European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill [HL]

My Lords, that is an entirely fair point. Of course I am not saying that. However, as you watch the economies and the internal performance of the economies of every nation that has joined the EU, you see that they have taken a step-change leap up in trade arrangements and the value of their exports. It is extremely hard to imagine that this could have happened outside the stability of the arrangements that have been achieved in Europe. In response to the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, I entirely understand the point about other markets, but I cannot see that these matters are mutually exclusive. I observe, as he does, that other markets are growing, but we should be careful not to conflate arguments about the proportion of trade with the absolute figures on trade. Part of the reason why the proportions are changing is that China, India and others are growing massively as economies and present us with new opportunities, but that is not an argument for being outside our trading arrangements now. Membership of the EU is also important to the United Kingdom when negotiating external trade agreements around the world, because of the power of the world’s largest trading bloc. It is a driving force in the launch of the current round of World Trade Organisation trade negotiations. The fact that the EU acts as a single voice, on the basis of a mandate given to the Commission by member states, provides the EU and the UK with far greater clout in trade negotiations. This Bill calls for studies, but there have been a great number of studies by universities and university academics, who, as professional economists, have been, I hope, independent in what they have done. A major HMT/DTI paper earlier this year, The Single Market: A Vision for the 21st Century, goes through a huge number of the details. In response to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, about the euro, it would be hard to say, given the performance of the Chancellor, that the Government have been an absolute fan of joining the euro. I do not think that that can be said with any realism. Among the documents that have been so useful in the study of the economic performance of this country in relation to other countries, I ask with caution—I know that I am asking for a very big favour—Members of the House to go back to the 18 volumes that Gordon Brown published on whether we should be in the euro. They contain a huge wealth of evidence about the nature of our trading relations and the structure internally of our economy. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, we estimate that the total administrative burden on business in the voluntary sector—because I do not have the figures in front of me, I exclude here the financial services sector—in England derived from EU legislation is £6.3 billion. That represents 1.05 per cent of the amount spent in Europe, but I shall cross-check the figure to make sure that I have not myself confused euros and pounds in the data that I was provided with. That estimate suggests that other estimates are somewhat overstated. The other points made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, about costs are also important, and as he and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, they arise particularly in relation to regulation. I do not know whether this will gain great popularity on my own Benches, but I am a deregulator by instinct, and I have often said so. I am in favour of sensible regulations, but it is possible for all countries, however free their markets, to end up with a level of regulation for which they had not calculated. I recall a speech made by former President Clinton, who said that, when he became the Governor of Arkansas, there were 135 state regulations in place on the use of a hammer by craftsmen. I do not believe that the state of Arkansas is one of those places where people have no regard for a proper and free market. We need to reduce regulation, and I accept that. It is undoubtedly true that we must see a change in the culture and the approach of Europe in this respect. In March, European leaders approved the Commission’s ambitious target of reducing administrative burdens on business by 25 per cent by 2012. The Commission estimates that that will add 1.4 per cent to the European GDP. The Commission is starting to deliver by identifying the first four major burdens that have to be tackled, and, in my view, the emphasis on delivery is absolutely vital. There is no point in just writing these things down; they have to be done. Some 78 proposals have been withdrawn so far; the Commission is continuing to simplify the existing acquis, and around 140 simplification initiatives have been proposed. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, of course, but at least we are beginning to move along a helpful path. There is an important role for legislative activity as well. The single market would not be able to operate without some rules and regulations that allowed competition but prevented protectionism and meant that cartels could not be readily built. We are looking for and are probably seeing a somewhat smarter and more flexible approach. For example, the emissions trading scheme and the code of conduct for clearing and settlement are innovative market-based approaches. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, that I welcome a means of making sure that the disposal of old vehicles takes place safely without the escape of heavy metals, thus reducing the potential for disfigurement such as that in countries where cars are sometimes abandoned in heaps. The United Kingdom has driven this agenda. The 25 per cent EU recycling target reflects our domestic ambitions, and we are aiming for better regulation in general. Questions have also been raised on national security and the defence of the United Kingdom. I want to make the point to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that of course our foreign policy has to be constructed in part through bilateral arrangements—indeed, she may have suggested that it is almost wholly due to them. If I have misunderstood the noble Baroness, I apologise unreservedly. Of course, even with bilateral arrangements, we have to have the capability in foreign policy terms of acting for ourselves. Of that there can be no question, but we are also a nation historically very dependent on our alliances. We work with others, and our security is in no small part due to that. I cannot imagine the past 50 to 60 years without the European security arrangements and NATO, and it is for that reason that I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that I would not want to see any tangling-up that madethe role of NATO more difficult. It has been unquestionably one of the bastions of our freedoms, and that should be acknowledged. I shall reiterate the points that I made in the debate on 9 May. We can easily take Europe’s stability for granted, but Europe has for centuries been disfigured by conflicts. Tens of millions of innocent Europeans have died in two world wars, and, in the second half of the last century, it was evident that we had to forge a different way. President Clinton rightly described this new architecture as the greatest and most successful example of ““fixing in place””—I use his words—peace and community. Today the common foreign and security policy is delivering for the UK and the EU around the world. Twenty-seven member states are able to agree on common positions on issues ranging from regions in conflict through to Darfur and human rights around the world. Belarus, Burma and others are coming into the club and others are taking those positions; that is helpful. There will be a long discussion on the constitution next Thursday. I will not say a huge amount about it today because I have no doubt that a great deal will be said then. However, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, the strength and cohesion of sovereign states must be the key—the fulcrum, as he described it—and it is right that there is a balance between that and the advantages or otherwise of being in this club. The noble Lord, Lord Dykes, and I may or may not agree on exactly where that balance is, but there certainly has to be one. The EU is not in crisis in this respect; it is tackling important issues. The spring European Council agreement on climate change and on phone roaming charges, for example, shows that the work can be done. Institutional reform, though, is unquestionably required. I do not accept that we have reneged on anything. I do not at the moment know of specific new proposals that I can share with the House. I know what the general aspirations expressed by President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel are but I do not know what the specific proposals will be. I do know that there needs to be some tidying up of the arrangements in this club of 27, otherwise the inefficiencies that noble Lords have described will simply become embedded systematically. There is no purpose in that. If there is some tidying-up work of that kind to be done, it will not be a constitutional treaty. We want some limited amending arrangements for treaties, and that is not what was proposed in respect of a referendum, but we will have the chance to see them. I emphasise again—I know there is a great deal of common ground in the House on this—the importance of enlargement, for all the objectives I have described. Those include the attempts to bring Turkey closer to the family of nations. The Government attach huge importance to the United Kingdom’s membership of the EU. We have strong reservations about the value of a committee of inquiry. It would be expensive and is likely to duplicate work done elsewhere. It would not help to forward the objectives we have either in Europe or for the United Kingdom—perhaps I should put them in the opposite order: for the United Kingdom and in respect of Europe—when we consider the key global challenges we face. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, for initiating the debate. I will close with his two questions because he is the fulcrum of the debate. There have been several signals during the day—I think it was five clubs, or perhaps one club. The noble Lord’s first question was: do I believe that people really wish to stay in? Is there evidence of that?