ConservativeHome's Parliament Page

Christopher Chope MP questions benefits of EU membership and highlights costs

Christopher Chope yesterday presented the European Union (Audit of Benefits and Costs of UK Membership) Bill.  It stands next to no chance of coming into force.

Christopher Chope on how Gordon Brown exaggerates our economic relationship with the EU: "Only as recently as Wednesday, the Prime Minister was using that familiar refrain of justification for our position in the European Union, by saying that 60 per cent. of our trade is with the EU and that 3 million jobs depend on the EU. He told my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) that it would be “bad for Britain” to be out of Europe altogether.

However, the Prime Minister’s claim about trade is wrong. The Library note for this debate summarising national statistics data says that in 2007, 52 per cent. of the UK’s total trade in goods and services related to the European Union, which was lower than it was in 2006. The Prime Minister was therefore wrong in asserting that the figure was 60 per cent. He was also wrong in implying, as the Euro enthusiasts do so often, that, because perhaps 3 millions jobs depend on exports to the European Union, they would be in jeopardy were our relationship with the European Union to be different.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) made that point well in the debate on European affairs earlier this week, saying:  “In fact, 6.4 million jobs in continental Europe depend on trade with the United Kingdom. Germany exports more goods and services to the UK than we do to it. Some 3.2 per cent. of German gross domestic product is exported to the United Kingdom.”

He then gave some other figures and concluded by saying: “Imports from the EU 27 to the UK have grown by an average of 13 per cent. over the past two years."

At the same time, our exports have been static or declining. Anybody who suggests that our having a different relationship with the European Union would put those 3 million jobs at risk will find that there is no evidence for that suggestion."

In a question to Mr Chope Philip Davies argues that the costs of EU regulation outweigh the benefits of the single market: "The European Commission has been very helpful in acknowledging that the cost of regulation is €600 billion and that the benefits of the single market are something in the region of €160 billion. On its own admission, the costs of regulation are about three times more than the benefits of the single market. Does my hon. Friend agree that whereas only about 10 per cent. of businesses in this country get any benefit from the single market, every single business faces the cost of all the regulations?"

Cost of appeals tribunal a red herring

Philip Davies in support of the new Clause 1 of the Crown Employment (Nationality) Bill argues that we need safeguards to protect people in the eventuality of the Human Rights Act being repealed, and that the cost of an appeals tribunal to monitor this law would be small compared to Government waste and expenditure:

My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells mentioned the point about whether it was necessary, given the existence of the Human Rights Act 1998. I know that the hon. Member for Hendon is an enthusiastic supporter of that Act, but—as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said—some of us wish to see it repealed. We cannot therefore rely on it to be the safeguard in every eventuality for every piece of legislation. We have to have things in place to protect people when the Act is repealed, as I would like it to be. It is important not to rely on legislation that we do not support, and that we put in place other mechanisms to ensure fair play.

The other objection that my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells made was about costs. I understand that entirely, as I would not wish to incur unnecessary public expenditure. However, it is important to have an appeals process and it would not cost a considerable amount in the scheme of Government expenditure. A modest cost for a tribunal that ensures fair play is important.

Edward Leigh: My hon. Friend is being unfair on himself. I suspect that the cost of his proposal would be extremely modest compared with the very large sums lost in inefficiency and waste in even one Department.

Philip Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. In his role as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, there is no one better in the House at ensuring that money is properly spent. He is absolutely right that any costs incurred by the new clause would be modest in the scheme of Government expenditure. If the Government are so concerned about waste in the public sector, I am sure that there are far better targets with far bigger rewards than this modest tribunal.

We need an appeals tribunal to ensure that the rules are fair. Although the cost objection is understandable, it is a red herring, because the costs would be incredibly modest. I invite the House to support the new clause, despite the reservations expressed, because it would improve the Bill and make it more likely to gain support in both Houses of Parliament.

More from Hansard here.

Philip Davies questions impact of migration on housing needs

Philip Davies MP: "The Government always look at the supply side of housing, not the demand side. Will the Minister confirm that more than 1 million of the 3 million houses that the Government wish to build over the next 15 years will be needed for future immigration? Will he tell us what assessment he has made of the impact of immigration and asylum on affordable and social housing over the past 10 years?"

Parmjit Dhanda, Communities and Local Government Minister: "The hon. Gentleman needs to be aware that more than 70 per cent. of the demand for housing between now and 2020 will be due to people living in single-person households and other demographic factors. It is not all about migration. We have a migration impacts forum, which I chair jointly with a Minister from the Home Office, but we should also consider the contribution of migrants to this country. They contribute more, in terms of gross domestic product, than they take out, and the percentage is growing over the years."

More from Hansard here.

Philip Davies MP's Early Day Motion on Imperial measures

"That this House welcomes the fact that imperial measures will not now become an illegal form of measurement in the UK for the foreseeable future; abhors the fact that traders are not allowed to sell only in imperial measurements even if their customers specifically want to buy items in imperial measurements; calls on the Government to end this attack on people's freedom of choice by immediately bringing forward proposals to remove the legal requirement to sell in metric measurements and to de-criminalise the selling of goods in this traditional way; and pays tribute to Steve Thoburn who became a martyr for standing up and fighting for his customers and the rights of the British people; and supports the campaign to award him a posthumous pardon."

Posted here.

Factsheet on EDMs.