04/02/2016 House of Commons

hearted apology for my failure to observe this important rule. I thank

the honourable gentleman for what he has said. We now come to the select

committee statement. The chair of the relevant select committee, Mr

Bernard Jenkin, will speak on his subject for up to ten minutes,

during which, as those familiar with the procedure will realise and those

who are not will now learn, no interventions will be taken. At the

conclusion of his statement, I will call or whoever is in the chair will

call, members to put questions on the subject and Mr Bernard Jenkin to

return to those questions. Interventions should be brief and

the front bench may take part in questioning. I call the chair of the

committee, Mr Bernard Jenkin. I am very grateful to the back bed

business committee for the opportunity to make this statement

are now report entitled the collapse of Kid's Company. We found an

extraordinary catalogue of failings of governance had taken part --

taken place in this charity. First may I say how it will be obvious how

many feel blamed by this report but we set about investigating this with

a view to finding lessons to be learned, not to find blame. Unless

we can learn lessons, there will be an increased likelihood that events

like this will be repeated. First on the question of professional firms,

the charity's auditors repeated in every audit letter that reserves in

this charity were very low. The charity never acted on this advice

and instead were keen to trumpet each year what they called a clean

audit. Under questioning, the auditors said the charity had been

living permanently on a knife edge. This sense of urgency was not

communicated in their former adviser to the company. He also candidly

admitted that the count -- the auditors should have informed the

Charity commission of their concerns under section 156 of the charities

act, 2011. Here is a lesson that I hope all auditors will learned. We

also cross-examined PKF, he did an investigation into the governance

and controls of the charity on behalf of the Cabinet Office. We

were concerned about how they evolved the remit of Government

controls and this report came to be of limited value in the Cabinet

Office. Although it was read, it did not have the value that was

intended. This raises the question about how the Government manages

professional firms as well as how they conduct themselves in regards

to their professional responsibilities. We also looked for

advice from PricewaterhouseCoopers but two had so little time in the

run-up to the collapse of Kid's Company, that what they gave us was

a very little value. PWC should have been much more candid with the

Government about how much value their work could be to the

Government. For the Charity commission, the Charity commission

has a statutory duty to tackle abuse and mismanagement in charities. It

did not do so with kids Company. Prior to 2015, the Charity

commission did not engage with Kid's Company as it received very few

complaints. Why did so people -- so few people complain to the Charity

commission, given that this was a charity with mixed reputation for so

long? The Charity commission should have a much higher profile in order

to attract complaints, as an avenue for complaints, and be much more

responsive to concerns raised about the charity.

The Government needs to reverse cuts in the Charity commission to enable

it to carry out its function. We also recommend it takes new powers

to hold hearings and produce reports and recommendations about charities.

It should not fall to a select committee of this house to produce

reports on the activities of individual charities. For the

Government, Kids Company received over 42 million in grants from

central Government across several administrations. It has not had to

compete for a ground since 2013. Other charities have voiced bitter

discontent at the unfairness of this. The Government will need to

work hard to restore faith in the grant giving system of Whitehall.

Kids Company enjoyed unique privileged and significant access to

senior ministers and prime ministers, and leaders of the

opposition of three successive administrations. Some witnesses said

they were intimidated by the support. Questions have been raised

about whether this affected funding decisions. It discouraged people

from raising concerns. Government lacked any objective assessment of

Kids Company's activities and outcomes and the effectiveness of

its governance. Government must improve its capability so it is less

reliant upon external reviews when making assessments about charities.

The civil service should be commended for resisting the hold

that Kids Company had over so many others, but their advice was

overridden. Ministers should not allow Charity representatives to

exploit their access to Government in a way that might biggest route to

be unethical. Ministers should not override or risk creating the

perception that they are overriding official advice to hand over funding

on the basis of personal prejudice or political considerations. This

raises questions about how conflict-of-interest for ministers

are addressed in Government with respect to charity funding. The

awarding of commercial contracts could never have been conducted on

the same basis. The real message of this report is about charity

trustees. It is the same message as our report about charity funding

last week. We found that trustees are some of the most famous names in

the country have failed to understand what was being done in

their name. Both these reports highlight the role of trustees of

charities, the primary responsibility of trustees is the

good governance and maintenance of the reputation of their charities.

The primary responsible at the of Kids Company's collapse rests with

the trustees, who failed in their duty. I do not doubt the good faith

of every trustee who served this charity, I have evidence that some

tried so hard to do the right thing. But the only conclusion anyone can

reach is they either did not know or understand the implications of what

was going on or they knew and failed to act. The Charity commission 's

guidance requires trustees to make decisions solely on the Charity's

interests, so they should not allow their judgment to be swayed by

personal produces or personalities. This appears to be exactly what

happened in Kids Company. It must be in danger of happening in every

charity where there is a powerful and influential founder who has

built up a large charity. The lesson is universal for all trustees. They

did not have the knowledge on the trustee body or the experience of

psychotherapy or youth services to be able to interrogate the operating

model on safeguarding procedures at Kids Company that they should have

had. In conclusion, it would be wrong to scapegoat any single

individual for what occurred, but there are lessons which the house

should draw, the Government should draw, the Charity commission should

draw, the advisers should draw, but most important, that the Government

needs to understand about what went wrong and how this can be rectified

in future. I pay tribute to the honourable member and all members of

the committee for this important report, which has shone a light onto

what is a sorry for all concerned. Not least for those children who

turned to Kids Company in their hour of need. I would like to pay tribute

to the thousands of volunteers and workers in the sector who do so much

to support young people, usually without the same levels of funding

and freedom that Kids Company enjoyed. It is a shame that so much

good work is at risk of being tarnished by this unique failure. I

want to ask the member, having read the report and the evidence given in

the senior civil service, about the way the grants were administered and

whether he feels anything has changed since his report. The

Government have passed a bill to beef up the Charity commission 's

regulation of the sector, especially when it comes to just these. Does he

feel the Government have learned their own lessons? It is clear that

rules which apply to other charities did not apply to Kids Company. They

have not had to compete for a grant for central Government money since

2013. The committee was told by a former Conservative minister that

Kids Company appear to have a lower threshold of proof to get money from

public funds and its Chief Executive is almost the poster girl of the Big

Society summit. I ask whether the Government have actually

acknowledged their role in this saga and have taken any concrete steps to

ensure they never could visit in a charity like this a game? -- they

are never complicit in a charity like this game? It is plain to see

that there was much good work going on. It has been lost. Many

vulnerable young people were dependent upon this charity, and

they have been left forlorn and bereft. The employees and

volunteers, there were many who were deeply committed to the work of that

charity. They feel deeply betrayed what has happened and let down. It

has caused distress. I am pleased to inform the house that out of Kids

Company, there is already evidence of things being salvaged, things

being rebuilt, in the sector. We wish those who are going to fund and

support those things every success, because there is a gap that this

charity was seeking to fill in the needs of our society. Yes, we are

recommending more powers for the Charity commission, even beyond what

is put in this bill. We would like the Charity commission to be

recommending courses for charity trustees, so that trustees have

somewhere to go and learn. The Institute of directors does courses

for nonexecutive directors, where is the equivalent for charity trustees?

They have just an odorous a set of responsibilities. The executive is

not responsible, it is not the chief executive, it is the trustees who

are reliable. It is not just the chairman, it is all of them. We

would like the commission to have powers to hold hearings that are

legally privileged, have a statutory enquiry, so we can hear evidence and

receive evidence that cannot be impugned in the courts. So that

people can go to the commission without fear of their job, of

reprisals, of being traduced in the press if they have concerns about

charities, so the commission can hold proper hearings and people can

speak like they speak to select committees are with neither fear nor

favour. She does raise the question about conflict-of-interest,

ministers did not quite understand. If the senior effective of a charity

appears on a public platform with somebody who becomes Prime Minister,

and is photographed in the Cabinet room with the Prime Minister at the

launch of a Government initiative, there is a mutual interest between

the two of them that is not being reflected in the way that decisions

have been made in this case. If the political or financial interests of

the charity become aligned with the political interests of certain

ministers, ministers like that should remove themselves from those

decisions, as they would in a commercial arrangement. It is a

matter... We are into a new arrangement that we are going to

require the Government to consider this seriously and possibly amend

the code accordingly. The ultimate responsibility for the failure of

Kids Company lay with the Board of Trustees. Does he agree that among

the many lessons to be learned from this sorry episode, the Board of

Trustees should include members with appropriate qualifications for the

sort of charity that they are operating? And that the Board of

Trustees should be regularly refreshed? With Kids Company, the

chairman had been in that role for many years. I would suggest that led

him to become far too close to the Chief Executive and to be dominated

by her. I am grateful for the question and

to all members of the body who were so fully engaged with this enquiry.

They made whole report so much more valuable. He is right about the

appropriate skills that trustee bodies need to have. Very often,

people think, they need business skills come whatever they are. Or

they need accounting skills, or some kind of technical skills. They need

other skills, in the sector with which the charity is operating.

There was nobody with psychotherapy experience, this is a

psychotherapeutic charity, or with youth sector experience. They also

need people who are able to hold the right kind of conversations, who are

fearless about hearing what needs to be heard, who are capable of

confronting people if necessary, but with kindness and understanding, so

that truth gets into the Charity commission -- trustees and the

messages are heard. This charity prided itself on being open and

consensual, but the evidence is it was precisely the opposite, a lot of

people were fearful of people wanting to suppress the truth,

because the truth was so difficult to deal with. It was tickled for

individuals to deal with. If there is not truth, there will be no

enlightenment or judgment. There is no substitute for trustees

exercising broad and enlightened common sense and judgment it is not

just about sets of skills. We need to hold the answer is a bit shorter.

I pay tribute to the chairman of the committee, it was a harrowing

experience for all of us, and he handled it so well, in a difficult

situation. I ask him to comment a bit further on the role of

journalists and media in this enquiry, because is it not a fact

that, without the incredibly detailed work done by somebody like

the spectator to publish when nobody else was prepared to do it, and that

journalist had to go round all of the media who did not want to know,

because of some of the issues that my honourable friend has referred

to, does he not think that this is even more important now, the role of

the media and the role of Freedom of Information? I agree with everything

she says. There were journalists who tried to get things published but

the editors, the publications who might have carried these messages,

they were also scared of confronting what appeared to be a very powerful

charity with very great influence to the heart of Government. There is a

message there. There is a message for the Charity commission. Why

didn't those journalists... Even when things were published, why were

they not invited into the question, tell us what you think is going on?

I hope journalists will feel a sense of obligation not to necessarily

reveal their sources or anything like that, but where they think a

big charity is in serious trouble, they should go to the Charity

commission and offer their advice. It would be a public spirited thing

to do. They would do it for something in respect of a serious

risk to national security, they should do it for the security of the

charitable sector as well. I agree with my honourable colleague in

paying tribute to our chairman, who let this enquiry, and also to the

staff of the select committee, who did some valuable work in the course

of the enquiry. The last charge of Government money of ?3 million was

given a sickly to facilitate restructuring, but there was a

programme that Ed on BBC One last night which I was surprised to see,

because I was given the impression by that programme that the

management and Chief Executive had other ideas as to how that money was

going to be spent. I wonder if I could ask if we know whether the 2

million balance of the spent ?3 million that was given has been

recovered by Government at all, and whether there are going to be any

further investigations into this money passing to Kids Company,

virtually 24 hours before it shut down, or whether the report is the

end of the matter? That's I think that last question is

a very interesting one. There is an investigation going on, conducted by

the official receiver. The receiver should be able to tell us what

happened to that money and if any money is due to be returned to the

Government. I'm afraid I'm not a legal expert but I think once the

Government handed over the money, it belonged to the charity, it no

belong -- it no longer belonged to the Government, and whilst the

Government may be a creditor, I think it would have before make you

behind others and the Government might have do except that the

employees who lost their implement very abruptly are entitled to some

form of recompense, perhaps out of those funds. The answer is, I don't

know. What was evident from that programme last night was how the

restructuring was being resisted to the very end and I'm not sure if

that was acknowledged by the minister who signed the letter of

direction. I would also like to pay tribute to the staff of the

committee. They don't usually like their name up in lights and it is

not the tradition of the House but we are very fortunate in our

committee. We have very good staff. Having watched the BBC documentary

last night and seen the founder of Kids Company love about breaking the

law and be dismissive of the money that has handed out so freely by

successive governments, it is clear that lessons must be learned. Brash,

flamboyant characters who are favoured by six -- by senior

politicians must not be associated with those who work with charities

with the best of intentions. This report should only be an opening

salvo and must be followed up. I am grateful to the honourable gentleman

and this is an opening cellphone. This is a question of governance.

The question of governance extends beyond charities. It questions how

the whole of charities are governed. This is about looking at those who

are accountable for what occurs. I commend him and his committee for

his report and for his statement to the house today. In pages 47 to 49

of the excellent report, he is excoriating in his criticism of the

two Government ministers who signed off the ministerial direction in

June 2015 to give Kids Company ?3 million against the advice of the

permanent secretary of the Cabinet Office. One of those ministers the

Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, was good to give evidence

and has shown courtesy to the house by being here today. The other, the

Paymaster General, does not appear to have given evidence to his

committee and is not in the house today. In his report, the chairman

rights, in neither his letter of direction nor his oral evidence has

missed the lead when provided convincing justification for his and

Mr Hancock's decision to ignore the advice of senior officials will This

grant should not have been authorised contrary to advice. Can

we expect a ministerial apology from both ministers involved and a clear

explanation of how the ?2 million that is still missing will be found?

I have heard everything that my honourable friend has said and the

report speaks for itself. I hope very much that the Government will

give a full and clear explanation in response to this report. I have

never doubted the integrity of the two ministers that signed that

letter of direction. I think we must wait for the Government 's response

and in the end, I am not responsible for that response. Can I add the

name of Harriet Sergeant who exposed this fraud. This was British

journalism at its very best and the report is the select committee at

its very best, exposing the waist, the extravagance and delusions of

this sad episode which has robbed far better charities of vital funds

to help children in distress. Coming from this, isn't it vital that the

ministers involved in ignoring this letter of direction are their

conduct in a considered way with regards to the Minister for conduct

and it is crucial that the buck stops at the Prime Minister for this

terrible waste. We should have broken the two blue, I believe,

because this charity was linked in every way with the big societies

stunt that was being run by the Prime Minister at the time, so the

Prime Minister should have given evidence to us. This matter will not

be set to rest until the Prime Minister explains why he set up what

was virtually a slush fund for getting funds moved into the Cabinet

Office in a way that was wrong, damaging to many of the children who

were helped by Kids Company, but very, very damaging to those

charities who could prove the worth of their actions. Kids Company never

did that, never giving statements, never giving evidence, and should we

look forward to this never happening again and money is being moved out

of the Cabinet Office control as to much it is in the nature of politics

that some people will always be ready to try to pin the blame and

try to extract some action as a result of pinning the blame. I hope

I am conducting this committee in a way that all the members of the

committee support, which is that we get so much more from our witnesses

and I think our reports have more authority if we are not trying to

pin individual blame. The house will have heard what he has said. I think

he also touched on a very important issue. Why youth funding was moved

from the Department for Education to the Cabinet Office. We did not get

an explanation for that, except a denial that it had anything to do

with wanting to be able to continue funding Kids Company when the

Department for Education had clearly become there are reluctant to

continue doing so. -- very reluctant to continue doing so. One of our

conclusions is that departments should be responsible for allocating

funding to outside bodies, not the Cabinet Office, because the Cabinet

Office is just too close to the centre of political power and that

creates an impression that decisions are being influenced. The libel

fund, for example, is clearly a very worthwhile initiative, but any

suggestion that it is a fund under the control of the Chancellor of the

Exchequer should be checked. Somewhat tighter answers would be

appreciated. These are way too long. Can I thank my honourable friend and

the committee for the work they have done. Do they intend to review the

extent to which the rag inundation is -- the recommendations they have

made in this report will be complied with in the future? We always make

sure that our recommendations are followed up and the Government has

to give a very clear response to them. Mr Speaker, I commend the

honourable gentleman and the committee for this report and I

think the focus of governance is vital. For our part, the Public

Accounts Committee is clear that the taxpayers money must be followed

wherever it goes. In the evidence that we had, there was clearly a

reluctance for a call for ministerial direction because of the

relationship of the Secretary of State. Has he thought any more about

ministerial direction? There has been consequence of the role of

ministerial direction. The former Cabinet member responsible for that

urged people to ask the ministerial direction in order to facilitate

directors being made and it was understandable, as he felt some

decisions were being blocked. On the other hand, I think senior civil

servants pride themselves on a good relationship of trust with their

ministers and are therefore reluctant to reach for the

requirement of full direction. They would rather have a relationship

with their directors which is based upon a proper shared understanding

of what the issues of the situation are. I side with the civil servants

on that, I think. It would be impossible for civil servants to

give their advice to ministers if it went too far the other way. Can I

apologise to the House for only just arriving here. I have been speaking

to the group of schoolchildren from my constituency and I could not make

that -- miss that. I would like to thank the chair for getting a good

job done on this report. I caught the tail end of what my honourable

friend was saying and I would sympathise with a lot of what he was

saying and my honourable friend, the chair of the Public Accounts

Committee, I agree that the NA oh should have a look at this when

funding is being given in this way and I hope this kind of thing will

not ever happen again and that this report will go some way to mending

fences for the future. That being said, I think this is possibly the

tip of an iceberg. I think this story will continue and there is

probably a lot more we have not reported on. I wanted to say my few

words. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I'm sure the House will agree that the

chamber's loss was the schoolchildren's game. Thank you, Mr

Speaker. I am grateful for his support on the work of the committee

I will pick up that he says this must never happen again. I can say

for sure that it will happen again. The question is, do we have a system

in place that can learn each time it happens and rectify and prepare for

the future, ensuring it happens less and less often. That is what our

recommendations are about. Can I congratulate the honourable member

and his committee but bringing this forward. What role should the Care

Quality Commission have played in inspecting some of the services that

Kids Company claimed to have been providing? There seemed to be a gap

that they could have shown that the numbers did not add up. Can I

congratulate them and of Southwark Council who stepped up to ensure

that vulnerable young people received help quickly after Kids

Company collapsed. There is still some discussion to be had about what

gaps in provision really do exist and I am grateful to that gentleman.

On the question he raises about inspection, this is an important

matter. Ofsted did go into parts of Kids Company. I don't think the

executives of the charity found that very welcome. If social services are

going to be inspected, maybe there is a case for inspecting charities

of this nature, particularly if they are in receipt of public funds and

they have safeguarding responsibilities. Charity should be

treated in the same way as social services and boarding schools.

Notwithstanding what I said earlier about the slow progress, the

honourable gentleman has received and he warmly deserves the

appreciation of the hassle bringing on behalf of committee this Berry

important report for us. It is a practical expression of the

honourable gentleman's decades long commitment to this House, its

centrality to the Government. We now come to the backbench motion

on Parliamentary Southern tree and EU renegotiations. -- sovereignty.

To move the motion, I call Mr John Baron. Mr Speaker, you have been

very generous. I beg to move the motion in my name and other members,

and I thank the back edge business committee for granting the debate

and those on both sides of the House who have supported the application

-- I thank the backbench business committee. There is adding more

important to defend down the country's sovereignty, it goes to

the heart of everything we do. Without it, we cannot truly have the

final say on a host of issues, including the primacy of our laws,

the integrity of our borders or the extent of burdensome regulation. As

the re-negations proceed, it appears that little effort is being made to

truly restore Parliamentary sovereignty -- renegotiations. It is

not a priority and I think this is a great opportunity missed. We have a

golden opportunity to pitch for fundamental change in our

relationship with the EU as the prime Minster promised in his

speech. For the benefit of both. -- Prime Minister. Number ten is

tinkering at the edges, without consulting his Parliamentary party,

the Prime Minister is sidestepping the issue by arguing for temporary

measures, measures which require us to club together with other

parliaments in the vain hope of stopping the EU. This is not

restoring Parliamentary sovereignty. If we as a parliament and country on

our own cannot stop any unwanted EU taxes or directives or laws, it is

clear that if we vote to stay we vote to stay on the conveyor belt

towards ever closer union is laid out in the founding Treaty of the

EU. Parliament will become nothing more than just a chamber of Europe.

Council chamber. To those who said that the UK already accept is a

certain pooling or loss of sovereignty when joining other

international organisations, I say only the EU can force us to take

economic migrants despite the strain on our infrastructure and can

override our laws, and voiced burdensome regulation on our

companies, despite the vast majority are not even trading with the EU. --

forest. By all means. I would like to congratulate you on raising this

very important issue. The great 19th-century constitutionalists

divided politics into the effective part of the Constitution and the

decorative parts, and this place must be the effective part and not

just the decoration will stop I completely agree. That is why the

issue of sovereignty goes to the very core of our relationship with

the EU and if we don't take this opportunity to address it now, it

could be lost for a generation. I wonder if all those years ago, in

power was right, and we have been dodging this issue ever since --

Enoch Powell. The question posed by him was this, if you join the EU,

this chamber and this House loses its sovereignty, and now an historic

moment is approaching and the British people have to make that

choice, will they be claimed that sovereignty or not? -- reclaim. I

can only repeat what I said to my colleague on the opposite benches, I

completely agree, and I do regret that there has been a lack of

consultation with regards to the proposals in this renegotiation and

betting games went with the Parliamentary party, perhaps with

Parliament generally, given we are representatives of would have been

very useful indeed -- and with the Parliamentary party. And the failure

to consult with the national governments of Wales, Scotland and

Northern Ireland? I regret wide consultation generally with regards

the renegotiation, when many of us were campaigning at the last

parliament for a referendum in this, it was in the hope that we would

have a meaningful debate prior to the renegotiation and then a

meaningful debate afterwards, as we headed to a referendum. I'm just

going to make a bit more progress and then I will take further

interventions. Unconscious of time, as well. And now to the so-called

red card, we appear to have a system which has more holes in it than a

Swiss cheese. It is more like a lottery ticket that has been through

the wash, the question is, is it valid? The idea is that we clubbed

together and form a majority with other national parliaments to stop

unwanted EU taxes and laws but this would not enable our Parliament to

reject anything it did not want. This would be an extension of the

ineffectual yellow card system currently in operation, but with an

even higher threshold. We should be clear, as the Lord Haig once put it

in this chamber when referring to the system that was in operation

then, very similar to what is being proposed now, he said, given the

difficulty of opposition winning a vote in their Parliament, the odds

against doing so in 14 countries around Europe with different

Parliamentary recesses lasting up to ten weeks on our own case such that

even if the European Commission proposed the slaughter of the first

four it would be difficult to achieve such remarkable conjunction

of Parliamentary voices in such a short period of time. The lottery

ticket system will not work, it will be like a football referee getting

out his fraction of a red card, to have two then consult with 14 other

officials before deciding what to do. By which time the game is over.

If we are really serious about regaining control of our borders and

fisheries, the ability to set our own trade deals and the power to set

our own business regulation, then Southern Chi -- sovereignty must be

restored. Everything else is a sell-out or a fraud. We should be

clear that the washed out lottery ticket. Sorry to stop you in the

midst of that wonderful metaphor, but can I put it to him that one of

the real problems with the mentality of those who subscribe to the EU

project is that instead of being honest enough to say that -- to say

no to people who would like to stay at, they say things which fudge the

issue. I agree, but the Minister on the front bench is nothing but a

purchase and very able minister and I'm delighted he is in his place. I

would not want him to be under the illusion is that we are suggesting

this is of him, but there is a tendency of acting out this Sherrard

when actually we have been on the conveyor belt of ever closer union

-- charade. By all means. In this document, which was published this

week, the draft decision, there is a section called sovereignty but if

there was ever a misnamed section of a document, it is this. The one

thing this does not return to the United Kingdom Parliament is

sovereignty over the laws which are made for this country, and it

promises a red card which is no more than another extremely cumbersome

method of qualified majority voting in the European Union. I cannot but

agree with by right honourable friend. Anyone want to disagree?

There will be people, don't worry. Can I turn, if I make it to the

immigration emergency brake. I speak with sadness, because I think the

government has framed this part of the debate in the wrong way. Let's

be clear, the emergency brake accessed in work benefits will only

last four years and with the EU not Britain judging whether the

emergency brake is declared. Not even here do we have control. It is

also not clear after what happens after the period expires, benefits

will be increased, so it is moot how much of a deterrent the break will

be, but my sadness is that I believe the government is wrong to catch the

debate in these terms because it feeds into a negative narrative

about immigrants. It ignores the fact that almost all of the vast

majority of immigrants from the EU, they come to Britain to work hard.

They are not looking to benefits. It ignores the fact that large-scale EU

immigration cannot be stopped in all truthfulness while we adhere to the

founding principle of freedom of movement. Especially because the

rise in the living wage will pick that up in speed. I'm fed up of

listening to politicians saying that we keep focusing on benefits and

playing to the gallery in many respects, because it is wrong to do

so. It feeds a negative narrative, the vast majority of immigrants,

let's be clear, they come here to work hard. We should acknowledge

that fact. Let's have clarity about the emergency brake, which after all

can only be used by the EU back-seat driver. As we all know, we know how

dangerous that can be. Mr Speaker, let's address these banks and make

clear that the government's renegotiation has massive holes in

these key planks -- address these planks. But some people this will

not be important, but I say it is important. Because while the general

view might be that we are standing still while inside the EU, we are in

fact standing still on the conveyor belt towards ever closer union.

Let's be clear about that. The lessons of the Eurozone crisis is

that the EU usually finds a way of achieving what it wants, ever closer

union, even at the expense of violating its commitments. As

Jean-Claude Juncker said, when it becomes serious, you have two lie.

These are the words of the president. The president of the

European Commission. The EU is developing all the trappings of a

nation state, a currency, a body of law, a diplomatic service, and it

makes no secret of its ambitions or its determination to succeed even if

this results in the Democratic deficit with its own people. You

only have two here what has been said by some of the key people

within the EU. Jean-Claude Juncker has made his position very clear,

"If it is a yes, we say, on we go, and if it is a no, we say, we will

continue". Angela Merkel has made clear her wishes. " We want more

Europe and stronger powers to intervene". Martin Schultz, the

president of the European Parliament has been a very blunt, "The UK

belongs to the EU". The former president of the commission has cast

light on to the EU's integration process. "They Must go on voting

until they get it right" for stop if things do not change, the UK is

going to be captive on a journey to who knows where. Looking into voting

at the EU Council of ministers, academics based at the London School

of economics, and there has been little research about this, so this

is interesting, but these academics had shown that in recent years

Britain has voted against the majority, far more often, and being

on the losing side more than any other member state. It is not as if

it is getting better within the internal structures of the EU. The

British people never signed up to this, it is therefore right that

they are their final say. In the referendum. Does the British

government truly believe it can muster sufficient votes to stop this

inexorable vote towards ever closer union? That is one of the key

questions in such a try and answer today. Very briefly, yes. -- should

try. He mentioned many well-known people in the European Union, isn't

one of the things that binds them altogether in relation to this

debate, they are not elected, and in this parliament we had no say in who

these people are and that we can't get rid of them, and as Tony Benn

said, if you can't get rid of the people that are in an institution,

that it is not democratic. I very much agree with the

honourable lady. I think there is a democratic deficit within the EU. I

think it is no coincidence that the European Parliament now, after the

last elections, is probably the most Eurosceptic parliament in the EU's

history. I think the EU needs to recognise that they need to put this

democratic deficit absolutely right. Would my honourable friend agree

that even the elected people such as Daniel... You can't get rid of him

because he is number one of ten or 11 in the Houses of Parliament? I

think there are many flaws with the system and I think that the peoples

of Europe, I'm not going to generalise too much in this respect,

I think they are asking more and more questions, particularly as the

system, the EU, is failing to deliver, particularly on the

economic front. Mass unemployment, for example, is causing great

hardship in many countries. The EU is failing to deliver. I think I've

allowed the gentleman to intervene once already. No? In that case I

give way. Would he accept that this is not just an academic debate about

sovereignty but this is a nation that goes -- an issue that goes to

the very core of social cohesion. If people feel they cannot change those

who make decisions then we have all kinds of trouble and tensions on our

streets, and that is the core of this issue. Democratic institutions

are important for the well-being of society. I agree, very well put. It

is terribly important there is an element of democratic

accountability, because if not you will alienate sections of society

and you will have issues such as unemployment not being properly

addressed. How are those people going to voice their opinions

without moving to the extremes of the political divide and feed that

extremism come because they don't feel they can be democratically

represented within the existing structures? One more time. With my

honourable friend agree there is a practical sides of the issues of

sovereignty as well, because as member of the EU, we have lost our

sovereign ability to negotiate friendly or free trade agreements

with the major economies around the world. It would be in this country's

interest to have friendly trading agreements with the big economies

like America, China, Japan, but we can't do that because we have lost

our seat at the World Trade Organisation and our membership of

the EU forbids us from making such negotiations. I think that's

absolutely right and it is a question of sovereignty at the end

of the day. If we can't take our seat at the World Trade Organisation

and negotiate our deals... I'm conscious time is ticking on so I

will make some progress if colleagues will forgive me. Please.

In my view, the Prime Minister misses the importance of

parliamentary sovereignty in the EU debate. I think this is a debate

that -- a mistake that number ten is in danger of making, because I

suggest it is focusing too heavily on project via issues such as

immigration and jobs, but we all know it is the loss of parliamentary

sovereignty which lies at the heart of our uneasy relationship with the

EU and which has rankled since we first joined in the 1970s. Over the

course of the referendum campaign I do not believe project fear will

bite. Many businesses make clear they will not pull out in the event

of a Brexit. Indeed one report suggested that a Brexit would be

beneficial to the UK. Given the vast trade deficit is in the EU's favour,

they would want to sign an agreement at the end of a Brexit. Even if the

Brexit wanted to get awkward, they couldn't. Falling global tariffs

since the 1970s mean that both the UK and the EU are bound by those

tariffs, the USA's being under 3%. Many countries, smaller countries

outside the EU that easily trade with it, does the in camp really

believe that we would not be able to do likewise? What does excite

voters's imagination is the ability to restore sovereignty to our

Parliament. I rather suspect the Prime Minister knows this and he

consequently is holding something in reserve when it comes to the

sovereignty issue. We are hearing something about a sovereignty bill.

Details ask and but if true, does it not acknowledge that the washed out

lottery ticket and the EU back-seat driver are not fit for purpose? Will

the Minister supply the house today with more details? In conclusion, Mr

Speaker, there has never been a better time to renegotiate our

relationship with the EU. Nor are we ever more likely to be in a stronger

position to win meaningful concessions. So I urge the Prime

Minister at this critical stage to return to the negotiations that week

nothing less than a true getting back of parliamentary sovereignty.

If the EU did not exist today, would we really invent it? What I cannot

understand is why this and other governments have acquiesced in this

Gerard Tubb. I can only surmise because it is easier not to correct

it and to do nothing than to put it right and put in action. In action

is costing this country dear, not just tenderly pounds by way of a net

contribution a year, but by way of our sovereignty and responsibility

to the people of this country. Order. The question is as on the

order paper. On account of the number of honourable members who

wish to contribute to this debate, I'm afraid it will be necessary for

me to start with a six minute limit on backbench speeches. Mr Hopkins.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm very grateful for the opportunity to

speak in this debate. It is a very important debate and I congratulate

the last honourable member for his excellent speech. I want to address

some of my colleagues on this side of the house who remain in favour of

staying in the EU, because I think they are mistaken. I want to make a

few points in that regard. The honourable member talked about no,

but we have a number of opt outs which have saved as some of the pain

of being a member of the European Union and I think those are very

good, particularly those on the euro. And we been a member of the

euro, we would have been destroyed by the crisis in 2008. He protected

our economy to an extent from that terrible experience. Other countries

in southern Europe had much greater difficulties and they are still

suffering now. Currency frights ability -- currency flexibility, so

that countries can adapt to appropriate parities with other

countries is absolutely fundamental to having a successful world economy

let alone a national or European economy. The question of the single

currency, does he not agree with me that one of the more ridiculous

parts of this document published yesterday as the idea that we need

to have permission from the European Union in order for them to recognise

that we have more than one currency in the European Union? Given that

Sweden voted in a referendum to stay out of the euro successfully and at

the time they didn't even have an opt out as negotiated in the

Maastricht Treaty for the United Kingdom, isn't it clear that if you

have got your own currency they can't take it away and we don't need

a treaty change or anything to tell us... Absolutely. I've had the

pleasure of being a member of the European scrutiny committee for many

years now and that represents comments from other parliaments and

Swedish parliament representatives tell me that the support for joining

the euro is now at 11% in Sweden so I suspect they will not be joining

any time soon. We have also heard from Czechs and as soon as you

suggest that they might be joining the euro, they say basically never

is that feeling. One or two other countries joined the euro and maybe

think it's not such a good idea now and they might like to withdraw if

they could. But the fact that we are saying that there are many several

currencies in the European Union is absolutely the truth, there are

several countries which retain their own currency. Some years ago I met

some Polish representatives and I said whatever you do, don't join the

euro. If you want to run your economy successfully, it will not be

good for Poland. Not that my advice mattered, but nevertheless they have

not joined the euro. I see no prospect of them doing that in the

near future. I wanted to talk about other opt outs. One of the issues

I've campaigned about in this house for some time is about the Common

fisheries policy which I think is absolutely bizarre and a complete

nonsense, to have thousands if not millions of tonnes of fish just

destroyed by dumping them back in the sea went dead, and of course

fish stocks being savagely cut. The only way forward is for countries to

be responsible for their own fish stocks so that they will then

husband their own resources and fish in their own seas and manage all the

fishing that takes place in their own seas, like the Norwegians do,

which is much better. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The member makes a very

important point. Does he agree with me that it's a real pity that the

Government has missed the opportunity of treaty change around

the common fisheries policy, which has been an absolute disaster for

the Scottish fishing community? Indeed. I thank him for his

intervention. I was going to go on that I have raised this with a

former representative who came to speak to us at the European scrutiny

committee a couple of years ago and I said if we gave notice, I

suggested this to the previous Coalition Government, I said if we

gave notice that in say five years' time we wanted to withdraw from the

common fisheries policy and keep the 250 mile limit and start to manage

fish stocks properly, basically for our own fishing industry, with every

boat and every catch on its own, as happens in Norway, if we gave notice

we wanted to withdraw from the common filler -- common fisheries

policy, what would happen? He said he would be expelled from the

European Union straightaway. If the Government put this into their

negotiations there might be a bit more persuasive, I think. I've got a

list of things that I would want in my negotiations, not being followed

by the Government, but the common fisheries policy getting rid of is

one of them. We have the most successful fishing industry in the

whole of the European Union and it has been devastated by overfishing

and since then the appalling throwing away by catches. That is

just to make a point that getting real change, we would be thrown out,

apparently. So the substantial changes that I want to see would not

be acceptable. Yesterday people were talking about the common

agricultural policy, another nonsensical policy that has cost us

dear. We make massive net contributions to the European Union

simply because of the common agricultural policy. I think every

country ought to be able to manage its own agriculture. Some choose to

subsidise agriculture like the Norwegians for their own strategic

reasons and I think that's perfectly acceptable and we could choose the

same. Each country could do their own. One of the nonsenses of the

common agricultural policy is that some countries have been paid not to

grow food. I was in Lithuania a couple of years ago with the

honourable member, the chair of the European scrutiny committee, and he

remembered that Lithuania used to be self-sufficient in food. Now there

are thousands of acres of Lithuania being laid Fallow because they are

being paid not to grow food. I think that's nonsense and it's all to do

with the common agricultural policy. He is making a very important point

because in Northern Ireland one of the issues is, if we were to leave

the EU, what would happen to farming subsidies? Farming subsidies are

better tailored to the individual needs of individual countries rather

than a common policy, which very often fails to meet the needs of

farmers in our country. He's absolutely right and I agree with

him. Of course, by withdrawing we could keep all the subsidies as they

are and still benefit by the net loss of some say 19 billion and some

say 14 billion, but it is in the many billions. We could eliminate

the net loss and still subsidise regional policy and all sorts of

other policies as well. What we do then is tailored to our own national

and regional needs and the nations of the United Kingdom as well. One

thing I wanted to come onto was the so-called sham of social Europe,

which I believe is a complete sham. It is used as a lever to persuade

social Democratic and socialist parties to say yes to the European

Union but when it comes to the crunch, this will not necessarily

impress members on the other side but this site is I hope, they always

find in favour of employers. Free movement is about bidding down wages

and making sure that wages are kept down and profits archetype. It's

part of the neoliberal package of measures that is being driven by the

European Union. When it comes to a crunch like Greece and some of the

other European countries which have had bailouts, one of the conditions

of bailouts is to have a break on collected by the. They say you've

got to cut down your employees especially in the public sector

because they want to cut down on relative bargaining. That's hardly

social Europe. What about the rights involved in the Charter of

fundamental rights? And of course then we have the conditions of

bailouts, forced privatisations. Via sales of public assets in these

countries. The biggest problem has been mass

output and falling living standards, output and falling living standards,

Greece is the most extreme example, but other countries have suffered.

Greece has a living standards cut by 25% and unemployment at 25% and 50%

across showing people in southern Europe. It is a nonsense, it is not

work economically and the idea that it is beneficial to workers is

nonsense and not true. Of course. Would he agree that predominantly

because of what you are saying... The time is up. Very courteous, much

more than I needed, but do you want to finish blurting out what you

wanted to say? Isn't this way the trade union movement and trade

unionism across the country are catching on to this and speaking out

and beginning to join and get involved in the campaign to leave?

Excellent. A one word sentence, magnificent. Thank you. Sir William

Cash. I congratulate my honourable friend for introducing this debate.

I have to say this has been a very long journey. 30 years in all. I

don't want to speak about the technicalities and the negotiation,

we will deal with that when the Foreign Secretary appears in front

of the European scrutiny committee on the 10th of February. I would

much rather say a few words, and I said a few words yesterday in reply

to the Prime Minister, and what I want to do is simply to indicate

what it is that I really feel about this question, why I am so utterly

and completely determined to maintain the sovereignty of this

United Kingdom Parliament. It is very simple, Mr Speaker. You see, we

are elected, by the voters in our constituencies, and we come here and

have done for many centuries to represent their grievances and their

interests, to fight for their prosperity, to support them in

adversity. The reason why this House has to remain sovereign, is because

it simply can't be subordinated to the decisions that are taken by

other people, this is about this country and this is about our

electors, this is what people fought and died for. If I may say, when my

right honourable friend the Prime Minister, as I mentioned yesterday,

in his speech, referred to the National Parliament as being the

root of our democracy, I would also mentioned that in our history this

Parliament has been steeped in the blood, it has been nourished by

Civil War. When you're great predecessor -- you're great

predecessor refused to accept an armed aggression by the monarchy, in

defiance of prospective tyranny, this was about sovereignty, this was

about defending the rights of the people from unnecessary and

oppressive taxation which was being imposed upon them without

Parliamentary authority. And then through subsequent centuries, the

repeal of the corn laws, obtaining parliamentary reform, in the 1867

act to make sure that the working man should be in title to take part

in this democracy. And then after that, through to the 1930s, when we

had to take account of the mood of appeasement. I say this with respect

to the Prime Minister and to the Minister, I'd take the view that in

completely different circumstances what has happened in these

negotiations in terms of Parliamentary sovereignty, when the

die is cast, when we have an opportunity for the first time since

1975 to make a decision on behalf of the British people, having regard to

the massive failures of the European Union, to the dysfunctionality

whether that is in the economics field or immigration, in relation to

the question of defence, a range of matters which are absolutely

essential to our sovereignty, they have all within the framework of the

European Union been made subject to the criticism that it is better,

they argue, that we would be more secure if we stayed in the European

Union, we would preserve the sovereignty of these people, we

would preserve the sovereignty of our electors who elect us to make

these decisions and make the laws which govern them. That we would be

more secure by being in a completely dysfunctional, insecure and stable

Europe. Of course we wouldn't. The issues before us are actually to do

with the sovereignty, because if we lose this sovereignty we betray the

people, that is the point I make. There are certain obliges use to

cooperation and trade and all these things, and I agree with it, always,

but I will not argue for this chamber, this Parliament, the right

of these people, who wrote for us, to be sold -- who vote for us, to be

subordinated, to put us into the second part of a 2-tier Europe,

which would be governed by the dominant country in the Eurozone

which is Germany. I will give way. Thanks. Would he agree that one of

the most worrying sentences in the document published this week is

about what will occur if the Eurozone six to deepen the

integration, and it says member states shall not impede the

implementation of legal axe directly linked to the functioning of the

euro -- six to deepen the integration. Given that there is

going to be a new treaty, we do not know how it will affect us, is Ms

effectively giving up our veto? -- isn't that. We were promised that in

1972, it was a voluntary decision based on certain assumptions, and in

the 1971 White Paper which actually preceded that debate it said we will

never give up the veto and it went on to say that because to do so

would be against our vital national interests and would endanger the

very fabric of the European Community. They knew which way it

could go, they knew they had to keep the veto and it has been taken away

from us, progressively, by successive governments. These

negotiations, when you cut through the appearances, it is a sham, that

is a problem. This is the real issue. You are so right to raise

this above may technicalities. Is not the blood of all those

parliamentarians who have died in defence of this House the seedcorn

of our liberties? I 100% agree. This is not about technicalities, this is

about freedom of choice. Freedom of choice in the ballot box to have

your own laws, which you can challenge, Canterbury, not by

proportional representation, not by European Parliament --

accountability. To hatch out deals on behalf of the people who are

actually being affected by them in their daily lives, this is the

problem. We have wordsmiths, people running around in chauffeur driven

cars making decisions, unelected bureaucrats, that is the problem, Mr

Speaker. We have actually reached a point of no return. We have to say

no, we have to leave, that is the position I don't need to say any

more as far as I'm concerned, this is about the liberties of this

country. It is about the liberties of our people, this is why I say we

must leave the European Union and I will finally quote, if I may, GK

Chesterton and John Gower. Smile at ask pay us, pass ask but do not

quite forget, for we are the people of England, that had never spoken

yet -- smiled at us, paid us, pass us. I'm disappointed there are so

few of my colleagues here who wish to defend the EU and speak against

the sovereignty of this Parliament, but they are not here so I will say

a few words. What I want to say that and we are talking that great

parliamentarians, I want to quote some of those things which were said

by one of the greatest parliamentarians, sadly now dead,

Tony Benn, in this house and I think some of those things, following on

from the right honourable member, and I agree with everything he said,

this is not about technicalities and wordsmiths, this is not about

Eurocrats, this is about fundamentally our belief in our

country and the belief in our country to run itself. Two things,

this was a letter he wrote to his Bristol constituents in December

1974, I think you were probably were born, Mr Speaker. " Britain's

continuing membership of the community would mean the end of

Britain as a self-governing nation and the end of our democratically

elected parliament as the supreme lawmaking body in the United

Kingdom", and he then made a speech in the Cabinet when they were

discussing the Labour view on how they should vote in the leaving

referendum in 1975. The party was very split. He says, "We have

confused the real issue of Parliamentary democracy for there

has been a fundamental change, the power of MPs other ministers has

gone and the role of minsters has changed, the real case for entry has

never been spelt out which is that there should be a fully federal

Europe in which we become a province, it has not been spelt out

because people would never accept it, we are at the moment on a

federal escalator, moving as we talk, going towards a federal

objective we do not wish to reach, in practice, Britain will be

governed by a European Coalition Government that we can't change,

dedicated to a capitalist or market economy theology. This policy is to

be sold to us by projecting an unjustified optimism about the

community and an unjustified pest is about the United Kingdom, designed

to frighten us -- pessimism. ". He then mentions Jim, I imagine Jim

Callaghan. "The Common market will break up the UK, because there will

be no valid and men against an independent Scotland with its own

ministers and Commissioner -- valid argument. It will impose appalling

strains on the Labour movement, and I believe that we want independence

and democratic self-government and I hope the Cabinet in due course will

think again". In 1975 he gave another speech, "It would be

inconceivable for the house to adjourn for Easter without recording

the fact that last Friday the merchant shipping act was referred

to the European Court, and I want to make it clear to the house that we

are, in Britain, unless we repeal section two of the European

Community 's act, it is no good talking about being a good European.

We are all good Europeans, that is a matter of geography or stop the

arrangements under which are governed such that we have broken

the link between the electorate and the laws under which they are

governed close? -- governed? He says when people voted in an action they

must be entitled to know that the party for which they voted will be

able to enact laws under which they will be governed, but that is no

longer true, any party elected, Conservative or Labour, canola say,

vote for me, and if I have a majority, I will pass that law --

cannot say. " Very apt, although she is a go. Even more apt today, which

is why I believe that this house must be sovereign, the Prime

Minister's negotiations have failed to look at that and that is why the

people, women get this referendum, will finally have the chance to say

no to this undemocratic, anti-democratic and anti democracy

as we want to have it in this country -- when we get this

referendum. Thank you, Mr Speaker. On this day of all days I commenced

by striking, I hope, a note of humility. The truth is I don't know

whether the inclusion I have reached is right or wrong. I think the

problem that we face in questioning our consciences as to whether or not

our country should take this historic step to depart from the

European Union is almost too big for a single individual to compute. All

of the potential economic consequences, all of the other

consequences on our social and other fabric, they are of a complexity

with which individuals would rightly feel daunted and even members of

Parliament. Not just for now, thank you. So I think the Prime Minister

was right, Mr Speaker. Right and completely right when he said to the

house this week, do what is in your heart. We can never be sure if we

leave the European Union that the economic consequences of doing so

will play one way or the other. We can have faith that it will.

Speaking for myself, I have that faith. Ultimately we have to ask

ourselves what do we believe is right. What is important to ours as

members of Parliament and as representatives of our country and

our constituents. That is why sitting here late this -- listening

to my honourable friend the member for Stone, I think he struck the

right note. For a long time I have remained silent on this issue.

Trying to wrestle with the rights and wrongs of it and waiting until

we have seen the final version of the proposals to be made by the

Prime Minister. We now have the draft decision published by the

coalition the day before yesterday. I have to say and have read it and I

do not believe it is a sham. I believe it is the best the Prime

Minister can do within the parameters he set himself. I believe

there is much useful stuff there and if it is worked on and the detail is

provided and it's sufficiently substantial and drafted well, no

doubt it will provide some modest measure of satisfaction and some

ring fencing for us in a thoroughly fundamentally unsatisfactory

position. But I do not believe that it amounts to a rewriting of the DNA

of this organisation, which I believe the country is crying out

for. So for that reason, Mr Speaker, I have concluded, and it is the

first time I have said though, that I shall be obliged to vote to leave

the European Union. I believe it is a question of freedom, as my

honourable friend does. The freedom of this country to be true to

itself. To follow the policies that this house and its executive

believes are the best policy is fitted and suited for the interests

of this nation, not dilutive, not of this nation, not dilutive, not

representing an accommodation and a constant adjustment to the competing

interests of 29 members, but following the path that this nation

sets and is right for this nation's interests. For 40 as we have

shifted, adjusted and felt uneasy in our skins. And what we have had to

compromise with as a consequence of being in the union. I say to our

partners in the European Union, this is not an act of hostility. This is

a rebirth of our country. In its full independence and in its full

freedom, Mr Speaker. So that we can set our commercial policies, so that

we can be decisive and clear and give a lead to the international

community in foreign policy. So that we can set our own defence policy as

best we judged to be in the interests of those whom we

represent. So that we can have clear lines of democratic accountability.

And so that we can fulfil the spirit and genius of our own nation, and I

say to this house and to those who listen outside, let us trust in the

genius of our own people. Until 1974, did this country do so badly?

Were we not leaders in the development of human rights? Did we

not have 400 years of peaceful political evolution? I say this

country does not have to be afraid of resuming its own independent

self-governance. And we can offer more to the world by that means that

we can by being part, a muted voice in a big organisation with these

objectives and outcomes we do not feel at ease. And so, Mr Speaker,

not attempting to address now the technicalities of this issue, the

economic rights and wrongs, let me can cleared on a note of freedom

with the words of John Milton himself. " Me thinks I see in my

mind a noble and puissant nation rousing herself like a man after

sleep and shaking her locks. When he spoke those words, he spoke in

defence of freedom and truth. Let us believe in the genius of our

country. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I

have had to remind myself what motion we're debating today because

it does strike me that with the possible exception of the last

Speaker... I'm not convinced that anyone other than the last Speaker

would have said anything different. I would never have thought that

almost exactly nine months since becoming a new member of Parliament

I would be in a position of giving a lesson in English Parliamentary

history to one of the most esteemed and experienced parliamentarians to

grace this chamber. But this lament did not witness the Civil War. This

Parliament did not exist at the time of the English Civil War. One of its

predecessors did. But at best this Parliament has existed since 1707.

Some would argue that the Parliament of the United Kingdom in Northern

Ireland is less than 100 years old. I say that not to knock the pride of

those who justifiably believe that the previous Parliament of England

delivered a lot and was a trendsetter for democracy in many

parts of the world, but if you have a strong and to play you damage it

by overplaying it. I fear that some of us are overplaying the

significance of the history of previous parliaments that have met

not in this exact building but in those close. I will happily give

way. I will simply say that when Scotland joined us in the union that

was in order to combine our fight for freedom as indeed the Scots

fought with us right the way through all the great battles including not

only Waterloo but also through the Somme and right the way through the

Second World War. It's that freedom we fought for together. You're

absolutely correct, Mr Speaker. The polls and the French and the

Hungarians fought alongside us as well, but what actually happened in

1706 was that the two parliaments were combined. It was not a takeover

of one Parliament by another. I entirely respect the clear pride and

positive English nationalism that we're seeing from some of the

speakers opposite. That is a positive thing as long as

nationalism is based upon love for and pride in one's country, it is

something to be welcomed. We are not the people of England. We are the

people of Scotland. We are the sovereign people of Scotland and

sovereignty over our nation is and always will be bested. For Scotland,

sovereignty does not reside in this place. It does not reside in those

of us being sent to serve in this place. It resides in those who have

sent us to serve in this place. I genuinely interested in this concept

that being the assiduous in Parliament is ultimately sovereign

even though the people. Perhaps somebody who speaks later on could

explain, who decided that Parliament was sovereign and who gave them the

right to decide that Parliament was sovereign? I suspect that people

agreed the Parliament was sovereign and therefore the people have the

right to change that decision. I will happily give way. Would he

access that this debate is not about purely the sovereignty of this

place, it's the sovereignty of the people who elect people to this

place. Therefore if we become pawns, the sovereignty that he is talking

about, the sovereignty of people of Scotland, Northern Ireland, England

and Wales has been diminished? I take on board the honourable

member's comments but the motion does not mention the sovereignty of

the people. The motion is about the importance of parliamentary

sovereignty. The two are not the same thing. The two are most

definitely not the same thing. If Parliament is sovereign, does

Parliament have the legal constitution to pass any legislation

however morally repugnant it may be? And the people's only recluse is to

wait five years and wait for a different -- vote for a different

Parliament. That is not a version of parliamentary sovereignty that I

recognise. It is not a parliamentary sovereignty version that the people

of Scotland except. I need to make some progress, the honourable member

has had a lot of interventions early on this afternoon. I want to look at

the second part of the motion. I think this goes to the nub of the EU

membership debate. We've heard again the phrase ever closer union being

repeated as if it is some kind of threat, as if it is a threat that

we're going to be swallowed up by some big two headed monster probably

in Germany but possibly in Brussels. I would urge members to look at the

wording of the preamble to the European treaties as to what that

phrase was originally intended to mean. The exact wording varies from

time to time but we're talking about ever closer union between the

peoples of Europe so that decisions can be taken as close to the

decisions as possible. I want to ask those on this side of the house who

are so determined to argue against that concept, are we saying that we

want to derive the peoples of Europe -- drive the peoples of Europe

further apart, at a time when they are facing -- we are facing the

greatest humanitarian crisis in our history that nobody believes can be

addressed by individual nations acting on their own? Are we really

acting against the concept of ever closer union between the peoples of

Europe. The peoples, plural, is not some kind of mistake because it was

said by Alexander the meerkat, it is their to recognise the diversity in

the cultures and faiths of people in Europe. Are we against the decision

that this should be taken by the people as closely as possible? I

think that phrase can still be turned into one of the greatest

assertions of the rights of the peoples of Europe that we have seen.

It is a vision that has not been followed by institutions of the

European Union and I willingly accent that. The institutions of the

European Union have failed and are still continuing to fail on the

vision that was that out in individual treaties. I would much

rather we continued to be part of a European Union so that that vision

can be delivered, because it is a vision that I find not only

welcoming, I find it highly exciting. Just imagine living in a

Europe where monolithic power mad bureaucrats whether it be in

Brussels or somewhere a bit closer to home are no longer able to ride

roughshod over the will of the people. I would remind the house

that there was a Prime Minister not that long ago who chose to ride

roughshod over the will of the people and the immovable object that

was the late Margaret Thatcher met the irresistible force that was the

will of the people of Scotland over the imposition of the poll tax.

Within two years, the immovable object had been moved and the

irresistible force that is the sovereign rule of the people of

Scotland is still there and will be there forever. Can I assure him that

the one thing the irresistible force would not be able to compete against

would be an irresistible force from Brussels? You would never get your

way, never again. Mr Speaker, nobody knows. During the independence

referendum people asked why I was still happy for Scotland... We have

never had a chance to be part of the European Union. Luxembourg gets a

vote on fishing policy and Scotland doesn't. Scotland's fisheries

minister was not allowed to be part of the delegation. They sent an

unelected Lord instead of a minister who is actually respected by

fishermen. My own constituency has a bigger coastline than Luxembourg,

and yet Luxembourg gets a vote on fishing policy. These are the kind

of reforms we wish to see. Mr Speaker, I love to see the day when

the dream of Europe as originally set out is realised, when the

peoples of Europe are genuinely brought closer together, not the

institutions, not the civil servants, not the governments but

the peoples of Europe are brought closer together and decisions are

taken more closely to the people that they are just now. I long to

see a Europe where man to man the world over... Thank you, Mr Speaker.

In 2013, the Prime Minister set out the future of Europe in his

Bloomberg speech, the Prime Minister acknowledged that the status quo was

not working for us any more. He promised change, reform, and even a

new treaty, having received the draft negotiation I ask myself,

where are these grand promises of fundamental reform? There are none,

not a single clear-cut promise on a treaty change. The Prime Minister

said that the European Union cannot progress with more of the same. So

far, that is all I have heard. More of the same complex rules and

restrict doing, more of the same foreign domination that we have not

asked for and we do not want. Bash and restrictions. The European Union

is its own biggest threat. How many times will be be promised a more

competitive environment, how many times have we been told that red

tape will be cut and the single market strengthened? We have yet to

see real promises then we have yet to see proper results, enough is

enough. I'm interested in Donald Tusk's definition of sovereignty.

Because the proposals can hardly be called sovereign. Nor do they let

power flow back into this Parliament. Instead, we could

receive a red card. A red card that can only be used when a group of

national parliaments decide to stop a legislative proposal, a majority

of 55% of member states is to be a red card. Where is my majority would

be 100% of the United Kingdom. -- wearers. What about this emergency

brake? An emergency that needs to be objectively justified and wear as it

is jolly good that the commission tells us that the UK would qualify

to pull this break, it is outrageous that the final word would lie with

other member states. We might not have to pursue an ever closer union.

When the UK is neither allowed to pull its own break or to decide its

own emergency, that is when I feel that the ever closer union is still

very much upon us. The Prime very much upon us. The Prime

Minister described an updated European Union as flexible,

adaptable and more open. I can only see this supposedly updated European

Union, that is inflexible, on adaptable and blocked, and the Prime

Minister did warn us and say that you will not always get what you

want. But it is becoming clearer by the day, that with the European

Union, you never get what you want. If the European Union really wants

us to stay, would they not have offered us more? The European Union

has sucked up our sovereignty, trampled all over our ancient rights

and freedoms. Are we simply going to carry on with this relationship we

have with the EU when the EU so obviously does not want to change?

Is not the only solution to say, leave, to this whole spectacle? This

renegotiation is a spectacle. Too much noise, much too little

substance. Sir Joel Howarth. What a great budget is to take part in this

vitally important about and I congratulate my friend from Basildon

and Billericay -- what a great privilege. As to my friend from West

Devon, that was a told a force. -- for divorce. This is not a new

issue. This has been going on for the best part of over half a

century. When the then Lord Privy Seal Edward Heath sought advice from

the then Lord Chancellor, in December 1960, he gave advice in

respect of our potential membership of the common market as it was then

called. "I Have no doubt if we signed the treaty we will suffer

some loss of sundry, but before I evaluate that loss I want to make

one general observation, at the end of the day, the decision to join

must be decided on broad political grounds -- some loss of sovereignty"

. He said it will affect our sovereignty in three ways, he

thought. Parliament will be required to surrender some of its functions

to the community, the Crown will be called to transfer part of its

treaty making power to those organs, our courts of law would sacrifice

some degree of independence by becoming subordinate in certain

justice. Lord Kilmore oil could not justice. Lord Kilmore oil could not

have been clearer, and in 1975 when people were asked to vote on these

matters, this issue of the loss of sovereignty was played down by Ted

Heath and his government at the time. Some of us foresaw the

dangers, we then saw that the organisation, the European economic

community had a president and a flag, an anthem, and a court. In

1986, 45 of us voted against the single European act, I'm the only

Conservative left in the House who voted against it, but there are two

on the other benches. I'm in questionable company, but we did

have one thing in common at that time and I still do. The European

and it is designed to undermine ain't

so, of course, but these are all the attributes of a sovereign nation

state, and we deceive ourselves if we imagine that this process has now

somehow come to a halt. But it has been frozen in aspect -- aspic. We

do have to prove to the people, because they can see the direction

of travel that has taken place since 1975 on how this organisation which

we were told was going to be a common market on goods and services

has grown to become so much more, and they intend to continue. As so

many members have said, look at the Eurozone, the currency and the

absurd deceit that you can have a single currency without a single

monetary institution operating a single monetary policy, this process

will continue and the British people must be warned that if they vote to

stay in this organisation they will not be voting for the status quo.

They will be voting for further integration and further change. The

Prime Minister, in his excellent speech at the Bloomberg

organisation, he made it clear that he believed in maximising

parliamentary sovereignty, but the proposals that are contained in the

Donald Tusk arrangements, as my Donald Tusk arrangements, as my

friend pointed out, these are absurd. We have got to get another

15 parliaments to agree, this is not the restoration of sovereignty to

this Parliament, this is basically a cop out. I salute the European

illustrious members are here today, illustrious members are here today,

for the work they have done in pointing out exactly what the

situation is. The report which was called reforming the European

scrutiny committee, published in 2013, it said the EU, the existing

article, which is the EU shall respect the functions of its member

states, the democracy of member states, according to the committee

report, it recommended there should be a mechanism where the House of

Commons can decide that a certain legislative repose or should not

apply to the United Kingdom. That seems to be the sensible way but I'm

sad that the Prime Minister did not accept the recommendations of the

committee. There is a way, but there is pending evidence to show that I

think we need to restore evidence, the British people have a

once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and I close with the words of supporter

Scott, the great Scottish border poet, from where I draw so much of

my own blood -- Sir Walter Scott. " This is my own, my native land, and

I want it back". David Nuttall. What is Parliamentary sovereignty? It is

the power, the ability of this house, this selective house, to

carry out the wishes of the British people. Southern tree of Parliament

is actually the sovereignty of the British people. It is the power of

the British people and gradually over the last 40 years, bit by bit,

successive governments have handed over this power, the power of this

House and therefore the power of the British people, to the European

Union, but it wasn't back in 1973, Union, but it wasn't back in 1973,

and when people voted in 1975, the European Union, then it was the

common market, the European economic community. Gradually, it got to the

state of the coming a state, it had all the attributes of becoming the

United States of Europe with its own parliament and its own flag and

anthem and Parliament, and its own court. You don't have to be Einstein

to work out where it is going. It is heading in that direction. In doing

so, it means that in so many areas the European Union, not this

Parliament, is sovereign. This loss of sovereignty on this Parliament is

at the heart of my opposition to our membership of the European Union.

Handing over powers to the European Union means handing over the powers

of my constituents, the British people. And my constituents in the

Bury North. It is important for this reason, because when my constituents

ask for help, they expect this Parliament to have the power and the

ability to be able to sort it out. In so many areas that is not the

case any more, and the reality is, whether we like it or not, the power

has been handed over to Brussels. That is a very good example, and we

have the ports regulation, where the industry employs unions, and the

government did not want it to happen, but we are powerless to do

anything about it because it will become a European regulation imposed

upon this Parliament unless we continue to obstruct it. My friend

is right, that is an excellent example. An example of where this

house the longer has the ability to control its own affairs. Can I pay

to view to the great work that my friend has done, and the European

scrutiny committee, bold roaring to the attention of this house and

therefore to the British people, the enormous number of rules and

regulations which actually come out of Brussels and have to then be

enforced by this Parliament. Our constituents come to us

expecting us to be able to help. When they find out that we are

unable to do so, what does that result in? That results in them

having a lack of confidence, a lack of faith in MPs and the political

process. That, in turn, is evidenced by a reduced turnout in elections,

because they think, why bother, these people have got no power any

more. That's why we've seen a falloff in turnout. It means there

is a lack of thing gauge and in the political process, because people

lose faith and confidence in the hold aquatic process. That is

dangerous. -- the whole democratic process. It is the way that

societies raked down, while democracy breaks down. That's why

it's so important that the people of this country sees this golden

opportunity in this forthcoming recommend -- referendum to take back

the powers. This is their one opportunity to take back the powers,

not for the sake of us in this house but for themselves. Because they

will then have the ability, if they don't like what we're doing, to get

rid of us and to be able to appoint someone else who they can have faith

in. This is where we have common cause with those on the left of

British politics who we might disagree with, because they want to

have a socialist system, that's what they believed in, that's an

honourable position to have. I prefer a capitalist system and I

will stand up and defend that, but we can both agree about democracy.

We can both agree that the power lies with our constituents, if they

don't want me, they can get rid of me and replace me with someone else.

We all stand on that basis. It is a golden opportunity. And I hope that

what goes out of this debate today is that they will realise that this

is the one chance that they will have probably in their lifetimes to

get back their powers. Because I do not believe that this renegotiation

has changed in any meaningful way the sovereignty of this house. It

will not give us back any powers and despite what we might be told, there

are a lot of words in these documents which we don't have time

in a few minutes to be able to go into in detail but I have looked at

them and I'm sure, I'm certain in my own mind that they do not give this

house any more powers back and that is why I hope in my heart of hearts

that the British people will ask themselves where do I want to be

governed by, from here in Westminster or by the foreign powers

in Brussels. Steve Baker. Doctor Julian Lewis. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I have to say that if the British people miss this unique opportunity

to reject the undemocratic EU superstate project, it will be the

fault of people like me. Not me as I am today but me as I was in 1975,

when I had the chance to vote to withdraw from the then EEC and I

wasted it. Why did I waste that chance? It was very simple. I was

intimidated by the establishment. My instincts were to vote to leave, but

all around me, in Oxford in that home of lost causes, the great and

the good were saying that it was beyond question that the prosperity

of the United Kingdom depended upon remaining in the EEC. So I thought,

what do I know about it? After all, in those days, it was, as my

honourable friend for Berry pointed out, only about an economic

community. It wasn't about my pet subject of defence and the security

of the United Kingdom. How has that changed? Now it is and now we know

where we're heading. So when the time comes for me to advise my

constituents about what I think they should do, I will give them six good

reasons to leave the EU. I will tell them first that every year the

United Kingdom pays ?20 billion to this organisation and gets less than

half of it back. Secondly, I will tell them, as we've heard today,

that the EU wants ever closer political union and we cannot opt

out of this whilst remaining within the European Union. So-called

associate membership, which is the trick I think they have waiting to

give us at the final stage of the great concessionary Sherrard in

which we are currently in gauge, associate membership would actually

make no difference at all or might even diminish our own powers still

further. Thirdly, I will tell them that the European Union wants a

single European population with no borders between EU countries, so

that we cannot restrict immigration into the United Kingdom. Fourthly I

will tell them that the EU wants to develop its single European currency

into a single European economy, controlled from Brussels. Fifthly I

will tell them that the EU wants a single European army, a single

European foreign policy, and that did a lot of good to the Ukraine,

didn't it? Add a single European justice system, all outside UK

Government control. And finally, I shall tell them that all this is

designed to create a single country called Europe under a single

European Government, thus finally taking away the power of the British

people to govern ourselves. In his excellent opening speech, my

honourable friend for Basildon and Billericay gave a long list of

statements made by European bigwigs and I have to say that some of them

did actually stumble across the truth, as he pointed out, but

usually when they do stumble across the truth they picked themselves up,

crush themselves down and carry on as if nothing had happened, as

Churchill once said of a lesser British politician. There was one

occasion when the truth was told by a European Union bigwig and it was

on the New Year's Eve before the introduction of the single European

currency, which I think would have then been December 31 1998. I

happened to be up and waiting to see the celebrations of the New Year on

television and onto my screen came the visage of Romano Prodi, who was

then the president of the commission, or as these people like

to call themselves, the president of Europe. He was asked a simple

question. He was asked about the European single currency and the

question was put to him as follows. It's a political project, isn't it?

Now remember, this was the angle currency that had been sold to

people over and over again as being vital for their economic prosperity.

So that's what they asked him. And because it was too late to do

anything about it, he told the truth. And he told the truth in an

entirely cynical way when he replied, "It is an entirely

political project". So we know what they're trying to do and the answer

of what we have to achieve is to make sure that people come away and

they come to make their decision, are not intimidated by the great and

the good on economic grounds, when the real aim is political and they

should reject it and vote to leave. James. Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I

also congratulate my honourable friend, the member for Basildon and

Billericay, on securing this very important debate. The principle of

parliamentary sovereignty is the central pillar of the British

constitution. It is a principle that, in modern history, flows from

the glorious Revolution of 1688. It is the very fountainhead of our

freedoms and democracy in this country and I believe it is a