European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I believe that this Bill is well worthy of support and has much to commend it. It is short and succinct and its objects are clear and unambiguous, as my noble friend explained clearly in his opening remarks. We have been here before. Indeed, rereading the Hansard report of our proceedings on Friday 27 June 2003, one finds the thrust of noble Lords’ remarks in favour of the Bill just as relevant today as they were then. Some repetition will therefore be unavoidable, but I shall try to keep it to the minimum. One of the great benefits of conducting a cost-benefit analysis would be to place an authoritative stamp on many of the figures that have been doing the rounds of the Chamber today. It is in everyone’s interest, Euro-phile and Euro-phobe alike, to do this. No one should have anything to fear from the exercise, and surely we have the right to ask our Government to carry out this research so that balanced judgments can be made. After all, if Switzerland can do it, we can, too. Unfortunately, the Treasury has so far shown no sign of subscribing to this view. It claims that the benefits of EU membership are self-evident and that therefore no detailed analysis of the costs versus the benefits is necessary. I fear that that is a view verging on the delusional; it is certainly not one shared by the majority of the British public. Our outgoing Prime Minister will soon be attending the EU summit of European leaders and, as has been said, the prediction is that he will sign this country up to a watered-down EU constitution. Were that to happen, it would be a travesty and make a complete mockery of our democratic process. A few weeks ago, ICM Research carried out a survey of the British public for the Centre for Policy Studies, an independent study group. Asked to choose their ideal relationship with the EU, 36 per cent of those surveyed said that the UK should have a looser relationship with Europe and 29 per cent said that the UK should withdraw from the EU altogether. Asked whether there should be a loosening of ties, 69 per cent said yes and just 22 per cent said no. That is fairly conclusive evidence of the views that our public hold on this matter. Surely we should heed the words of Professor Willem H Buiter, professor of European political history at the London School of Economics. In a letter to the Financial Times published last Tuesday, he said: "““Any constitution, be it maxi or mini—and any treaty that involves either a material transfer of sovereignty (in either direction) between the member states and the EU, or a change in the balance of power among individual member states—should continue to be the subject of a referendum, if a referendum was part of the arrangements for the original treaty establishing a constitution for Europe””." He went on to say: "““The mini-constitution/treaty revision is likely to be a major constitutional event involving significant transfers of national sovereignty. A British government … should ask the British people to accept it or reject it in a referendum””." Can the Minister tell us whether the Government have any intention of heeding those wise words? Can the Minister also explain why this Government are so set on tying us into a shrinking marketplace? Europe as a whole is in demographic decline—of that there is no doubt. Projections made by the United Nations population division show that, between 2005 and 2050, EU27 will lose 64 million of its working-age population, while the USA will gain 46 million. That is the equivalent of the EU losing the entire workforce of Germany over a period of45 years. Indeed, the Chancellor’s own figures show that the EU’s share of global GDP fell from 26 per cent in 1980 to 22 per cent in 2003 and is expected to fall further to just 17 per cent by 2015. On the other side of the coin, the US share is expected to stay roughly the same at around 20 per cent, while India’s is expected to rise from 6 per cent to 8 per cent and China’s from 13 per cent to 19 per cent. Is any clearer sign needed to show that we are in danger of locking ourselves into an inward-looking and shrinking marketplace? History tells us that that was never our way, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has reminded us. We have traded on the world stage in the past and we have always sought to trade on a broad front. Indeed, our instinct has always been to look outward, not inward. As I am talking about the world at large, I should like to touch on the EU international aid programme. In a report published last April by Open Europe, entitled EU Aid: Is It Effective?, one sees a very sorry picture indeed. While member states have been getting more focused on poverty and have moved away from the old-fashioned use of aid to prop up friendly regimes, the Commission has been moving in exactly the opposite direction and is seeking to use aid as a political lever. While most enlightened countries, including the UK, have been increasing their donations to low-income countries, EU aid to such countries has fallen from 63 per cent to just 32 per cent. Regrettably, there are serious problems with fraud. A little over 7 per cent of the EU budget is spent on overseas aid, but OLAF spent 21 per cent of its total time investigating fraud in these areas. So fraud is a far greater problem in overseas aid than in other sectors. If the EU is to show that it is serious about overseas development, it must reform the EU’s trade policies and farm subsidy programme. A study by Oxford Economic Forecasting found that trade liberalisation and the phasing out of farm subsidies could boost the GDP of sub-Saharan Africa by up to 6 per cent. But, sadly, we delude ourselves if we believe any such reforms are coming any time soon. In the conclusions of the report, one comes to the following damning paragraph: "““The Commission scores abysmally on policy coherence, it has no monopoly on things like democracy and human rights, any economies of scale in development projects are hard to substantiate, and it is not clear how the Commission’s global presence relates to the effectiveness of its aid””." Time is marching on on this Friday afternoon but, as I mentioned the ““F”” word—““fraud””—earlier, perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I add a few more words on that subject to those that have been contributed by other noble Lords. I believe that I am correct in saying that the accountants have refused to sign off the EU accounts for the past 14 or so years because of the level of fraud that they have uncovered. Figures vary, but it is widely believed that the amount misappropriated in this way each year amounts to about £3 billion. The UK’s net contribution to the EU is anything from £3.5 billion up to £7 billion and beyond, so, if you use my figure of £3.5 billion, it is possible to argue that some 85 per cent of our taxpayers’ money sent to Brussels each year is lost to fraud. To illustrate the point, that represents money disappearing down a black hole at the rate of £400,000 an hour or £8.2 million a day. This is an outrage. But year after year it goes on and, sadly, I see no sign of the situation resolving itself. I shall end my remarks by quoting from a speech made by the late lamented Lord Weatherill. As noble Lords will know only too well, he was a past Speaker of another place, a fierce upholder of parliamentary democracy and a supporter of the democratic rights of every citizen in this country. It is indeed sad that he is unable to assist us in our deliberations today. In a short but valuable contribution when we last debated the merits of this Bill just under four years ago, he said: "““I hope that it is not being too dramatic to say that we are approaching one of the great crossroads of history. It is far easier to lose our freedoms than to regain them””." He concluded his remarks by saying: "““As parliamentarians, we have a sacred duty to explain the pros and cons of ever-closer union with Europe. We would be failing in our duty if we did not do that, and we should not be forgiven. It is in that spirit that I support the Bill, which gives the electorate the opportunity to hear the other side of the story from politicians. We should tell them the truth””.—[Official Report, 27/6/03; col. 571.]" I hope that both the Minister and the Government whom he serves will ponder on these wise words and be persuaded that they offer the right and, indeed, the only path to follow.