Michael Martin (Speaker) Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of Mr. Hague.

Simon Hughes (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons; North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat) Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have bothered you on a couple of occasions with points of order about instruction, and you have ruled on that. I raised a similar issue yesterday with the Deputy Speaker, who told me that, if I raised a point of order on instruction, which is in motion 41, before Committee, it was too late in the day. I am now trying a little earlier. Can you advise my colleagues and me about what we need to do to make the instruction more selectable, if it has a defect, and whether we can use any other procedure to have it selected?

Michael Martin (Speaker) Link to this | Hansard source

The motion on instruction has not been selected. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament for a considerable time and he knows that my selection—or non-selection—is not for discussion on the Floor of the House. We have a Table Office and some of the best Clerks in the world with regard to parliamentary democracy. I reckon that the hon. Gentleman knows that by now. He would do best to go there for advice. The Speaker has a lot on his plate these days.

John Hutton (Secretary of State, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Barrow & Furness, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

I beg to move,

That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning the single market.

I believe that the founding purpose of the European Union was to try to secure a lasting peace throughout our continent by establishing, first, a common market in the key industrial sectors that could drive economic growth, create jobs and raise living standards, and that could also bring European nations closer together and, in the process, replace decades of strife and war with a new era of prosperity and progress. I am glad to say that that has remained the driving force of the European Union.

William Cash (Stone, Conservative) Link to this | Hansard source

The Secretary of State just used the term "common market", but does he accept that that is not the position today? It was, but it is not now, and those of us who believe in an association of nation states think that that was the most serious mistake made.

John Hutton (Secretary of State, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Barrow & Furness, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

If hon. Gentleman will let me make my speech, I shall try to make the point in my own way. I am talking about the historical development of what started as a market and the way in which it has evolved into a wider economic and political relationship that has profoundly benefited the United Kingdom and the continent. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make his own contribution later. I do not want to deprive him of the opportunity of doing so, because we are all looking forward to hearing his remarks again—and again and again, probably.

The fundamental purpose that I have set out has remained the European Union's driving force. Beginning as the European Coal and Steel Community, it has since expanded to take in more goods and more countries, and succeeded in achieving peace and clear economic and social benefits for business, consumers and citizens across Europe. I would hope that hon. Members from all parts of the House celebrate those achievements.

The European Union is now the world's biggest single market, generating total gross domestic product of more than €12 trillion and comprising almost 500 million people. Since 1992, the single market has created more than 2.75 million extra jobs, led to a more than sixfold rise in foreign direct investment and increased trade by 30 per cent. By 2006, the single market had boosted GDP by an average of £360 for every person in the European Union. Eliminating border bureaucracy, for example, has slashed delivery times, reduced costs and opened hundreds of new export markets to British businesses both large and small.

Nearly 60 per cent. of our total trade in the UK is now with other EU member states and around 3 million British jobs are linked to the export of UK goods and, increasingly, services to the European Union. British citizens—all our constituents—benefit from both a greater choice of higher quality goods and services at lower prices and stronger protections to guarantee their consumer rights throughout the European Union. Every year, EU investment helps to create and protect UK jobs and generates trade. Those who recognise the best interests of the British people have long realised that expanding the single market can be made possible only within a clear legal framework that establishes a new set of rules.

Mark Harper (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Forest of Dean, Conservative) Link to this | Hansard source

I agree with the Secretary of State about the importance of competition and the market, but why is the treaty a step forward, given that it removes the phrase "free and undistorted competition" from the legal framework, which is what the European Court of Justice will use when making decisions in important cases?

John Hutton (Secretary of State, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Barrow & Furness, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

No, it does not do any of those things—

Mark Harper (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Forest of Dean, Conservative) Link to this | Hansard source

It does!

John Hutton (Secretary of State, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Barrow & Furness, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

No, there is no weakening of the competitive framework of European Union law at all, and if that is the hon. Gentleman's point, he needs to go back and do his homework.

We needed rules that would tackle restrictive practices, vested interests and hidden barriers to trade between member states. Qualified majority voting was the essential prerequisite in establishing that new legal framework. Without it, Europe would not have made the same economic progress that it has in the past 20 years.

John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal, Conservative) Link to this | Hansard source

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Baroness Thatcher fought for qualified majority voting precisely because she knew that none of those matters could be carried through unless we all moved together? Is it not also true that qualified majority voting gives greater power to individual nations than the veto, because everyone else knows that they could be steamrollered if they do not join a common enterprise together?

John Hutton (Secretary of State, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Barrow & Furness, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

This is a strange debate, but I agree with everything that the right hon. Gentleman has just said. My regret is that his views are not more widely held on the Opposition Benches, because if they were the United Kingdom would have a better prospect of securing more of the deals in the European Union to which he has referred. It is important that we learn the lessons of history. He was involved in a lot of the debates and discussions at that time. I pay tribute to him and to the work that Lady Thatcher did to pave the way towards progress in the European Union.

Since the Single European Act, which introduced qualified majority voting to the single market in 1987 and to which the right hon. Gentleman rightly referred, the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties have extended qualified majority voting into new areas, helping, not hindering, the process of economic reform in Europe. Those treaties have all adapted and strengthened both EU institutions and the policies that support enlargement and extend the single market. It is now again clear that we cannot rely on structures designed for the EU 15 to help us fully reap the economic and political benefits that we believe an enlarged Europe of 27 member states offers. That is why we must ratify the Lisbon treaty.

As our competitors continue to invest in their people, ideas and innovation, so should we. As there is still work to be done in opening up European markets to effective competition, we should concentrate on doing just that ourselves. It is for those reasons that I absolutely reject the view of those on the Opposition Front Bench that our response should be another period of introspection and constitutional navel gazing. That is the last thing that we should be doing, but it is exactly what their policy towards the treaty of Lisbon would inevitably involve. That approach would not create jobs, growth or prosperity, just years of fog and an inability to drive Europe forward. There is no benefit there for UK businesses, workers or citizens, just more time and taxpayers' money spent on debates that are already long past their sell-by date.

Ian Lucas (PPS (Mr Liam Byrne, Minister of State), Home Office; Wrexham, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the essential components of a strong and effective single market is strong EU institutions that can regulate and monitor it, and that anyone who argues in favour of a single market without strong EU institutions is full of hot air?

John Hutton (Secretary of State, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Barrow & Furness, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

I do agree with that. Although this issue is not the direct subject of our debate on the single market, the Lisbon treaty also significantly improves the functioning of the European Union institutions, with a new and stronger role for national Parliaments in particular, which many right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the House have accepted as important. The Lisbon treaty helps us in all those regards.

James Clappison (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Hertsmere, Conservative) Link to this | Hansard source

In order to set the Secretary of State's remarks in context, will he give us his estimate of what proportion of UK law now comes from EU institutions?

John Hutton (Secretary of State, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Barrow & Furness, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

I am not going to put a figure on that, for obvious reasons. [Hon. Members: "Very obvious reasons."] Look, either we have a serious debate or we behave like this crowd of people on the Opposition Benches.

Peter Bone (Wellingborough, Conservative) Link to this | Hansard source

Will the Secretary of State give way?

John Hutton (Secretary of State, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Barrow & Furness, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

No.

We are talking about the single market today, so perhaps I can help Mr. Clappison. It is probably true that the majority of the laws established to drive forward the single market have originated from the European Union. The hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the previous Conservative Government; indeed, I believe that he might have had something to do with these issues. Personally, I find the argument that because laws originate from Europe there is something intrinsically wrong with them an astonishing one. Those laws have helped British businesses. The fact that they originated in the European Union is therefore irrelevant.

Keith Vaz (Leicester East, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

To take the Secretary of State back to the substance of this debate, which is on the single market, is not the Lisbon agenda an illustration of how Europe has changed? For the first time, we have a set of benchmarks against which the success of individual nations' economic policies can be properly assessed. That did not happen before Lisbon. Every five years we go back and review those decisions, to ensure that nations are up to speed.

John Hutton (Secretary of State, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Barrow & Furness, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

That is a strong and obviously correct point, which is why we particularly welcome the response to the Commission with respect to the single market review. Following what is happening and ensuring that people are delivering what they have said they will deliver is an important part of making progress.

James Clappison (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Hertsmere, Conservative) Link to this | Hansard source

Will the Secretary of State give way?

John Hutton (Secretary of State, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Barrow & Furness, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman now—perhaps I will do so later—because this is a shorter debate and I am anxious to ensure that as many hon. Members contribute as possible.

I think that, in essence, we need to press on with the agenda of economic reform, using the provisions of the treaty, once ratified, so to do, but we cannot do that if our focus is always on reopening debates about the treaty. What possible economic or political interest to our country could be served by a future Government taking the view that the provisions of the treaty did not bind the United Kingdom or that the UK could not sign up to further improvements to the single market in future because the proposals were being taken forward under the provisions of the Lisbon treaty? Such an approach would paralyse any future progress for an indefinite period on future reforms to the single market. It would negate any influence that we might have in the Council and elsewhere. Sadly, it is the policy of the Conservatives, should they ever manage to win an election, to follow precisely such a course of action.

Peter Bone (Wellingborough, Conservative) Link to this | Hansard source

I think that I understand the Secretary of State's very cogent argument. He says that we want to be more involved in the single market and in Europe, so is it still Government policy that we should join the euro?

John Hutton (Secretary of State, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Barrow & Furness, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

We have set out our position on the euro on many occasions, and the position has not changed in relation to the economic tests and a referendum on the European Union. The hon. Gentleman graciously said that I am making a cogent argument, but I do not quite understand the point that he is trying to make.

Mark Todd (South Derbyshire, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

My right hon. Friend has indeed made a cogent argument on the power of the single market and our progress within it, which I very strongly endorse. Would he add to that the need to redouble our efforts at further reform of agricultural markets—an area where I am afraid that protectionism, quotas and other mechanisms proliferate?

John Hutton (Secretary of State, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Barrow & Furness, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly believe that we need to press ahead with reforms in that area. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have repeatedly made it clear that we want further progress. I hope that other changes in the Lisbon treaty, particularly around co-decision making for the European Parliament, will act as further stimulus for such reforms. It is incumbent on us all, particularly in the context of the world trade round talks, to try to make further progress.

I believe very strongly that Europe has the ambition, commitment and the talent to succeed in today's increasingly competitive global economy. It is absolutely time to deliver, and a ratified Lisbon treaty will help make it easier to do so.

Rob Marris (PPS (Rt Hon Shaun Woodward, Secretary of State), Northern Ireland Office; Wolverhampton South West, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

My right hon. Friend rightly refers to an increasingly competitive global economy. Will he confirm that article 118, which is on page 87 of the consolidated texts, refers to intellectual property rights, that this country has a fine tradition of design and innovation and that the protection of intellectual property rights both within the European Union and worldwide is particularly important for jobs in this country?

John Hutton (Secretary of State, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Barrow & Furness, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

I agree absolutely. The single market has been an evolutionary concept. We have made significant progress, but there are still obstacles in the way of creating a truly single market in many areas, and intellectual property is one of them. I believe that the Lisbon treaty provisions will help take that debate forward. We have important safeguards on language issues—I shall come on to them in a few moments—and requirements for multiple language translations of patents, but there is no doubt that this is one important area where progress needs to be made. We will not make that progress without qualified majority voting. I am afraid that it is as simple as that. Given the range of experienced Ministers on the Opposition Benches, I hope that they would understand that rather fundamental point.

David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells, Conservative) Link to this | Hansard source

Does the Secretary of State agree with Commissioner Verheugen's estimate in October 2006 that the cost to business of EU legislation and regulation was £405 billion a year—more than some other estimates of the value of the single market? If he does not agree with the commissioner's estimate, what is his estimate of the burden to European business of excessive over-regulation, which is used as an excuse for the single market?

John Hutton (Secretary of State, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Barrow & Furness, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

I am making a point about the virtue of qualified majority voting, whereas the right hon. Gentleman is talking about the regulatory burden on business—a genuinely important issue. I believe that there are some cases of over-regulation in some sectors in the EU, but the right hon. Gentleman will know that we have been taking the lead in the debate in Europe about a totally different approach towards regulation, which emphasises the costs and the burdens on business in Europe. Impact assessments have now become standard practice in the EU, people have to justify a proposal for regulation and the benefits have to outweigh the costs that inevitably arise once it has been decided to regulate.

There is, however, no way of achieving many of the goals we want—I would hope that we all share them, particularly in respect of the single market—without regulation, necessarily bringing some costs and regulatory burdens for employers. There is no way of pretending otherwise, but the European Union and the Commission have targets to reduce the burden of regulation, which is a welcome first step. I think that significant progress remains to be made, but in a sense the right hon. Gentleman's argument is not germane to my point about the benefits of qualified majority voting. That is my main argument today, yet the amendment to the motion and the amendments that we will debate later this afternoon would make it harder for us to make progress on single market issues in the EU.

My hon. Friend Rob Marris referred to article 118 and provisions on intellectual property rights, but I understand that Conservative Members want to ensure that we cannot proceed along the lines of qualified majority voting in those areas. I suspect that there will be a division of opinion among Conservative Back Benchers on that matter. It is striking to reflect on the extraordinary divergence between the rhetoric we hear in support of the single market and the content of the amendments, which would make it very difficult for us to make the further progress that we need.

Philip Hammond (Shadow Chief Secretary To the Treasury, Treasury; Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative) Link to this | Hansard source

Will the Secretary of State confirm that in the European constitutional convention, the UK Government sought an exemption for intellectual property rights?

John Hutton (Secretary of State, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Barrow & Furness, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

That is true— [Interruption.] No, it does not lead to a collapse of my argument. The important point about the treaty is that it contains essential protections that will help us to deal with restrictive practices, particularly the insistence on language requirements. The treaty contains important provisions that will advance the arguments that I am making about extending and deepening the single market.

Peter Lilley (Hitchin & Harpenden, Conservative) Link to this | Hansard source

rose—

James Clappison (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Hertsmere, Conservative) Link to this | Hansard source

rose—

John Hutton (Secretary of State, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Barrow & Furness, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will allow me to make some progress, we can return to this issue later.

We know that back in the days of Maastricht, the Opposition could not unite. The consequences of the Tory policy of fundamental renegotiation of the Lisbon treaty would, I believe, risk our entire membership of the European Union itself. Many Opposition Members in their places today openly advocate British withdrawal from the EU. That would marginalise us during one of the most important periods of reform to the single market.

James Clappison (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Hertsmere, Conservative) Link to this | Hansard source

rose—

John Hutton (Secretary of State, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Barrow & Furness, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

As I said earlier, the treaty does not make any fundamental changes to the legal basis of the single market, but it introduces a number of technical measures that could benefit UK workers, consumers and businesses even further. It includes a new protocol on competition policy, which I understand is the principal focus of the Opposition amendment to the motion. For reasons that I shall set out in a few moments, I believe that the amendment is wrong about the new treaty and the status of the protocol. It clearly betrays Conservative Front Benchers' enduring pathological dislike of the European Union and offers further proof, if any were needed, of why they should not be trusted with the responsibility of government.

James Clappison (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Hertsmere, Conservative) Link to this | Hansard source

rose—

John Hutton (Secretary of State, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Barrow & Furness, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

Articles 85 to 93 of the original treaty of Rome in 1957—

James Clappison (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Hertsmere, Conservative) Link to this | Hansard source

rose—

Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden, Deputy-Speaker) Link to this | Hansard source

Order. I must tell Mr. Clappison that it is fairly evident that the Secretary of State is not prepared to give way at the moment, so the hon. Gentleman must not remain on his feet.

John Hutton (Secretary of State, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Barrow & Furness, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

I will give way to the hon. Member for Hertsmere in a few moments, but I am anxious to make some progress with my speech.

Articles 85 to 93 of the original treaty of Rome of 1957 stipulated that the Community should monitor and enforce free and fair competition in markets across Europe. With much of the legislation required to establish the single market already in place, the new protocol ensures that proactive competition will remain the major focus and driver of single market policy in the 21st century. The protocol states and confirms, as did the treaty of Rome, that establishing an internal market is a key objective of the European Union and that ensuring free and fair competition across the continent is essential to doing so. The protocol is legally binding and an integral part of the Lisbon treaty. As the treaty itself states:

"The Protocols and Annexes to the Treaties shall form an integral part thereof".

The wording of the principal treaty articles governing the regulation of competition in the European Union—4, 27, 34, 81 to 89, 96, 98, 105 and 157—are substantially unchanged by the Lisbon treaty, providing an additional layer of protection. Everyone in the House should therefore be clear that removing barriers to competition in the internal market will remain a fundamental part of the EU's task once the treaty of Lisbon has been ratified.

The Lisbon treaty also expands the Union's objectives to include references to a

"highly competitive social market economy and free and fair trade."

Under the terms of the treaty, the Union has a duty to promote those values in every area. The binding protocol on the single market embeds those principles still deeper into the European Union's agenda. I will now give way to the hon. Member for Hertsmere, for the last time, I hope.

James Clappison (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Hertsmere, Conservative) Link to this | Hansard source

The Secretary of State has been very generous in giving way. While the provision has been placed in a protocol, where it will have such legal force as comes from being in a protocol, free and undistorted competition has been removed from the objectives of the Union and relegated to a protocol. Will he explain why that happened, and how the Government allowed it to happen?

John Hutton (Secretary of State, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Barrow & Furness, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has studied carefully the consolidated text of the treaty, and he needs to look at article 51, in which the position is made absolutely clear: the protocol has exactly the same legal effect as any other part of the Lisbon treaty. There is absolutely no basis of fact or law in his assertion that somehow including the provision in a protocol in any way involves a relegation of the issue governed by the protocol. If he has any doubt about that, he should look again at the treaty. He will also probably want to look at the provisions of the Vienna convention, as I have done in preparation for the debate, in relation to how international treaties are to be interpreted. He will find a clear exposition of the international law of treaties and how questions of interpretation in relation to preambles, annexes and protocols are approached. The rebuttal to the Opposition motion can be found in all those sources. The Opposition have misunderstood the legal basis of the protocol. That flushes out one of the most unpleasant aspects of the debate, which is the feverish hatred of all things European that permeates those on the Opposition Benches—and has come principally from those on their Front Bench—with some noble exceptions, although only one of them is on the Opposition Benches today.

The European Commission, strongly supported by the UK Government, is now pushing ahead with implementing the single market review and the Lisbon agenda, both of which are based on the explicit foundation that Europe must continue to tackle anti-competitive practices and barriers to competition. The protocol will help us to achieve our priorities for the single market in the next decade. As Neelie Kroes, the Competition Commissioner, said recently:

"I simply do not agree with the scaremongers who argue that the Protocol is the end of European competition law as we know it. The Protocol maintains in full force the competition rules which have served European citizens so well for fifty years".

That is also the clear view of both the Law Society—a very respected source of opinion—and the Commission's own legal service.

I referred to technical changes in the articles dealing with the single market made by the Lisbon treaty. Some of my hon. Friends have also referred to them. They all offer the prospect of further improvements to the single market, and can therefore be seen as having a beneficial, pro-reform, pro-enterprise effect on the single market. Amendments to article 47 introduced qualified majority voting on legislation to remove barriers to self-employed professionals working in other member states of the Union. The free movement of people is one of the four key foundations on which the single market rests. That further advances that fundamental principle, and will be of particular benefit to professionally qualified people.

Judy Mallaber (PPS (Rt Hon Baroness Ashton of Upholland, President of the Council (Leader of the House of Lords)), Privy Council Office; Amber Valley, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

Preventing countries from competing unfairly by allowing their workers to be exploited is a key element in the free movement of labour. The minimum social provisions are important in that respect. Today, on the 90th anniversary of the introduction of women's suffrage, does the Secretary of State agree that any step that threatened the treaty and led possibly to opt-outs from the social chapter would be extraordinarily retrograde and would prevent attempts to provide harmony and free competition within the market?

John Hutton (Secretary of State, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Barrow & Furness, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. We have stood up consistently, along with others in the House, for a proper balance in the competitiveness agenda. A strong social dimension to Europe now and in the future is important. One of the best things that we did when we came into government was to sign the social chapter, as it demonstrated a clear commitment to developing that part of the European project. I derive a great deal of satisfaction, as I hope she does, from meeting constituents who have benefited from many of those provisions, which include holiday entitlement.

Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

On the social dimension, may I record my disappointment, and that of many of my colleagues, at the way in which the Government blocked a European directive on agency workers before Christmas? Does my right hon. Friend oppose the principle of equal treatment for agency workers, or is it simply a question of negotiating an appropriate qualifying period?

John Hutton (Secretary of State, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Barrow & Furness, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

We certainly do not oppose the principle of equal treatment, as we have repeatedly made clear over a long period. The text of the directive was not acceptable to the United Kingdom and other countries in the Council, which is why it was not possible to reach agreement on 5 December. The UK Government remain committed to trying to find an acceptable text on which we can agree, and which addresses our concerns about flexibility, which is crucial for the UK to secure and develop. Our labour markets are widely respected as flexible and for providing proper protection for workers. I do not want to compromise on any of those issues.

With those comments in mind, I cannot see the logic of Opposition amendment No. 145, which not only deprives UK workers of the potential benefits I have just outlined but would take a step backwards. If the Opposition had their way, they would not allow us to use QMV to develop proper protection for self-employed workers in the single market. That is not sensible. We should not take their advice on that or anything else in this debate.

As many will know, the European social fund is investing £3 billion in the UK in 2007-2013 to help the unemployed and disadvantaged improve their job prospects and skills.

Peter Lilley (Hitchin & Harpenden, Conservative) Link to this | Hansard source

The Secretary of State says that he will take no account of any of our proposals. Would it not benefit the House, however, if he were to put before us all the positions taken by the Government on these and other issues in the convention on the constitution—the motions tabled, the positions taken, the letters written—so that we know the Government's original position? Is not that absolutely essential for informed debate in the House? It is available to some Members, but not to others. As a good House of Commons man, will he not say yes?

John Hutton (Secretary of State, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Barrow & Furness, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

I always try hard to say yes to the right hon. Gentleman. His remarks, however, are principally about the old constitutional treaty, which has been abandoned. The process has been abandoned. We are debating the new treaty of Lisbon—the reform treaty. The House has ample opportunity to debate that, and I and all my Cabinet colleagues will debate it with him and others over the next few weeks.

Crucial to the EU's success as a dynamic knowledge economy is the ability of our people to think, exploit and protect new ideas and innovation. The Community trade mark and design schemes have already proved highly popular with UK businesses, helping them to expand and safeguard their ideas in new EU markets. New article 97a establishes a legal base for the EU to agree measures to create European intellectual property rights and to provide uniform protection of IPR throughout the EU. Qualified majority voting will now apply to all aspects of the creation and administration of European IPRs, except for the issue of language requirements, which will still be decided by unanimity.

Community IPRs can foster further investment in research, design and innovation. Based on precedent and our experience of 20 years in the single market, qualified majority voting is critical. It can help to ensure that existing community IPRs can be updated quickly and flexibly as technology, business and society progress. I hope that it will also help to unblock negotiations—which have been stalled for many years—on the Community patent, and bring member states closer to agreement.

We believe that the retention of unanimity for language issues is crucial to ensure that excessive translation costs are not placed on United Kingdom businesses applying for Community patents. In our view the translation of patents should be limited as far as possible, and unanimity voting will allow us to deflect any proposals that we consider damaging to business in that context.

The introduction of new article 176A provides a specific article enabling discussion and agreement of EU energy measures for the first time. We debated those last week.

The new text on the common commercial policy ensures that the EU can continue to lead in efforts to open markets and reduce trade barriers in the case of rich and poor countries alike. The new text gives more scope for the Community to negotiate and conclude wide-ranging trade and investment agreements of major benefit to member states with third countries. For example, the EU is currently engaged in trade and investment negotiations with countries such as India and Korea. Ambitious investment agreements would increase access to their markets for UK companies, creating new jobs and increasing trade. The text also imposes an obligation on the Commission to update the European Parliament on the progress of its trade negotiations, increasing the transparency of Community-level trade negotiations.

UK business leaders have agreed that the Lisbon treaty will deliver a more effective, robust and efficient European Union to help drive forward measures such as the further liberalisation of the single market that are good for UK companies, workers and consumers. Sir Michael Bishop, chairman of British Midland Airways, said recently:

"The EU needs to be able to take decisions quickly and implement them consistently over the long term. That is why the amending Treaty is important to business and important for Europe's future."

Bill Thomas, European president of EDS, has said:

"The new amending Treaty will ensure that we have dynamic EU institutions capable of promoting reform and delivering competitiveness and growth across Europe."

The same point was made by my hon. Friend Ian Lucas. I prefer those views on the treaty to the views of Opposition Members.

I fundamentally believe that, by moving us on from the endless discussions about EU institutional reform that some Members are so keen to continue, the Lisbon treaty can help us to build a Europe ready for the 21st century: a Europe focused on the issues that matter, such as jobs, growth, and open and competitive markets. It should be possible for Members throughout the House to agree on one thing, the absolute priority of strengthening the competitiveness of the European economy. That was made clear in the European Commission's fundamental review of the single market, published last year. The review reflected many of the policies and reforms for which we have been negotiating, including a new, flexible approach to single market policy to promote competition fully, reduce the burden of regulation, and encourage innovation. It focused on key priorities from which businesses and citizens can benefit together, such as further liberalisation of the energy and telecoms markets, the use of competition policy tools to reduce barriers for businesses, and allowing consumers to benefit from more choice and lower prices.

The Commission has already introduced a system to monitor the market and ensure its competitiveness, enabling the EU to crack down on markets where there are still significant barriers to competition. Full liberalisation of European network industries in particular, such as energy, telecoms, post and transport, could bring an extra £52 billion to £66 billion to the EU economy, create between 140,000 and 360,000 jobs, and reduce prices significantly. Progressive liberalisation in the telecoms sector throughout the 1990s has already led to cheaper prices and more choice for EU consumers. Prices for national and international calls in the EU fell by an average of more than 40 per cent. between 2000 and 2006. I believe that it is time to build on that success, and to deliver even greater price savings and choice to business and consumers.

We are also pushing for full and swift implementation of the services directive across the EU to make the free movement of services a practical reality. Services account for 70 per cent. of EU gross domestic product, but for only 20 per cent. of intra-EU cross-border trade. The agreement of a wide-ranging EU services directive was a major step forward in tackling that covert form of protectionism. Full implementation of the directive will make it easier for service providers to set up and deliver services in other member states, increasing access to new markets and consumer choice. It could be worth between £4 billion and £6 billion per year, and could bring about 80,000 new jobs to the UK economy.

A truly enterprising Europe must slash the bureaucracy that holds opportunity back, and I am glad to say that ensuring better regulation is now a priority in Europe. The EU is working towards achieving its target of a 25 per cent. reduction in administrative costs, which will help to promote fair, open competition, empower consumers and encourage innovation, and which promises an increase of up to £100 billion in EU GDP.

Adam Price (Spokesperson (Communities and Local Government; Culture, Media and Sport; Defence; Transport; Ministry of Justice); Carmarthen East & Dinefwr, Plaid Cymru) Link to this | Hansard source

The Secretary of State referred to the services directive, which applies to private sector services. Will he say a little about where public services fit into the internal market? Does he believe that the rules of competition policy and the principle of the internal market should be extended to include them?

John Hutton (Secretary of State, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Barrow & Furness, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

Some of the issues have already been addressed in the European Court of Justice in recent litigation. I am thinking particularly of the Watts case, in which I was involved as a junior health Minister. The Lisbon treaty includes provisions relating to services of general economic interest as well, but it is clear that the prime responsibility for the organisation and funding of public services is a matter for member states rather than the European Union.

There are provisions in the treaty that deal with important areas in which greater collaboration and co-operation could bring us advantages in Europe, relating to such matters as early warning of potential contagious public health hazards, about which I think we should be doing more in the European Union. There are border areas where people live very close to each other in parallel health jurisdictions. We should think about what we can do to improve cross-border co-operation in that context. That was the subject of the Watts case, and it is now part of European Union jurisprudence.

The amendments that have been tabled to the Bill would exclude the prospect of any such developments. If we accepted those amendments, with which I know my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe will deal very ably in a few minutes' time, we would not be able to make progress in those areas. We cannot do so if we do not agree the Lisbon treaty, and accept that in some areas qualified majority voting will work in the interests of the British people. That is the choice that we must face here today. [Interruption.] I hear that lot on the Opposition Benches chuntering at my remarks. I always know when they do not like what I am saying: they start chuntering. I can hear them asking "How will all these developments in the single market be secured?" Those developments will not be secured if we take their advice. As I said at the beginning of my speech, they will not be secured if we go back to Europe and say "We do not accept the treaty of Lisbon. We will not accept any further liberalisation measures if they are based on its provisions." [Interruption.] That is clearly the position of Opposition Members. They have made it very clear. Mr. Shepherd knows this to be true because he follows these debates, unlike some of his right hon. and hon. Friends. He knows that the position of the Opposition is precisely that. Those are the tactics that all these characters want to pursue. All these hon. Gentlemen—

Bob Spink (Castle Point, Conservative) Link to this | Hansard source

rose—

John Hutton (Secretary of State, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Barrow & Furness, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

He is another of them. They have all made it clear that they want us to withdraw from the European Union.

Bob Spink (Castle Point, Conservative) Link to this | Hansard source

The Secretary of State referred to services, and I will come to those in a moment, but the point is this: will these changes actually help our constituents? The treaty extends the single market rules to new areas of financial services, intellectual property rights, foreign direct investment and possibly even sovereign wealth funds. Those would all come under the umbrella of the uniform principles for the first time, and that would damage the City of London, where thousands of my constituents work. Why should they have to put up with it?

John Hutton (Secretary of State, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Barrow & Furness, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

rose—

Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden, Deputy-Speaker) Link to this | Hansard source

Order. May I say gently to the Secretary of State that using such words as "lot", "characters" and "crowd" departs from the normal nomenclature that we use in this place? It is probably best to keep to the usual.

John Hutton (Secretary of State, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Barrow & Furness, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

I accept your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to say that they were very interesting characters. I am sorry if that did not entirely come across when I made the remark. Of course I have a great deal of respect for Opposition Members, particularly those who follow these debates closely. Obviously we do not agree on a number of matters, but I respect the way in which they have applied themselves to the issues.

As for the point raised by Bob Spink—and I have a great deal of personal respect for him as well—I think it would be sensible for him to make himself clear to the House too. He wants Britain to be out of the European Union, and that is the argument that he should be having with his constituents. This pussyfooting around, if I may put it that way—quibbling about this or that part of the treaty or the text—is all camouflage. We know that from a wider analysis that he and others have made that Britain would be better off outside the European Union. That would be a total disaster for the United Kingdom. That is why we cannot accept his analysis and we certainly do not accept his amendments.

None of the important objectives I have tried to outline would have any prospect of being realised if we took the advice of the Opposition and reopened the debate about the content and structure of the Lisbon treaty. It is clear that the UK's relationship with the European Union and participation in the single market have worked to our benefit in the past, increasing business, jobs and trade, but we will continue to benefit from these gains only if the UK is actively and fully engaged in the EU, making the case front and centre for changes that will benefit UK citizens and businesses. The choice Opposition Members face is either to do what is in the long-term interests of the British people and economy—actively to engage in Europe to open up new markets and opportunities—or to let their dogmatic dislike of all things European marginalise Britain in Europe, putting at direct risk the benefits of the single market and our economic future.

I believe that the answer is clear. The Lisbon treaty gives an EU of 27 member states a solid foundation from which to move forward and tackle the challenges facing, and reap the opportunities that will be provided by, Europe in the future. On that basis, it must be ratified.

Philip Hammond (Shadow Chief Secretary To the Treasury, Treasury; Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative) Link to this | Hansard source

I beg to move to leave out from "House" to end and to insert instead thereof:

"disapproves of the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning the single market; notes that the Treaty proper now contains no reference to undistorted competition as one of the activities of the European Union, and indeed relegates to a protocol any mention of competition that is not distorted, with significant implications for the interpretation of European Union law; deplores the Government's failure to block this change during the negotiations; and is concerned that the result could be the revival of protectionism in the European Union wholly contrary to Government policy and damaging to the interest both of the United Kingdom and of the European Union.".

People are rightly angry about many aspects of the Government's handling of the treaty of Lisbon: their incompetence in negotiating on Britain's behalf; the casual way in which Britain's self-interest has been abandoned by those charged with protecting it; and above all, the breach of trust with the British people in refusing to hold the promised referendum. However, amid the concerns about the impact of the treaty on matters such as foreign and security policy, justice and migration, relatively little attention has been paid to the way in which one of the best and most successful elements of the European structure has been consciously relegated to the sidelines. The purpose of our amendment is to change that.

For 50 years, the creation of what was first called the Common Market, then the single market, and now the internal market, has been at the heart of the European Economic Community and subsequently the European Union. Underlying it was the simple proposition that economic collaboration between the nations of Europe delivers prosperity, and prosperity delivers peace. Now, quite deliberately and with the connivance of the British Government, this treaty downgrades the objective of an open and competitive single market from its place at the heart of the EU's agenda to an obscure protocol tacked on to the back of the treaty, and it undermines at a stroke one of the undoubted successes of the last 50 years, and just about the only bit of the EU structure that enjoys almost universal support.

Ian Lucas (PPS (Mr Liam Byrne, Minister of State), Home Office; Wrexham, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

Article 3, paragraph 3 of the consolidated treaty states:

"The Union shall establish an internal market."

It is there in black and white. What is wrong with that?

Philip Hammond (Shadow Chief Secretary To the Treasury, Treasury; Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative) Link to this | Hansard source

I did not hear the word "competitive" in what the hon. Gentleman read out. I know he is a lawyer, and if he will just bear with me I shall come on to the detail of the words that have been included and those that have been left out.

Siôn Simon (Birmingham, Erdington, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Philip Hammond (Shadow Chief