10/11/2015 House of Commons

the turf for a new innovation Centre in Glasgow can stop Scotland punches

above its weight with 11% share compared to 8% share of the

population and I hope it continues to do so. Statement, the Minister of

State for Europe. Minister David Liddington. I would like to make a

statement upon the Government's EU re-negotiation. As the House knows,

this Government was elected with a mandate to renegotiate the UK's

relationship with the European Union had a van in-out referendum by the

end of 2017. Since July, technical talks have taken place in Brussels

to inform our analysis of the legal options for reform. Today, the prime

list has written to the President of the European Council to set out the

changes that we wanted to see. -- the Prime Minister has written. We

have laid out a statement with a copy of that letter and hard copies

are available in the vote office. I would like to offer the House some

further detail. The Prime Minister's speech three years ago

set out a vision for the vision of the European Union. Three years on,

the central argument he made them remains more persuasive than ever.

The European Union needs to change. And increasingly others to have

recognised this. A fortnight ago, Chancellor Merkel said British

concerns were German concerns as well. The purpose of the Prime

Minister's letter today is not to describe the precise means including

the detailed legal amendments to bring in our reforms into effect,

that is a matter for the negotiation itself. What matters to us is

finding solutions. This agreement must be legally binding and

irreversible and where necessary have foreseen the treaties. There

are four main areas in which we are seeking reform. Economic governance.

Measures that the euro zone countries need to take to secure the

long-term future of their currency will affect all members of the EU.

These are real concerns demonstrated by the proposal we saw this summer

to bailout Greece using contributions which also would have

come from non-euro members. As the Prime Minister and the Chancellor

have set out, never of principles should underpin any long-term

solution of this, as well as involving a safeguard mechanism to

ensure these principles are respected and enforced. We believe

these principles should include recognition that the EU has more

than one currency, that there should be no discrimination and no

disadvantage for any business on the basis of currency, that taxpayers in

non-euro countries should never be financially liable for supporting

Eurozone members, that only changes the Eurozone needs to make such as

the creation of a banking union should never be compulsory for

non-euro countries. Financial stability and supervision should be

a key area of competence for national institutions like the Bank

of England for non-euro members. Just as those matters have become a

key area of competence for Eurozone institutions like the European

Central Bank. Any issues which affect all member states must be

discussed and decided by all member states. Second, we want to see an

even more determined focus upon improving Europe's competitiveness.

Unemployment and youth unemployment in Europe is still too high. Frankly

speaking, less Europe is able to raise its game in terms of

competitiveness, the challenges we all face from global competition and

digital technology mean we face a serious risk of the next generation

of European Union who will not be able to afford the living standards

or social protection on the public services which are our citizens take

granted today. We welcome the European Commission's focus on

competitiveness. Legislative proposals have been cut by 8% and

more regulatory appraisals taken off the table this year than ever

before. Progress has been made towards a single digital market, a

capital market's union and in last month's commission, trade strategy.

We need to go further. The burden from existing regulation remains too

high. Just as we secured a first ever real terms cut in the EU

budget, so we should set a target to cut the total burden on business.

This should be part of a clear strategic commitment, bringing

forward all the various proposals, promises and agreements on European

competitiveness. Third, sovereignty. As the Prime Minister said that

Bloomberg and as we have stressed many times since, in the UK and in

other member states or so, too many people have felt the EU is something

done to them. In his letter, my right honourable friend makes three

proposals to address this. First, we want to end the UK's obligation to

work towards an ever closer union as set out in the treaties. For many

British people, this simply reinforces the sense of being

dragged against our will towards a political union. Second, we want to

enable national parliaments to work together to block a new -- unwanted

legislation, building on the arrangements already in the

treaties. Third, we want to see the EU's commitment to subsidiarity

imprimatur with proposals to achieve that. If powers don't need to reside

in Brussels, they should be returned to Westminster. As the Dutch have

said, the ambition should be Europe where necessary, but national where

possible. Fourth, I want to turn to the issue of welfare and

immigration. As the Prime Minister made clear in his speech last

November, we believe in an open economy which includes the principle

of free movement to work. I am proud that people from every country can

find their community here in the UK. But the issue is one of scale and

speed. The pressure which the current level of inward migration

puts upon our public services is too great and has a profound effect also

on those member states whose most highly qualified citizens have

immigrated. The Prime Minister's letter sets out our proposals to

address this. We need to ensure that when you could resolve admitted to

the EU, free movement will not apply until the EU, free movement will not

apply until their economies have converged much more closely with

existing member states. We need to crack down on all abuse of free

movement and this includes tougher and longer re-entry bands for

fraudsters and people who collude in sham marriages and stronger powers

to deport criminals to stop them coming back and to prevent them from

entering in the first place. It includes dealing with the situation

whereby it is easier for an EU citizen to bring a non-EU spouse to

Britain for a British citizen to do the same. We must also reduce the

fact of drawing migrants to the UK to take low skilled jobs, exposing

their salary to be subsidised by the state from day one. We have proposed

that people come to Britain should negotiation -- would contribute for

four years before they qualify for in work benefits or social housing.

And that we should end the practice of sending child benefit overseas.

The Government is open to different ways of dealing with these issues

but we do need to secure a range and is that deliver on our commitments

to fair and controlled migration. Let me say something briefly about

the next steps. There will now be a process of formal negotiation with

the European institutions and all 27 European parlours, leading to

substantive discussions with counsel. The Prime Minister's aim is

to conclude an agreement at the earliest opportunity, but his

priority is to ensure that these substances right. It is progress on

the substance in this we negotiation that will determine the timing of

the referendum itself. The Government fully recognises the

close interest from members on all sides of this house. We cannot

provide a running commentary on an ongoing negotiation but we will

continue to engage fully with the wide range of Parliamentary enquiry

is, now numbering 12 across both houses come into the renegotiation.

Documents will be submitted for scrutiny in line with normal

practices and the Foreign Secretary, I and other ministers will continue

to appear before the relevant select committees. The Referendum Bill

itself will return to this house before long. The Prime Minister has

said and he repeated this morning, that should his concerns fall on

deaf ears, the rules nothing out. He also believes that meaningful reform

in the areas that I have described would benefit our economic and our

national-security, provide a fresh supplement the UK's manager of the

European Union and offer a basis on which to campaign to keep the United

Kingdom as a member of a reformed European Union. It is that which

remains the Government's objective. I commend this statement to the

House. 1-macro let me begin by thanking the Minister for updating

the House and for giving me advanced site of today's statement. The

decision on whether to -- whether the UK remains a member of the

European Union is the biggest decision this country will take for

a generation. We on the side are clear that Britain is a more

powerful, prosperous and secure country by being members of the

European Union. We want to see Britain play a full

role in shaping a better Europe which deepens its single market,

which offers more hope and jobs to its young people, which uses its

collective strength in trade with the rest of the world and which

stands together to combat the urgent security problems that we face. We

do not stand for the nationalism that says we would be better off out

and a Brecht said that would sleep written we can empower and influence

and diminished in the eyes of the world. The Prime Minister has set

out in his speech this morning and in the letter to the president of

the European Council his negotiating agenda. As we have already heard

from comments to date from his own backbenchers, the problem be Prime

Minister faces in doing this and the reason he has been so reluctant to

put his position down on paper until now is that there is nothing he can

renegotiate which will satisfy the large numbers of honourable and

Right Honourable members sitting behind him who want to take Britain

out of the EU at all costs. They are desperate to be disappointed and

they are here in the house today. They -- they're only role in this

debate is to push for demands that they know will not be met. The

agenda published today raises important issues, including some

which were in our own manifesto, such as the protection for the

rights of non-Eurozone countries and the rights of national parliaments.

It also includes other ideas, which are already in train. But can I ask

the Minister to respond to some specific questions? It is right that

we press for guarantees for non-Eurozone members in the future,

our manifesto argued for this, it is in our interest, but does the

Minister agree that it would be a mistake for Britain to volunteer or

embrace some kind of second-class or associate membership of the EU while

still paying the full costs of membership? That would be an outcome

which would weaken Britain rather than strengthen our position. Why is

there so little in this agenda about jobs and growth for the future when

the problem Europe has been struggling with has been low growth

and high unemployment for some time? When the Minister talks about

reducing the burden on business, can he guarantee that nothing in this

agenda reduces the hard one unemployment rights which have been

agreed over the years, including rights to paid leave, for part-time

workers, and fair pay for temporary and agency workers? Does the

Minister accept it would be a huge mistake to try to build support for

a reformed EU on the back of a bonfire of workers' writes? On free

movement, we know a retreat from earlier statements and hence from

the Prime Minister that he would seek an end to the principle of free

movement, can the Minister tell the house on the issue of access to in

work benefits, as the Prime Minister set on the four-year timescale for

access to such benefits, or is this subject to negotiation at the

European Council? Could he also tell us whether this will be through a

change in EU legislation or in the way the system works here in the

UK? Does he agree that those who want to reject this agenda as too

little, many of them behind him, and who are determined to take Britain

out of the EU, it is for them to state clearly to the British people

what being out would mean for our jobs, trade, investment, employment

rights, and national security. The EU of course faces big challenges in

recovering from the Eurozone crisis, offering more hope for the

future, dealing with the urgent and immediate refugee crisis that it

faces. But we believe that these challenges are best met by Britain

playing a leading role in the future of the EU and using our power and

influence with others to overcome them. There is a broader case far

beyond these points today about Britain's place in the world and in

the EU, and that has to be made. Our history is not the same as many

other member states, and perhaps we will never look at these issues

through precisely the same eyes. But that is not the same as wanting to

leave. Reform is essential, it should be an ongoing process, not a

single event. On this side of the house, we will keep giving for a

Britain engaged with the world, using its power and influence to the

maximum, and not walking away from a partnership that we have been

members of the 40 years and which has brought many benefits to the

people and economy of this country. He asked me four questions, if I can

deal with them in turn. On relations between EU and non-EU members, we do

indeed need to have as part of this negotiation safeguards against any

risk of caucusing by Eurozone countries who, if they chose to act

as a caucus, could command and automatic qualified majority within

Council of ministers meetings. There will be some issues which derives

directly from -- where Eurozone countries will want to talk about

such matters amongst themselves, but it will be really important that we

have a deal that allows the Eurozone to do the work of integration they

will need to do but which properly safeguard the integrity of the

single market and decision-making across the board at 28. He teased me

a bit about the views of some of my honourable friend. When I have

appeared before some of the committees of this house, I have

found members on his side of the house who are equally committed to

British withdrawal from the EU. This is a matter... The Labour Party

leader, the Right Honourable member for Islington North, has not in the

past been renowned for his enthusiasm for the EU. This has cut

across party divisions for as long as EU membership has been an issue

in the UK, and people hold honourable, principled views both

for and against British membership in both parties, and that is likely

to always be the case. The ask about low growth, I think what the

Government is not only saying but what this Government has led and

helped shape within the EU since 2010 has demonstrated the

seriousness with which we take this issue. I know that the Prime

Minister was personally involved in the negotiation that clinched the

deal on a free trade agreement, which is proving immense value to

British industry. It is the British Government which has helped to

energise the debate towards a digital single market across Europe,

something that will give SMEs and large companies increased

opportunities. I would say to him in regard to workers' writes, nobody on

my side of the house wants to make a bonfire of workers rights, but we

also need to have in mind the reality that other countries that

have chosen to go for a much more regulated approach to the employment

market have often tragically suffered much higher levels of

unemployment than we have in the UK. For example, keeping the UK's opt

out from the working time directive is something that we will fight very

hard to make sure is entrenched by this renegotiation. On freedom of

movement, the Prime Minister made his views very clear, our objective

is to better control migration from within the EU, there are different

ways in which we could achieve that, we think we can do it by reducing

the incentive is of our welfare system, and that is where my right

honourable friend set out the proposals he made and repeated

today. Others in the EU have concerns, that is why we say to

them, if that is what you think, but forward alternative proposals that

deliver the same result. It is the outcome of the measures, controlled,

fair, properly managed migration, that is the end that we seek. On

what is meant by out, the Prime Minister said again this morning

that he did not think either the Swiss or Norwegian models would be

right for the UK. I think it is the case that the question of what out

might mean is something that will be a key element in the forthcoming

referendum debate. A very large number of members are seeking to

catch my icon that was entirely to be expected. To have any chance of

accommodating them, brevity will be of the essence. Would he agree that

the big issue which will be settled in this forthcoming referendum is

how best this country will protect its national interests and security

in the modern world, to enhance our prosperity for the next 30 or 50

years, and will he seek to ensure that we do not lose sight of that

and we address current events? Whilst the Prime Minister is

embarking on important negotiations, and I wish him success on

competitiveness in particular, will he ensure that when we are

negotiating the benefit rights of those foreign nationals who work

alongside British people in employment in this country, we

remember the interests of the 2 million or so British nationals who

live and work in the U and do not wish to see those governments start

to disk and eight against our nationals in their tax and benefit

system? The answer is yes on his second point, we always have the

interest of British people at the heart of our thinking about any area

of policy, and we will certainly continue to treat the National

economic and security interests of the UK at the core objective of

every aspect of the negotiation. I also thank the Minister for making

an oral statement to the house and 4/ of his statement. What difference

a year makes, just last year, Scots were being told we voted yes to

independents, we would be getting chucked out of the EU, and now we

could not be closer to the exit. The Minister said earlier on that there

would be a process of formal negotiation with the Europeans. Will

he commit to us today to consult with the devolved administrations as

a formal part of that negotiation's he also said Europe, where

necessary, National, where possible. Will that include devolving the

powers where appropriate back to the devolved administrations's finally,

will be Minister tell us what in Scotland's agenda for reform has

been included in this today? Of course we were voting to give

additional devolved powers to Scotland only yesterday in this

house, I can say to the honourable member that I spoke to Fiona Hyslop

this morning, the question of the reform and renegotiation is on the

agenda is the first item at every meeting of the joint ministerial

committee on Europe, which I chair, and which includes ministers from

all the devolved administrations. I am visiting Edinburgh tomorrow, I

will have further conversations with the Scottish Government of the type

that he urges, and I said to Fiona Hyslop this morning, I remain always

open to listen to the views and make sure that the UK Government takes

full account of the interests of all three of the devolved

administrations as we take this forward.

The minister is not correct in thinking that the legal mechanisms

for delivery of these proposals is not part of the solution. Does he

not accept that treaty change is needed for virtually every

proposal? Furthermore, that treaty change is not on offer's --? So how

are the legally irreversible changes going to be made when even the legal

expert from the European Commission says the Danish and Irish presidents

are not valid? How will he sell this pig in a poke?

We think that some, but not every aspect of the package of reforms we

are seeking will need treaty change. We are looking at models including

those used by Denmark and Ireland in the past. The technical talks that

have taken place in Brussels involving senior British officials

have also been involving representatives of the institutional

legal services. We are working closely, alongside the current heads

of the legal services of the institutions and we believe that on

every one of the issues that I have listed in my statement, we can

indeed find the appropriate legal way forward. Willie at knowledge

that the EU citizens living here contribute far more through their

taxes than they receive in services or social security payments? The

problem with Social Security is not the EU but we have lost the

contributory principle from our system and the answer is to

reintroduce that? I would agree with him that it is important that in the

debate about migration controls, that we don't stray into

stigmatising people from elsewhere in Europe or any other part of the

world who are obeying the law and contributing to live in this

country. I think that the point he makes about the contributory

principle could apply to policy pursued under successive footage

Government of all political strikes. I draw his attention back to Article

153 of the treaty, which does make it clear that it is for member

states rather than the EU to define the fundamental principles of the

Social security systems. It would be rather odd and contradictory if we

were to say there is only one model for social security and it is

compatible with that. The Minister has described different legal

mechanisms for achieving our objectives within this. Could he

tell us what they are? No. These are discussions that are a matter for

the detailed negotiations that are now underway. The technical talks

have helped to give us a menu of options. In respect of particular

reforms, we would be able to reply -- rely on treaty change,

protocols, political commitment and that many of options is now going to

be available to the heads of Government as they embark on the

political negotiation. The purpose of the technical talks has been to

ensure that people are informed about those solutions available and

they don't have to start that work from scratch when they are in the

leader's meeting. We believe that if powers don't need to reside in

Brussels, they should be returned to Westminster. Could he tell the House

which current treaty provisions he intends to use for that purpose and

if it doesn't have one, will he negotiate a new one? I have

described areas in which we are seeking change. If the honourable

lady would like to look at what the Prime Minister said in his speech

this morning, she will see that he spoke in terms of making more of a

reality of the principles of subsidiary rarity and

proportionality and establishing an agreed mechanism within the EU

system, so we don't just look at new proposals coming out of the

commission, but we have a means by which to review regularly the

existing exercise of competences and decide where competences currently

exercised at EU level no longer need to be exercised at that level. Don't

we have to control our own borders in order to fulfil the conservative

popular promised to cut net migration by more than two thirds in

this parliament and shouldn't we decide what the rules are and apply

them fairly to the whole world, not distinguishing between Europe and

non-Europe? The Prime Minister has been completely consistent in saying

that he accepts the basic principle of freedom of movement for workers,

but that that should not become a freedom to choose the most

attractive welfare system anywhere in the European Union. We do believe

that given that, something like 40% of people here from elsewhere in the

EU are receiving benefits or tax credits of some kind action on that

front will have a significant effect upon the core factor which our

welfare system exercises at the moment. I think the Minister for his

statement and for advanced copy. The Minister has put much store by

treaty change but since the Council of ministers and the European

Commission are like on things fundamental to them constantly break

their own solemn word and treaties, why should we put any confidence or

faith or trust in any changes that they agreed to? I think where

matters are the subject of treaty change, they become binding as well

as in international law and there has been occasions, particularly

with regard to the single market aware British interests have been

safeguarded by the fact that there are provisions in the treaties

against discrimination, against any one country's products are missing

the market. We went through the European process in order to secure

the lifting of the beef exporting banned. There is a stronger element

of protection there, than the honourable gentleman thinks. Further

to that, would he agree that the creation of the single market for

services would be a big prize for British business creating many jobs

and that can only be achieved by being within the European Union? I

think that my right honourable friend makes a powerful point. We

have a single market which in terms of goods is working pretty well, but

a single market which terms of services is woefully undeveloped,

despite the fact that in every European economy as we look to the

future, it is going to be for this services sector is that the new

growth and the new jobs are going to come from. We need to seek

determined action in that area. The Prime Minister hate the lip service

to the EU's crisis of competitiveness rather like his

predecessor 15 years ago. Nothing changed. The own officials grow

weary of initiatives have failed to tackle Euro sclerosis. Can the

Minister spell out the detail of the plans to make the EU more

competitive? There is one thing that doesn't change that is the nature of

the gentleman's interventions on this subject. The agenda on

competitiveness is one which the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the

Business Secretary and I have spoken upon frequently and I am happy to

send the honourable member a sheaf of speeches if you would like that.

We have three things. It is about cutting the cost of unnecessary red

tape and regulation on all business. It is about deepening the

single market, especially in digital and services where it is an

developed at the moment and it is about forging new ambitious

free-trade agreements with other countries and other regions of the

world to benefit both them and us. These opportunities that British

business has urged us to take and these opportunities which this is

determined not just to follow but are leading the European debate.

Will my right honourable friend avoid using up his limited arguing

power to obtain symbolic changes, like removing the words come ever

closer union? Given that they have never been invoked by the European

Court against Britain or to require any other member state to move in

and integration list direction or drop from the constitutional treaty.

Will he focus on getting back powers which are not required to run a

common trading area so that this Parliament can make more of our own

laws and hold our lawmakers to accounts? My right honourable friend

has always said that what he is seeking is a deal on reform which is

substantive and which it will be challenging to negotiate. I don't

want any member of the House to think that this is a set of reforms

that are going to fall easily into our laps. It is going to mean some

tough negotiation ahead. I think that the importance of the words on

ever closer union are that they do encapsulated the fact that the EU at

the moment is insufficiently flexible and still thinks in terms

of a single destination in terms of integration for all its member

states. As the Prime Minister said this morning, we need to see a much

greater acceptance of the diversity of Europe at the moment, readiness

to live and let live and accept that some countries will want to

integrate more closely but others will wish to stand from that. The

decisions of each group should be properly respected. The Minister

said that the agreement must be legally binding and irreversible.

Can he clarify what he means by irreversible? Will it mean in the

terms of the John Major opt out on the social chapter which will have

reversed by the Tony Blair governments? That no future

democratic elected Government will be able to reverse a decision taken

at this time by this Government? Obviously, as Parliament is

sovereign and not least in the fact that the EU law only has direct

effect in the UK because of acts of parliament, the decisions of this

house, that is something that limits the irreversible and 80 of any

Government decision. What we are keen to avoid happening again, is

the sort of thing that happened over the EFSM earlier this year. In their

heat of the Eurozone, winner deal -- when a deal suddenly appeared to be

at risk and it came up for discussion is in a meeting where

only only 90 member governments were gathered together, that is not the

way we can do business in the future. My right honourable friend

must know this is pretty thin. Much less than people had come to expect

from the Government. It takes out a few words from the pre-eminent ball

but does nothing about the substance of the treaties. It deals with

competition for which the European Commission itself as the proposal.

It fails to restore control of our borders. It seems to me that its

whole aim is to make Harold Wilson's negotiation reasonable. It

has to have a full list of powers that will be restored to the UK and

for this Parliament, not vacuously to parliaments plural. I think the

problem with the idea of a unilateral national Parliamentary

veto which my honourable friend advocates, is that it would mean

that, for example, the most protectionist parliament in any one

member state could veto every deregulatory, every single market

measure which the UK believed was profoundly in the interests of our

people and our prosperity. Such a unilateral veto would be

incompatible even with the arrangements that Norway and

Switzerland have with the European Union at the moment. I would just

say that I think if we had had the privilege and responsibility of

sitting at Council Minister's meetings in Brussels, a

responsibility that he may enjoy at some stage in a future in his

career, then he would, I think, be less sanguine about the unambitious

nature of what we are proposing. What we are proposing is going to

require some tough negotiating indeed. It is ridiculous that the

Prime Minister is putting the referendum to the British people,

that he can't explain what the British people are voting for. If

they are voting out and it is not Norway and not Switzerland, what is

at the British people are voting for? I think that would be a

question for those who are campaigning for out when the

referendum comes, to make clear. There are a number of studies that

have been published on what various alternative options for engagement

with Europe would look like. We are relentlessly focused upon securing a

successful outcome to this negotiation and delivering the

reformed Europe that British people want to see. The commitment will be

nothing of a rhetorical gesture unless it is backed by a radical

shake-up of the way the EU takes decisions. Does the Minister agree

that mostly EU legislation is stitched up between the commission,

the European Parliament and member states behind closed doors and the

impenetrable process known as tri- log and cis acting as a ratchet?

What proposals does the Government have for halting and reversing that

ratchet? The Prime Minister said this morning

that we need a new mechanism in the EU's system for working which guards

against that ratchet that he described and provides for the

opportunity of reviewing and reallocating powers that do not need

to be exercised at a European level. I think the pamphlet recently

published by the member for Chichester does provide some very

constructive and imaginative suggestions as to how we might take

that forward. The Prime Minister's letter welcomed the new EU trade

Chatterjee, but the Government carry out an assessment on how these deals

would be affected by his wider demands for economic reform? In his

answer, and the Minister confirm it is his understanding of the recent

remarks by the US trade representative that if the UK were

to leave the EU, we would not be able to negotiate an independent

trade deal with the United States? I heard what was said. He is a

senior official in the current United Straits administration, so

one has to take it seriously. On the general point, we see further moves

forward in free deals as an important element in securing the

reformed EU that we want. The potential deal with the United

States is the most ambitious and far reaching in its consequences, but I

welcome the fact that the commission in its strategy is also talking

about forging new trade deals with some of the emerging economies and

with our good allies and partners in Australia and New Zealand. As we

mark the 750th anniversary of the first English Parliament and some of

our continental partners are newcomers to this concept, can I

suggest that unless we return powers to this Parliament, that this

exercise will not be worth its while, for it is in this Parliament

that authority ultimately should reside on the half of the British

people? Can he explain to us how this new arrangement whereby groups

of national parliaments acting together can stop unwanted proposals

is going to work? I share his love of English history,

but I caution him against seeing Simon the Montford as a true born

Englishman. The direct answer to his question is that treaty is already

provide for a mechanism whereby a group of national parliaments can

demand and secure a review by the commission of a measure that the

commission is bringing forward. We think one option that we should be

looking at is turning such an arrangement above a certain

threshold into an outright veto, a red card rather than a yellow card.

Speaking as the chair of the PLP's pro-EU group, which has 210

members, including the leader of the Labour Party, we are united behind

staying in a Europe which is reforming and progressive. The

minister has said that if the Prime Minister does not get his way, he

leaves nothing out, so if we leave Europe, what does that mean for the

EU? When the negotiations are over, the Government is going to make it

-- make its assessment and recommendation clay. It will set out

in detail its reasons for coming to that view. Including it assessment

of what alternative options there might be on those. I don't think he

has anything to fear. Our focus remains on a successful outcome to

these negotiations that we believe will deliver a reformed Europe that

is what the British people want to see. The clarity and ambition of the

reforms that the Minister has outlined demonstrate there is a job

of work to do. They also remind us just how important British

leadership of the EU has been, such as the introduction of a single

market in 1980 and the extension of it hopefully soon, because of the

conclusion of these reforms. Does he agree that our real ambition is to

restate Britain's leadership in conjunction with other nation states

so that we can bring about an innovative, modern and responsive

economy which will benefit us all? I agree, if we look back at the EU's

history, we can take pride in the fact that two of its biggest

achievements, building a single market across Europe and enlarging

the EU to embrace the new democracies of Eastern and Central

Europe, were things that were achieved very much by British

leadership and in particular by the personal drive of Margaret Thatcher

on both counts. What he says is important and the Government shares

the spirit in which he posed his question. I am relieved that the

Prime Minister has outlined his negotiating stance and I wish him

every success in securing it, because I want him to be able to

bang the drum enthusiastically for our EU membership. Will the Minister

confirm that if meaningful reform is secured, the PM and the EU will not

have to deliver fully on all the issues set out in his letter,

including, for instance, in work benefits? For the primaries to two

argue in favour of our membership, the benefits which were set out in

the review. We will need to have a satisfactory outcome which meet our

requirements on all four areas of policy which I have described. Our

position on welfare and migration remains as the prime ministers about

in November and he repeated this morning.

I note the constraints suggested by the Prime Minister that free

movement of peoples is not working and will never work will stop even

Sweden and Germany are realising this today. Would not a Visa system

for all the fairer and safeguard our borders? We always keep our visa

arrangements under review, but I would ask my honourable friend to

think about the consequences for the way in which both business and

tourism operate between us and our neighbours in other democracies in

Europe, were there to be visas of the sort he is describing. It would

have to reply -- apply in reverse to British tourists. Progress is

leisurely, some might even describe it as lethargic. Because I like

guessing games and want to encourage members to think, let me suggest to

members that if they could model their contributions on those of the

members for Wokingham and Birmingham Edgbaston, progress would be

altogether speedier. In his statement, he used the phrase

salary to be subsidised by the state, how will the Government

French aid between a salary subsidised by the state for

foreigners and tax credits for UK citizens? These are matters that

will be addressed during the negotiation.

Would he agree that in ensuring a full permanent access to the single

market without joining the euro is a key objective for our future

economic health and would be a key sign that our continued membership

of a reformed EU itself the best of both worlds, prosperity and

flexibility? I think he put that very well, and getting that is

exactly what the Prime Minister is seeking. I was pleased to read that

the Prime Minister hopes to be able to campaign with all his heart and

soul to keep Britain in the EU. But any negotiation requires parities.

What are his priorities? They are the four policy objectives that he

set out this morning that I repeated in my statement today. After all the

statements made by the Prime Minister, my right honourable

friend, the Foreign Secretary, the former Foreign Secretary, the

pledged to make national parliaments, restore the primacy of

national parliaments, to get a fundamental opt out from the Charter

of fundamental rights, to restore our borders, is that the sum total

of the Government's position in this renegotiation? Is not the onus on

those who advocate that we should stay in the EU to explain why we

should put up with being a second tier country in an increasingly

centralised European Union, paying more and more and losing more and

more control? On the particular point of the Charter of fundamental

rights, the Prime Minister referred to that in his speech, this is an

issue that we will be seeking to address through the forthcoming

British Bill of Rights. I think that he underestimates how demanding and

far reaching the proposals that we have made will be. The Danish Prime

Minister said this morning, responding to the Prime Minister's

speech, what he proposed was a good basis for concrete negotiations but

it will be difficult, and I hope we succeed because we need a strong UK

in the EU. How will be Minister ensure that investment is not

impacted by the uncertainty that will proceed the referendum,

Berrigan mind that we in Northern Ireland have a unique situation with

the land border with the South of Ireland that will continue to be

part of the EU? She is right, it is one of the reasons why I regard it

as an important responsibility on my part to keep very close contact with

what the devolved administrations are thinking. At the moment, there

are no signs that the flow of foreign direct investment is drying

up, in fact it is still the case that the UK gets a bigger share of

third country direct investment into the EU than any other member state.

Given that he has conceded that several elements of the Prime

Minister's letter would require treaty change, can he tell us what

is his best estimate of the length of time that change would take, even

if miraculously it would be immediately agreed? I don't blame

him for asking what is a legitimate question, but this is something that

we will be talking about in the context of the negotiations. It is

true that each member state will have its own constitutional

arrangements for ratifying any new treaty. Can the Minister tell us if

the prime and Eszterhas told him the date by which he is going to make up

its mind and tell us which way he is going to go in this referendum? Why

is it he cannot set out, if we are voting to leave, just exactly what

it is we are voting for? The Prime Minister will make his position

clear at the end of the negotiations. It would seem odd to

embark on a process of negotiations and declare what the outcome would

be at the beginning. Can the Minister explain whether we or

Europe can decide how many migrants should come to the UK? We are

seeking a situation in which we have tougher rules against the abuse of

freedom of movement by criminals, Forster 's and others, and also to

reduce significantly the poor fact that our welfare system provides at

present. You referred to working together to block unwanted European

legislation. The fishing industry has been subject to European

registration, more red tape and bureaucracy, less fishing boats,

be in control of local fishing be in control of local fishing

waters, not the EU. What is being waters, not the EU. What is being

done to help our fishermen? We have demonstrated through actions our

support for the UK's fishing communities in the reform of the

common fisheries policy that British ministers helped to secure last

year. That has led to a ban on the practice of discarding, something

that British ministers and Government of all colours had been

seeking for decades will stop and to a shift towards more local and

regional management than was the case in the past. What has not been

included in the statement is far more important than what has been

included, nothing about regaining control over our trade deals with

the rest of the world, nothing about regaining control over farming or

over fisheries or over regional aid or state aid or ending free movement

of people. Does he agree that today will be looked back on as the day

when it became clear that the renegotiation amounts to no more

than tinkering around the edges and fundamentally, on great areas of

policy, this country will still finish up being told what to do by

the rest of the EU? On two counts, first, because my

honourable friend and estates the significance of the reforms that my

right honourable friend the Prime Minister has proposed and secondly

because if the decision of the British people, and it is for the

British people, if they decide to stay within a reformed European

Union, then the responsibility of this and any future British

Government will be not to be passive, but to lead the debate

within Europe and to secure outcomes that benefit the prosperity of the

British people. Could I ask again what specifically from Scotland's

agenda for EU reform has been mentioned in the negotiations? The

last time I spoke to Scottish ministers about their proposals,

they were keen on measures to deepen the single market in services and

digital which would provide major benefits to Scotland and to take

forward more trade deals with countries around the world. I would

remind the honourable gentleman that greater access for the Scotch

whiskey industry is up to foreign market and something the United

Kingdom Government consistently puts at the forefront of its own input in

the Brussels discussions. If the result of the EU Referendum Bill two

BN jawing, it must not be on the basis of a force prospective. Will

he give us an assuredness that any changing agreements will not be

legally binding and not be subject to a fudge after the referendum is

over? We need to have outcomes which make sure that whatever package of

reforms can be achieved are legally binding and irreversible for the

reasons that my honourable friend gives. There has been a lot of

speculation about an early referendum. Without a running

commentary, will the Minister set out the essential steps and

timetable to make it possible to hold a referendum next year? It

would need to have the Referendum Bill on the statute book and we

would need to have a conclusion of European negotiations. When both

those criteria have been fulfilled, we then need to allow time for

secondary legislation appointing a specific date to go through both

Houses of Parliament and after that has been completed, for the ten

weeks or more minimum campaign period to be gone through. Is not in

the national interests of our continental European partners to

support the Prime Minister in seeking to reduce in work benefits,

so in turn to reduce and stop the brain drain out of Europe? I

completely agree with my honourable friend and I do think it is a tragic

to when we find many highly qualified, very well educated men

and women who feel they have no option but to take an unskilled

low-paid job in another European country because they cannot find

work at home. The long-term answer to this challenge must in large part

to lie in the ability in national governments and the European Union

to generate resurgent economic growth and add to opportunities for

employment. Can that I cheer the minister by ensuring pro-reform

members on the side of the House welcome his statement today? Can he

set out what the Government's position will be in the event of an

out vote because from this side of the House, we still have memories of

the 90s and we don't want to see this Prime Minister marching out

into the rose garden and inviting the member from Woking to shut up or

put up. I am grateful for the honourable gentleman's kind thoughts

but I always strive to continue to be cheerful in this job. The answer

is that the result of the referendum is going to be regarded by the

Government as binding. This is a sovereign decision for the British

people as a whole to take and I am proud of the fact that it is my

party and a Conservative Government that is giving the British people

the right to take that decision finally. It has never been a matter

of no immigration but wanting controlled immigration. What

evidence is there that reducing access will stop button number of

people coming to this country? I think the fact that 40% of people

from elsewhere in the EU, living in the UK are in receipt of benefits or

tax credits of some sort and it indicates that that is one of the

major contributors to the pool factors. In the Prime Minister's

speech this morning, he intended to scrap the Labour Human Rights Act.

Is he a post to it because it was a Labour Government that implemented

it or is he opposed to human rights on a more fundamental level? I am

sorry if she was shocked by that sentence but it was something that

was in the Conservative Party manifesto back in May. I have to say

that she is entitled to defend the Blair Government's Human Rights

Act, but this country enjoyed a long tradition of respect for human

rights well before the Human Rights Act was enacted by the Blair

Government and I am confident the UK will have a tradition when that has

been replaced. I am proud to work -- walk through the division of breeze

in support of the EU membership and does my right honourable friend

think it is completely lacking credibility of the most of the

parties opposite, to have fought for the right of the British people to

have a say on the EU member ship and are now fighting the concept of

reform? I think my honourable friend is right and I think that some of

the honourable members opposite grossly underestimate the sense of

resentment amongst many men and women in this country at having seen

the treaty after treaty go through changing the balance of powers in

Europe that the British people are never asked to have their say. It is

sad that Christopher Columbus when he set out, didn't know where he was

going and when he got there, didn't know where he was and when he got

back, didn't know where he had been. Isn't the are facing the same

question his holographic negotiation strategy and is the Minister not

concern that in personalising this, as the Prime Minister's we

negotiation, that would get a Prime Minister referendum on a question

that the people see as something between a figment and a figleaf? The

Government was elected on a manifesto reform and referendum. I

enjoyed the joke but Christopher Columbus is remembered for having an

achievement in navigation and discovery and having symbolised the

opening of a new age. I hope this we negotiation is the start of a new

age of greater flexibility, democracy and competitiveness for

Europe. Some minutes ago, I heard my right honourable friend explained

that the Bill of Rights would deal with our obligations under the

Charter of fundamental rights. Can he explain whether he intends to

legislate notwithstanding our obligations under the EU or does the

Government have some other plan as yet unannounced to deal with

voluntary subjection to the European Court of justice? The European Court

of Justice has involved trade and the single market and has produced

judgments that have been to the advantage of British interests. If

you have a single market, you need to have some kind of independent

arbiter between disputes. I can only say that he would need to contain

his understandable impatience is a bit longer. My right honourable

friend the Justice Secretary intends to announce details on the way

forward in replacing the Bill of Rights and the implications of that

policy. I welcome the statement today. There are some reasonable

things that the Minister has set out to the House. There are many MPs on

the side of the House who work constructively with him to get the

best in the UK and to face down some of the abuses we have seen from his

own side in a statement today. They are people that could recognise Lee

leave the UK -- European Union without regard for this country. I

have had the pleasure of vigorous and robust concessions --

discussions with my honourable friends as well as the members

opposite. Can I say, there are differences, passionately and

honourably held differences of views across the House and all parties

about the UK's relationship with Europe. I hope we can continue to

take forward this debate in a spirit of mutual respect for people whose

views may differ from our own. The debate around whether the Bush

people should vote to remain or leave the EU has been encouraged by

some in terms of the certainty of remaining against the uncertainty of

leaving. Does my honourable friend agree that with the current

uncertainty in Europe around the Eurozone and the impact of the

migrant crisis, that voting to remain is as much a leap in the dark

as voting to leave? I think that might honourable friend should wait

until the conclusion of the negotiations because then I think we

will have much greater clarity over the nature of the choice of British

people. The Minister will be aware that the financial Secretary

promised a negotiating level to achieve a 0 rate of VAT on feminine

hygiene products. Will this be placed among the Prime Minister's

other demands? It should not be a second-class issue on the European

agenda. There was a clear pledge to the House from this dispatch box and

the Government is going to pursue that. In part one of the letter on

economic governance committee stays there are two sorts of members in

the bureau and outside. Does my right honourable friend agree that

many of the country currently outside the euro other than

ourselves are likely to remain in that position for many years to come

and therefore it is in the wider interests of the whole EU that the

European Union accepts that reality and enters into our negotiations in

an understanding of that fact? He makes an important point. There will

be some EU member states that will be part of the single currency and a

significant number that will be outside the single currency. Those

who are in the Eurozone will lead to integrate their fiscal economic and

political arrangements more closely and indeed this past ability of the

current union is on the matters in the interests of the United Kingdom

even though we are not going to join it. Getting that relationship right

between Euro ins and Euro outs is a European challenge and something of

our newbie -- something of our renegotiation for that reason. The

Minister's statement consisted largely of significant chunks quoted

from the Prime Minister's letter to President task. One of the things he

did not repeat was the closing of that. The Prime Minister said," I am

ready to campaign with all my heart and soul to keep Britain inside a

reformed European Union. " Why did the Minister today not include that?

Is it because instead of campaigning with his heart and soul with his

party leader, he plans to lead Ukip? I remain confident of a successful

outcome and join enthusiastically with my right honourable friend, the

Prime Minister in request of a reformed European Union. May I thank

him for his statement. I am pleased to see that rule nothing out

features like -- features heavily. Free trade, immigration and benefits

control, sovereignty of Parliament, economic governments and the removal

of other closer union. Would he agree that the best way to achieve

these aims is simple and that is to vote to leave?

I let him blurted out, but the question suffered from the

disadvantage of being too long. It would be good to avoid that in

future. I say that to be helpful. No, I agree with the Prime Minister

when he said that we would get the best of both worlds by continued

membership of a reformed EU which provided us with the amplified power

for our own economic and security objectives through international

work, which which was also a Europe more committed in the future than

now to democratic accountability, to acceptance of its own diversity, and

to economic competitiveness. Yesterday the Irish Prime Minister

and Taioseach was in Downing Street, he spoke about his concerns of the

impact and exit would have. Does he accept this is shared by many people

in Britain? What is the Government proposing to do? We have a close

relationship with Ireland. It is true that the quality of that

relationship, the reconciliation in Northern Ireland, has in part been

brought about in the context of the fact that the UK and Ireland have

worked closely together as partners within the EU. We will be listening

to all our friends across Europe, as well as to the views of leaders in

Northern Ireland, but this is a matter for the people of the UK to

decide, just as the Irish people many times have voted whether or not

to accept new EU treaties. I wish to thank him for making the statement,

commend him on the way he goes about making them and the wakey engages

with the house, and welcome the evolution of the and policies within

the statement. My constituents will make their mind up on two things,

whether we control our borders and the ability to trade with the

world. What is his assessment of the ability of the EU to conclude future

free-trade deals? It is sometimes complex and challenging to get an

agreed negotiating position across 28 countries and give the mandate to

the commission to negotiate collectively on our behalf, but the

leveraged that derives from negotiating as a market place of 500

million people is very significant, it makes other governments even of

large countries more willing to endure the political hassle that

they themselves faced with their own is this interests in order to bring

about free trade agreements that I believe are a win-win for both sides

of. Given that the Government has rejected the principle of a double

majority in the referendum, will he accept the result if England votes

narrowly to leave but is outvoted by the rest of the UK voting to stay

in? Will his backbenchers, who have not asked a single supportive

question, except it? It is the UK that is the member state of the EU.

I remind him that his party in May was against giving the people of

Scotland or anywhere else in the UK the chance to vote on their future

in Europe. I respect him very much indeed, but does he seriously

believe that the grudging enjoined, National where possible, reiterated

in the Donald Tusk letter and in his speech today, is a sufficiently

ambitious lodestar for the UK negotiations? It is one important

and significant element in that negotiation, it is not the whole

story. I welcomed the statement today. It is an important step on

the journey towards fundamental reform. Given the unsustainable

migration flows, does he agree it is important to ensure that businesses

from the EU must first reside here and also contribute before they

qualify for in work benefits and social housing? Will he make this an

urgent priority? That is exactly the objective that the Prime Minister

set out in his speech today. Does he agree that it is in both our and the

EU's interests to trade more freely with high growth potential

Commonwealth economies? If the EU continues to move Glace Ely on this

issue, we should build more agreements with the Commonwealth on

our own? The Commonwealth countries,

important though they are, account for only 17% of global GDP, taken

together. I agree with his emphasis on the need to forward's forge

free-trade agreements on emerging economies as well as with developed

economies, but I caution against thinking that it would be somehow

quicker and easier to strike such a deal if it were big UK with 65

million people negotiating rather than the EEC with 500 million -- PE

you. At this time of renegotiation, those who have their mind set on

what they are going to do are almost irrelevant, but would he sent a

message to those Europhiles, like Professor Fixx, who gave evidence,

who felt that no matter what is achieved, if nothing changes, we

will opt to leave? The Prime Minister is clear that he believes

that serious reforms are essential. If the British people are to believe

their future lies in membership of the EU. If we vote to leave, how

long will a legally binding except take? Days, weeks, months or years?

He is understandably inviting me to speculate about a post-referendum

outcome when the Government is focused upon what is happening

during the election. I would suggest he might like to study Article 50 of

the treaty on EU, sub sections two and three, which will give him more

detail. I am sure it is in the library! I expect the Minister of

State could reproduce it backwards in Sanskrit and probably did so when

he won University Challenge. I thank the Minister for his statement and

the fortitude he has shown. Would he agree that the crisis in the

Eurozone sees the need for the Eurozone countries to move together,

but the key for our negotiations have to be that Europe needs to do

less but better? Peep at the point well and said

simply, and I agree. The EU is very slow at concluding

important free-trade deals around the world, which can harm our

international competitiveness. Is the Government still committed to

negotiating a means to fast-track important free-trade deals in

Europe? We believe that Europe needs to take forward with much greater

energy and determination the work in securing free-trade deals. We think

that the recently published strategy by the commission demonstrates a new

and raised level of ambition, which we welcome, but we want to see the

agenda turbo-charged. Will he agree with me that when we find ourselves

in the position as a sovereign parliament where we cannot even

reduce the level of VAT on women's sanitary products, the EU has too

much power, and will he join me in criticising those who say that they

will stay in at any price, because they undermine our renegotiation

is? Without a walk away position, there can be no meaningful

negotiation. The Government is clear that we need to see some very clear

agreed reforms in order to make the recommendation to the British people

that the Prime Minister said he wishes to do. But also, that the

British people will need to see serious reform if they are to be

persuaded to vote in favour of continued membership. Beyond that,

Europe as a whole would benefit from the sort of reforms that we are

advocating, because there are too many jobless young people in Europe

who need greater European competitiveness and in many European

countries we are seeing a sense of dissatisfaction and alienation from

the way in which decisions are taken in Brussels. He was correct when he

said at the beginning that we have a mandate to renegotiate, fax to us

securing a Conservative victory at the general election. Does he agree

that the reforms need to be permanent and irreversible as well

as sufficient, otherwise my residents and elsewhere will vote to

leave? I'd agree. Does he agree that the referendum at

the end of these big stations must be final and that there can be no

question of second chances or further renegotiation if people

choose to leave? Yes, this decision that the British people make will be

binary, as the Prime Minister has said, this is the most important

vote for the future of this country that any of us who are of voting age

will take part in during our lifetimes. The idea that somehow you

can go away and think again is at odds with reality and with the

procedure spelt out in the treaties. Time for desert. May I thank the

excellent Europe Minister for making the statement and for his long

tenure in office and the way he has managed to change position so many

times? On occasion, I almost leave him. Would he thank the Prime

Minister for his honesty in coming forward with a package that makes it

clear that, if the package is successful, we will still be in a

political union and we will still have free movement? That allows

Eurosceptics to say, no longer do we have to pretend there will be a

substantial negotiation, we can campaign to get out, and will he

passed my thanks on? I am always happy to pass on compliments, I have

to confess that I would have been somewhat surprised had almost

anything that I said been enough to set the site him, but I am sure we

will have these debates in the future. Order. I have received a

report from the tellers in the no lobby, about the Scotland Bill

yesterday, informing me that the number of those voting no was

erroneously reported as 269 instead of 289. The ayes were 56, the noes

289. Order. We come now to the presentation of Bill. Coroners and

Justice act 2009, duty to investigate Amendment Bill. Second

reading what they? 29th of January. Order, we come to the ten minute

rule motion. I beg to move that leave the given

to bring in a bill to establish a target for the relocation of central

Government functions, offices and staff from London to other parts of

the UK to make provision for implementation, altering and

performance reporting against such targets and for connected purposes.

This bill would ensure more balanced economic growth across the country,

drink new jobs and greater prosperity to areas who have

struggled, reduce pressure on the overheat of London economy and save

billions to help reduce the deficit. They should also be seen as a part

of the debate about devolution and improving public services, because

they would improve policy-making, reform public services by getting

Government to work together, there would bring Government closer to the

people and enable civil servants to see what life is like for people in

Dudley and elsewhere. This would move the vast majority of civil

servants from departmental's non-departmental bodies from

London, 100,000 jobs from the capital to the rest of the country,

distributing wealth more fairly, making a huge contribution to the

regeneration of 50 city and town centres, benefiting London by making

more than 20 million square feet of real estate available for new is the

start-ups or for conversion into desperately needed homes. They would

benefit the taxpayer by saving an initial ?10 billion and ongoing

annual savings of 725 million. We live in one of the most

centralised countries in the world. According to the OECD, central

government control 70% of government expenditure compared to 35% in

France and 19% in Germany. Unlike most other economies, only 2% of

taxation is raised at a local level and government finance, business,

broadcasting, media, culture and the arts or all concentrated here in

London. As a result investment in growth has been concentrated in the

capital and stifled elsewhere. The economic outputs of seven out of

eight of the UK's largest cities consistently performed below the

national average whereas in Germany all eight of the largest cities

outside Berlin outperform the national average and there is a

similar picture in Sweden, Italy and France. The historical North-South

divide has been reinforced with the dominance of Finance and the

weakness of manufacturing which has benefited the capital of the region

is hard. These factors have is hard. These factors have

distorted public -- government policy for decades and exacerbated

the decline of traditional industries and hampered the region

abilities to get new jobs to replace them. Since the 1940s to have been

six attempts to decentralise government departments, most

recently the Lyons review in 2004 and the Smith review in 2010. For

example, hundreds of civil servants moved to Sheffield in 1979 to move

to run the newly created Manpower services commission. The NSC and the

training agency brought many jobs to the city and David Fletcher said the

bulk of those jobs in some shape or form are still here. Some jobs do,

and go but it has given us a platform to build for growth.

Elsewhere there was Cecil transfers to Bootle, Bristol, the Northwest

and bid and burdens so there were some success but this proposal is

more radical. The proportion of the country's civil servants located in

the capital actually increased every year between 2010 and 2015. There

are now 79,000 civil servants and 63,000 staff from non-departmental

public bodies based in London. Despite deep cuts elsewhere in the

country, there are now 5000 words civil servants in the capital, in

2013. The capital's civil servants occupied almost 30 million square

feet of space. The equivalent of 57 London gherkins. The average annual

cost is 806 to ?7 a square metre. More than twice the national average

of ?406. Worse still, newly created public bodies and the Government

digital service, health education in England and the Government

communications service of all been located in London and have not been

joined up with the wider public sector. When I was there in the last

Labour government, I am sure I had meetings with fewer than 30 of the

thousand or so civil servants who worked there. E-mail and video

conferencing, the rest could have been based anywhere in Britain. The

civil service, let's move all posts that don't require regular

face-to-face contact with ministers in addition to all 24 of the newly

created non-departmental bodies, all 43 regulators, inspectorates and

ombudsman and all bodies with the localism or regeneration been Mick

HS2, visit Britain ordered the other agencies to other parts of the

country. Between seven and a half thousand and 10,000 civil servants

would remain in London but flexible meeting space and room is available

when needed. You can even have more ministers from different

departments, private policy people in one building, imagine what that

could do for cross departmental working and getting ministers and

departments collaborating more closely. Across the country, civil

servants and local and regional government offices should share

buildings and work together more effectively as well. Towns and

cities could bid or submit proposals to host departments, church services

and save money, but wouldn't it make sense for example... Transported to

Birmingham in the south of the country, the CMS to Manchester where

you have got the BBC, world beating sport teams and facilities and Defra

in Norwich. Doncaster, Grimsby, Burrow, whole... -- imagined, and of

course to Chesterfield. Imagine how much easier it would be to improve

the skills and boost spending on science and technology in the

Midlands if you had central government civil servants, local

government offices and universities and industry working closely

together in the same place. Imagine how the quality of policy-making

would improve if central government civil servants were based in the

regions, seeing it first hand and on a daily basis the problems they were

trying to solve. This should be part of the devolution debate taking

place not just in Scotland and Wales but the regions are thing and also.

Local authorities, businesses and MPs in the West Midlands are working

hard to put a bid together and negotiate a devolution deal but

think how much more powerful the regions could be if central

government departments were playing the full role. According to analysis

by the new local government network, the traditional ways of organising

public services in rigid and independent central departments

suffer the local -- separate from the local government departments is

less effective when there is less money to spend, and ageing

population and more complex needs. We need to find new ways of working.

For example the NHS faces a ?30 billion funding gap by 2030. The

centrally managed work programmes failing to get sustainable jobs...

Still face serious skill shortages in many parts of the country. The

answer to that I think is empowering local people based on sophisticated

understanding of local community's needs, local expertise,

collaboration between central and local government departments in the

health service to make those needs. That is clearly much more

intelligent, overlapping traditional way also those like health and

unemployment. Devolution and decentralisation will put local

people in charge and remove layers of bureaucratic rules and

prescriptions so we can develop a former government were flexible,

innovation and adaptation to needs become the norm and not the

exception. Finally, this would also help address the huge problem of

disengagement and distrust of London and Westminster institutions. It

makes a massive difference when people can see decisions being made

locally to meet their needs, cut through the cynicism that many

people feel about politics. My experience as minister of the West

Midlands taught me that when you to local people, when funds are

devolved and when central government and local authorities, businesses,

universities work together and are empowered to implement the answers,

decisions are taken more quickly and the solutions are more effective.

When you look at our brilliant nuclear station complex in

Birmingham, one of the biggest city centre redevelopment programmes in

the country, the runway extension which we got much more quickly in

the Midlands and has been the case with airport development projects

elsewhere in the country, the new JL are planned, all of these huge

redevelopment projects, would never have got off the drawing board

without government departments letting local authorities and the

private sector and others in the West Midlands exercise their

leadership and use their expertise to transform the region. Those show

what regions are capable of doing. Imagine what were could do to

transform the country if central government departments were

decentralised and the functions would devolve. Madam Deputy

Speaker, let's transform the way government works, to transfer the

country so that as we emerge from the recession, and the economy grows

again, we won't make the mistakes of the past. Don't leave any community

behind. We will build a stronger economy right across the country

with better skills, new industries, jobs and open opportunities for

people in all parts of Britain. The quest... The question is that the

honourable member has leave to bring in the Bill as many of that opinion

say aye, of the country know. The ayes have it. Who will prepare and

bring in the Bill? Alison McGovern, Nicholas Brown, Adrian Bailey,

Andrew Quinn, Caroline Flint, Chris Evans, Ian Wright, Diane Johnson,

John Mann, Liam Byrne, Helen Jones and myself. Ian Austin.

Government departments decentralisation target Bill. Second

reading, what they? 22nd of January. Programme motion, minister to

move... Kevin Brennan. Thank you. I don't want to detain the House or

divide the House on this matter but I figured it's important to put on

record that we did seek more time for today's many stages of the Trade

Union Bill that has been further truncated by a lengthy statement on

Europe. Suffice to say, if the Government continues to use

programme motions in this way, and insert statements in order to

truncate debate on very controversial matters, it will only

serve to weaken this place and its ability to scrutinise legislation

and strengthen the other place it I am sure will be very keen to

scrutinise this legislation further when it arrives down there after

today's proceedings. Thank you. Like the member for Cardiff West, we also

saw additional time. This is a highly controversial Bill, with much

media interest and at the Bill Committee there were 50 divisions

where every cause of this Bill was up for debate. The timetable today

does not lead to the whole house having the same scrutiny on every

Clause. Ideally we would have wanted more protected time to discuss all

of these bills so we can debate all because as in this Bill. Just

briefly because I do want us to use the time to the purpose to which it

was intended, but the honourable gentleman knows full well that when

it comes to his own contributions, what matters is quality not

quantity. He didn't have the advantage of joining us on the Bill

Committee. But he no doubt was informed by the person who

represented the opposition in that Bill Committee that the Bill

Committee finished early. We did not use the full amount of time that was

allocated under the programme motion. I believe that this Bill has

received proper scrutiny. If I am allowed to, thank you... I was just

thinking that the opposition here are protesting somewhat too much.

Looking at the amendments that have been tabled today, I was absolutely

amazed by the lack of amendments on very important parts of the Bill

that may have been discussed at Committee, while you may not have

had time, you had time to put in the amendments, and they were not put in

and we are not today debating very significant part of the Bill but I

think should be. -- that I think should be. The question is the Trade

Union Bill programme motion as on the order paper. As many of that

opinion, say I'd... On the contrary note. The ayes have it, the ayes

have it. The clock will now proceed -- the court will now proceed to

read the orders of the day. As amended in the Public Bill Committee

to be considered... We begin with amendment 15 with which it will be

convenient to consider the associated amendments and new

clauses listed in Mr Speaker's provisional selection. Chris

Stephens... Thank you. I beg to move the amendments in my name and those

my honourable friend 's and those are amendments 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,

20, 21, 22, 14, 34, 31, 32, 33, new Clause ten which I begin my remarks.

Before I do, I do want to pay tribute to the member for Cardiff

South and Karen ours who led for the Labour Party in the Bill Committee,

I thought with great diligence. I welcome the member for Cardiff West

in his place. I also pay tribute to the Conservative members of the Bill

Committee who were trying to defend the indefensible. I pay tribute to

the Labour members for Newport East, Cardiff Central, Gateshead,

Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland and Sunderland Central.

However I think the star of the show and probably be some type of the

Bill Committee came from Mike honourable friend, who had commented

that the minister presented in the Bill with great moderation but was

entirely disingenuous. This is a catch all amendment that

limits the Bill from applying to the public sector throughout the UK

without the consent of the Scottish parliament, Welsh assembly, Northern

Irish assembly, neither of London and other public bodies in England.

To protect our approach of working in partnership with unions, we took

the view that Scotland should be excluded from the entire trade union

Bill, however, having heard the representations from other political

parties and indeed from many across the trade union and labour movement

we have restricted the extent of the Bill from applying without consent

to each situation and authority who will be impacted by the changes

contained within this Bill. I will. On the point of local authorities I

think it is arrogant for the government to impose this on local

authorities without the negotiations on the Chekhov system. Kilmer I

thank the honourable gentleman for his intervention, he like many

others in this place was the leader of a local authority and he will

know that he would have been negotiating with the trade unions on

issues like the facility time to make sure that agreements are made

in time to make sure that grievances are having time to avoid these sorts

of issues going to tribunal and I agree with him that it is arrogant

and I think it is out of order for UK Government to make decisions in

respect of facility time, Chekhov for example, which has been opposed

by many local authorities across the UK. Proposals in this Bill have the

potential to undermine the effective engagement of trade unions across

Scottish workplaces and indeed across the UK, and in particular the

public sector. The Scottish Government is working on a response

with the fare worst invention, have shown a commitment to building a

stronger, more collaborative approach to the relationship between

trade unions, employees and employers. Become a nation of the

provisions in this Bill will affect employees right to strike, changing

the ablation ship between negatively and leading to greater confusion

amongst employees. This will undoubtedly hit Scottish business,

especially across the public services in Scotland and elsewhere

in the UK. As with many bills from this house the devil is reserved in

the detail and with a lot of the details still to be set out in

regulations we are unaware of what else could be coming down the line.

Moreover there will be no formal opportunity at this stage for the

Scottish Government are indeed any other authority to influence such

regulations even though they were directly impacted on them. According

to witness evidence, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is concern that the

Bill could lead to a concert is crisis. If the devolved

administrations refused to implement the content of the Bill, the Bill

potentially cut across devolved areas and could lead to confusion

and conflict of interest in its application to existing and new

contracts due to the ongoing local government reforms in other areas

and indeed in the evidence sessions David Prentice the general secretary

of Unison have made the comment that the new combined authorities of

England will have a lot of expenses of powers except the power to

determine Chekhov and facility arrangements. The first minute of

Scotland's Nicholas Turgeon has stated in a programme for and

42015-2016, my government will vigorously oppose any legislation

that seeks to undermine the rights of unions to fairly and reasonably

represent their members. The Welsh First Minister has echoed these

concerns when he wrote to the game is over concerns about the trade

union Bill, stating that this should be a matter for the National

Assembly for Wales. The Scottish Government maintains positive and

stable industrial relationships in Scotland, underlined by the strong

partnership with the Scottish Government and the ST UC, who

recently reaffirmed a memorandum of understanding signed in May 2015.

The memorandum also pledged the Scottish Government to work with the

ST UC to oppose Conservative austerity and demanding further

powers for Scotland. The Scottish Government use trade unions as

partners in maintaining democracy in the society and workplace and the

existence of good employment practices, it is a key contributor

to economic repetitive this and social justice. I will. He has made

the case for the Scottish Government, within the committee,

was there any evidence whatsoever put forward by the government of any

public body expressing a view different from that of the Scottish

Government? I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way and he is

right, there is no evidence presented at the Bill committee from

a public body in support of this Bill, we heard from the Tory

Taliban, the taxpayers Alliance have supportive of some of these measures

but no public body. The restriction, Madam Deputy Speaker, will ensure

that none of the provisions within this Bill will apply without consent

of the relevant authorities. Within this grouping we have placed

amendments to the application of the most... I will. Constituent of mine

in heart will welcome the protection, many of them

hard-working commuters, will welcome the protection against unjustified

strikes. While London should have a veto over these measures when they

will not have a say under this proposals. The honourable gentleman

refers to unjustified strikes, I am not aware of any unjustified

strike. There seems to be a notion presented by the Conservative Party

in the Conservative benches that low turnouts are due to lack of support.

I think that is just not the case. The case being advanced by the

government, in this issue, seems to suggest that trade union officials

and trade union stewards in the workplace developed after the ballot

result mystical powers of persuasion. Almost Jedi like powers

of persuasion. As everyone with the hands means that this is the strike

you looking for. That frankly is a nonsense. I have to say to you. What

was interesting in the Bill committee that the honourable

his passenger transport groups were his passenger transport groups were

very concerned about aspect of the Bill and they were very concerned

about the aspects in relation to agency workers, untrained agency

workers with respect to transport. I gave way to the member. Thank you

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to the honourable gentleman

forgiving way. Will he agree with me that if the Conservative Party were

so interested in having having more people take part in strike ballots

they will allow Telecom in voting and they will allow secure workplace

balloting to? I will come to that point, I was curious that the Bill

committee were advised that the balloting was and secure and secure

and I will come onto that later on in my contribution. We have placed

these amendments, amendment 15 at various applications are close to

that introduced a 50% turnout requirement for industrial action

ballots, in addition to the current requirement for the majority vote in

favour of action. The government proposals will undermine

constructive employment relations throughout the United Kingdom.

Effective negotiations between unions and employers rely on equal

bargaining power. The ability of unions to organise lawful industrial

action ensures that employers take the views of their workforce

seriously and engage in genuine negotiations. The statutory

threshold make it very difficult for unions to organise industrial

action, especially in larger workplaces and those with more

dispersed workforces. As a result the legislation is expected to have

a wide-ranging impact on the ability of trade union members to take

industrial action in defence of their jobs. Their working conditions

and their livelihoods. It is in the employers and employees interests

for this to be solved quickly and amicably. The government's proposals

mean that disputes are more likely to become a protracted. The

introduction of ballot thresholds would mean that unions take more

time in the run-up to ballots to ensure the necessary turnout, this

will inevitably divert time and effort away from finding an amicable

settlement. I give way. I thank the honourable gentleman. This is one of

these bills that the Tories were -- that the Tories when they have

trouble bring forward. But a lot of this is because the Mayor of London

has not been able to handle the industrial situation and as a result

of that the bring in this Bill and undermine industrial relations in

this country. I am very sympathetic to that point of view because I

think it is absolutely right, there seems to be a view from the Mayor of

London that is not the same attitude that is displayed by other public

sector bodies across the UK. I give way to the member from Sunderland. I

thank the honourable member, on the Bill committee wasn't the evidence

given that actually this would not solve that problem, the particular

problem that London has because most of the disputes taking place in

recent years, particularly in rail, would have gone ahead anyway. The

reason they would have gone ahead is because they would have meant the

special is that they are trying to put in place. I think the honourable

member wanted in. I am most grateful to the honourable gentleman. Is it

not the case that the Conservative Mayor of London has not actually met

the unions in the transport sector in London at all during his tenure?

With not a better method be to have proper industrial lesions,

negotiations and dialogue rather than sabre rattling? I do agree with

that, and I am sure there will be an opportunity for the elected of

London to pass judgment on that. I will give way. I am very grateful to

the honourable gentleman. I was not a member of the Bill committee, he

had been talking about the application of high officials for

industrial action, but consideration was given to the potential for it a

high official was put in place, what the consequence might be for Wales

cat union action? Because trade union leaders are unwilling to take

a vote because they are fearful of not meeting a settled. Thank you.

There was no evidence presented that this would ultimately be the case,

actually what the specials did open up was the impact it would have on

workers and trying to progress a dispute, particularly on issues

where shift changes are introduced, for example. Women workers try to

progress the dispute because impact on them or that it would on male

workers, so the Bill committee did not touch on those issues. According

to the office of National the office of National number of days lost to

industrial action earlier fallen dramatically over the last 30 years,

since 2010, on average 640,000 days have been lost to industrial action

compared to 7,213,000 days lost per year in the 1980s. In 2014 there are

only 155 stoppages as a result of industrial action, with 55% of

stoppages taking place in the private sector and 45% taken place

in the public sector. Most industrial action is short lived,

mud and dignity Speaker, in 2014 64% of all stoppages lasted for one or

two days and accounted for the figures given earlier, 93% of the

work took part in industrial action. Other amendments, Madam Deputy

Speaker,... I will give way. I am grateful. I would like to ask a

question which I would like to have the answer to. If there was,... Is

the first set of amendments were accepted, such that the Scottish

Government had a say in the give its consent, would you drop your, with

the Scottish Government... I am interested to know whether the SNP

would drop the other amendments as they would have a say in their own

parliament. Collective-bargaining indeed. I think it is important that

public bodies across the United Kingdom have your say and consent in

whether this Bill and provisions of this Bill should be passed. I also

believe that if any public body gives their consent, that consent

can be taken away on a future occasion and I think the Mayor of

London, the example was given earlier, maybe perhaps the best

example of that. I will give way to the honourable gentleman. Thank you

for giving away one more time. I thought it was very good that he

illustrated the difference in the strike rates and lost is over the

past 30 years, and with the honourable member agree with me that

industrial lesions have improved in the past 30 years, unions are much

more effective and cooperative and yet the Tories over there are stuck

in an ideological argument of 30 years ago, and they should move

forward instead of using a sledgehammer. I do agree with that

and I think the more seasoned veterans of the house will probably

know what I mean when I say that this is Keith Joseph says three.

This is an ideological attack against the largest group in civic

society who stands up against explication. I will give way. Very