweden and Ireland—often twice, of course, in Ireland—yet there has been no referendum for more than a generation in the United Kingdom. The efforts of those who wanted to build European integration without bringing the people with them have been utterly self-defeating. The EU now lacks democratic legitimacy because so many of those most enthusiastic about ever-closer union have been afraid of asking what the British people might think of it.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is completely right in what he just said. Furthermore, with respect to Maastricht, how far the Conservative party has come! The other day my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister actually stated that he believed there should have been a referendum on Maastricht—and he was right.

[Mr Hague]

As always we enjoy my hon. Friend’s robust support on these issues, and I am grateful for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

First, I want to put on record my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) on a brilliant, deft and extremely well-conducted speech in which he dealt with complex interventions in a very, very mature fashion. I congratulate him not only on his speech but on its content.

I am extremely glad that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, despite the fact that referendums were completely off the agenda for some time before the announcement was made in the Bloomberg speech, or in relation to the Bill, has said in the past, as I said in a short intervention, that he thought there should have been a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. Of course he was right, and I shall explain why in a moment. In 1996 I introduced a Bill, for which I was given what could be considered a bit of a going-over by the then Chief Whip and the Whips, one of whom is now a Minister. It was an entertaining experience, and all I can say is that it made no difference whatsoever to my attitude to the need for a referendum, as I shall explain.

My right hon. Friend was right: the most important principle of the Bloomberg speech is the fourth principle, which overrides all the others, as they all depend on it. He said that the root of our national democracy is our national Parliament, but the essence of that democracy is when it is decided by Parliament that we shall give the people the right to make the decision, which is the ultimate test of trust in the electorate.

[Jim Dowd]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Cash]

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.

It is estimated that 35 million people—35 million voters—have effectively been disfranchised by the continuous evolution, since 1975, of giving away more and more powers as well as the right to determine the kind of policies and government that they want. That is completely unacceptable. I voted yes in 1975, because I believed then that there was a case for allowing a common market and that we should test whether or not it would work. I also voted for the Single European Act, but I tabled an amendment that nothing in that measure should derogate from the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. That is why, when it came to Maastricht, I was absolutely determined to fight it at all costs, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd).

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentioned an important word: sovereignty. Is it not right that sovereignty belongs to the people? Even the greatest and wisest Members in the Chamber are merely here-today-and-gone-tomorrow politicians. Sovereignty belongs to the people and their heirs and successors. It is not ours to take away: we must have a referendum.

[Mr Cash]

I could not agree more. People have fought and died. The only reason we live in the United Kingdom in peace and prosperity is because, in the second and first world wars, we stood up for that freedom and democracy. Churchill galvanised the British people to stand up for the very principles that are now at stake.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I know that the whole House is delighted that my hon. Friend saw the light. Some of us not only campaigned in the referendum in 1975 but voted against the Single European Act—only three colleagues who did so remain in the House and, unfortunately, they are all Opposition Members. This is terribly important. My hon. Friend voted for the measure at the time because he thought that he was voting for a common market in goods and services. That is what the British people thought, and we tried to persuade them that it was going to be more than that: it was going to be a united states of Europe. That is the direction of travel, and there is no indication that the direction of travel has changed, which is why we need a referendum.

[Mr Cash]

Indeed; I note what my hon. Friend has said. This issue is about political union. If we strip away all the arguments about repatriation and renegotiation, there is no doubt whatsoever for anyone—I go to COSAC, which is the meeting of the chairmen of national scrutiny committees on European affairs throughout Europe; 27, now 28, chairmen joined together—that this is about political union. We should be under no illusion about that. It is not about anything else now. We had Mr Barroso telling us recently in the blueprint paper that the European Parliament is the only Parliament for the European Union. It is categorical, and I will challenge any Member of Parliament to get up and suggest that this is not embedded in the Maastricht treaty. That is what it was all about—creating a new European Government, and it has grown exponentially ever since.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is right. We said that we wanted to have a referendum on several of those treaties. Indeed, the Conservative party was united in voting for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. However, we have now reached a different situation. That is why it is important for the House to bear in mind that it is not a question of what may happen between now and 2017; it is happening already. There is clear evidence of the development, endorsed by the other member states, of a two-tier Europe between the eurozone and the European Union itself. That is the fundamental change that is already taking place, without a treaty.

We know from the discussions that are going on in Europe that there is much talk of moving forward without another treaty. That is why we need to have a referendum. That is why the Government are right to promote the circumstances in which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South, who came first in the ballot, has the opportunity to introduce his Bill. That is why the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have taken part in the debate, and that is why it is so essential that we get it right. This is about political and economic freedom.

[David Rutley]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. I think he is coming on to the point that there are not just political reasons, but clear-cut economic reasons why we need to have a referendum, not least of which are the fact that 70% of the regulations that are an unacceptable burden on our businesses and their employees emanate from Europe, and the fact that there is 55% youth unemployment in Spain and in Greece, which is blighting a generation. Does my hon. Friend agree that there are economic reasons for a referendum?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

I totally agree. My hon. Friend and I, with other Members, have debated this in complete unity, for the same reason: freedom is about freedom of choice. In parliamentary and constitutional terms, freedom of choice depends upon freedom of choice at the ballot box and in the marketplace. If we get the first, the political choice, wrong, as has been going on with this European Government, we will end up with austerity, small and medium-sized businesses not being able to work properly, and massive unemployment among young people, which I know Opposition Members are worried about, as are we on the Government Benches.

When 65% of the young people in several countries in Europe—Spain, Greece and so on—are unemployed, that is unacceptable and it is a direct result of the way in which the European Union has been centralised. Opposition Members have been saying recently, “We do not like the centralisation”—people who are completely in favour of the European Union, until they suddenly realise that the centralisation is creating austerity, unemployment and misery for those young people. It is unacceptable.

[Mr Binley]

Does my hon. Friend agree that those who perpetuate the myth of the single market, arguing that the UK will lose 3 million jobs if we come out, fail to take account of the fact that there is a £70 billion surplus, and no business in Europe will cease to trade with this country whether we are in the single market or not?

[Mr Cash]

Furthermore, with respect to our trade deficit, as I have said on a number of occasions, in 2012, according to the Office for National Statistics, we had a trade deficit of £70 billion with the other 27 member states. To give the point some substance, Germany, on the other hand—no wonder there are two Europes, which are increasingly becoming German-oriented—had a trade surplus with the other 27 member states in 2011 that has now gone up to £72 billion.

It is not really a European Union any more. It is so heavily dominated, wilfully or otherwise, by the circumstances that have created that imbalance, and that of course has its effect on the qualified majority voting. That is why we have to have a referendum, and we need to have it sooner rather than later, because the fundamental renegotiation itself is dependent on the fact that the circumstances have already arisen, and as I said just now, not necessarily with a new treaty.

[Wayne David]

So that we can be clear about the hon. Gentleman’s position, does he favour the United Kingdom having a relationship with the European Union similar to that of Norway and Switzerland, or does he think we should be entirely separate and have no relationship with the single market?

[Mr Cash]

I have made my position entirely clear on a number of occasions. We need to have something in the nature of a European Free Trade Association arrangement. We need an association of nation states. I am off to Lithuania the day after tomorrow to discuss these matters with the other 27 chairmen. The main topic of conversation now is democratic legitimacy, and it is not just in this country, it is not just in this Chamber, it is not just in the opinion polls, it is not just in the Eurobarometer, which has shown that trust in Europe has completely evaporated all over Europe. Wake up, I say. This is the fact, and it is happening. That is why we need to have a renegotiation. This is about trust. It is about allowing people to have government of a kind that responds to their own wishes, as expressed in general elections. That is why we cannot have two Governments and two Parliaments covering the same subject matter. It is complete, incoherent, absurd nonsense.

[Mrs Main]

My hon. Friend has been tempted on numerous occasions by Opposition Members to debate the merits of in and out, but that is not what today is about. They will not say whether or not they will have a referendum. Today is about whether we will debate that with the public—not in here among ourselves, but take it out to the public. The Opposition want to turn today’s debate into a debate about the merits. I caution my hon. Friend about being seduced by Opposition Members. Make them answer whether they will vote for a referendum.

[Mr Cash]

I think my hon. Friend can be certain that I am not likely to be seduced, either by the Opposition or anybody else, for that matter. I simply say this: this is about the principle of a referendum.

I conclude with a simple statement: this is about trust. It is about trust in people. Because we are doing it through a Bill, as is required, we will give authority through Parliament to have a referendum. That is what this is all about. It is to give the British people their right to have their say. There is no question but that the Bill must pass, but it needs to be secured by a vote on both sides of the House. I am afraid that Opposition Members are neglecting their duty to their constituents if they continue to refuse to support the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dodds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have talked on more than one occasion in this House about the disconnect that now exists between the people and the political class in Parliament. People feel that their concerns are not being given high enough priority and that, with regard to the EU, promises have been broken. On the Lisbon treaty, for example, they believe that the Labour party promised a referendum on the European constitution. I remember before a previous election Tony Blair, with the encouragement of Lord Mandelson, bringing the referendum rabbit out of the hat, but he reneged on that pledge when he got into office, claiming then that there were red lines that they would negotiate and that it was therefore no longer a constitution. The people simply do not believe that.

We have talked about the Lib Dems going back on their promise of an in/out referendum. Reference has been made to the cast-iron guarantee the Prime Minister gave on the Lisbon treaty. I understand the reasons that have been advanced on why that did not happen—for example, the fact that it had already been implemented. Nevertheless, I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow South West that very many people believe that if we had wanted to have a referendum on Lisbon, even after it had been introduced, we could have done if the political will had existed. However, it did not exist, and that was the problem.

[Mr Cash]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in fact fundamental change is going on already, and that that, even without a treaty, is the real reason for having a referendum?

[Mr Dodds]

Yes, I agree. That is why it is not enough merely to have it enshrined in law that there will be a referendum at some future point if there is some new treaty or whatever. There is a continuing erosion of sovereignty and it is therefore important that the matter is brought to a head sooner rather than later.