---

3 Apr 2003 : Column 1124—continued

Rob Marris: May I take the hon. Gentleman back a few sentences? He seemed to be taking a position that surprises me, although it would not be surprising if it came from the Labour Benches. He said that the EU wanted to destroy the United Kingdom's tax system because it was competitive. Is his position that we have a competitive tax system?

Bob Spink: It certainly is not. Our tax system could be much better—but it could also be much worse, and Europe would make it much worse. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has allowed me to clarify that point.

I was about to draw the attention of the House to one of the stupid regulations or directives that Europe comes up with. The EU wants to reclassify Canvey Island, which clearly is—as it has always been—an island, as

3 Apr 2003 : Column 1125

mainland. The people who live on Canvey Island think that is complete nonsense and wonder what it has to do with Europe. That directive must come from the same drawer as those on straight bananas and lawnmower noise, but I shall move rapidly on.

Does the Minister accept that, for the foreseeable future, the single currency would be economically damaging and constitutionally and democratically disastrous for the UK? There is no question about that. Furthermore, will he get Mr. Kinnock removed as the EU's corruption tsar? Will the Government consider withholding Britain's contributions until corruption and waste are tackled seriously? That is clearly not happening at present.

My constituents are sick of having to pay the European Union a net contribution of £30 billion a year for membership of a club whose only beneficiary is the Prime Minister—as he believes. The right hon. Gentleman has designs for himself in Europe in the future.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case against European federalism in front of a prominent federast member of the Government. Given that there is to be an emerging constitution for the continent, under the terms of the Convention on the Future of Europe, does my hon. Friend agree that it is an urgent priority for Britain to make representations for a dramatic improvement in the principle of subsidiarity? Under the present protocol of the treaty of Amsterdam on the subject, no European directive or regulation that is damaging to this country has been repealed.

Bob Spink: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point about the European constitution. I was about to move on to that. The House should hold a full-day debate on that matter, which is just as serious for this country as the single currency. It will be just as dangerous for us to take that route and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point so eloquently.

On the net contribution that we have to make to Europe, let me set out some of the figures so that there can be no confusion. In 2000, Britain's contribution to the EU was £10.719 billion and the abatement was £2.084 billion, so our gross contribution to the EU was £8.635 billion. Britain's receipts from the EU included £2.916 billion in agricultural support, and regional and social support amounting to £1.865 billion, so Britain's net contribution to the EU in 2000 was £3.854 billion.

I further believe that we would be better placed to protect and create jobs without the common agricultural policy, common fisheries policy, single currency, tax harmonisation and those regulations, so this is a plea for Britain to return to the simple and effective single market trading relationship and sensible co-operation, which we all thought we were supporting and voting for in 1972, 1974 and at other times.

3.56 pm

Mr. David Amess (Southend, West): Before the House adjourns for the Easter recess, I should like to raise a number of issues on behalf of my constituents, the first of which concerns my constituent, Mr. Maajid Nawaz. That gentleman has been awaiting trial in Egypt since 1 April 2002. I and others attended a peaceful vigil on 1

3 Apr 2003 : Column 1126

April, this week, to mark the anniversary of the fact that Maajid Nawaz, Ian Malcolm Nisbett, Reza Pankhurst and 23 other people are waiting for their trials to continue in Egypt. Those people have been accused of offences relating to the membership of the Islamic Liberation party.

The Minister will probably recall that I have raised the case involving that gentleman before, but the reason why I am raising it again is that I am working very closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness, the hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms) because we are all affected, with our constituents, by this issue.

I am particularly concerned about the Egyptian ambassador's response to our request to meet him, which I would have thought perfectly proper, following the meeting that we had with Baroness Amos. He wrote back just two weeks ago, saying:

"Reference to the letter . . . co-signed by a number of Members of Parliament, including yourself, regarding the case of the British men detained in Egypt on charges of affiliation to the banned Liberation party, and further to our previous correspondence in that matter;


I would like to underline the fact that the case currently lies in the hands of the relevant judicial authorities in Egypt, and that there is no possible way the Embassy, or any other entity, could interfere to influence its development or outcome.


Let me reassure you that the case will be handled with the fairness and impartiality our judicial system is renowned for.


I will be happy to continue sharing with you any relevant information we receive from the authorities in Egypt regarding the development of the case."

But of course, in a cleverly drafted letter, the ambassador did not agree to meet four Members of Parliament, one of whom happens to be a Minister. We have protested about that sorry state of affairs, and I understand that Baroness Amos will shortly have a meeting with the ambassador, after which, I hope, he will rethink his inability to be more forthcoming and have a meeting with us. Clearly, we are not going to discuss the flower arrangements in his office or the state of the wallpaper. We will discuss our concerns about the issue. It would be very regrettable for the ambassador to refuse to meet us.

The situation has continued for more than a year. The trial was due to continue yesterday but, yet again, was adjourned, until 19 April. Many of the relatives and loved ones take the view that the judicial process in Egypt is, in itself, designed to be a punishment. Given that the Parliamentary Secretary was a Foreign Office Minister, I ask him to use his best endeavours to ensure that the meeting takes place.

I was going to dwell on the council tax, but my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) did that for me by saying what a wonderful council Southend was. He highlighted the financial arrangements there and compared them with those in the Labour authority in his constituency. I shall miss out that part of my speech.

I want to share with the House the position concerning Southend airport and, in particular, St. Lawrence church. It is another issue that the Parliamentary Secretary has heard me mention, but he will understand its importance. Last night, the council

3 Apr 2003 : Column 1127

considered the airport's planning application. I am delighted to tell the House that the council unanimously rejected the application.

I say "unanimously", but I notice that one Liberal Democrat Member is present. This point is not directed at the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), but perhaps he will pass it on to his colleagues. The leader of the Liberal group on Southend council was unfortunately excluded from the meeting because he was considered to have predetermined the application in his public statements. He had talked about the issue even though the new Government requirements for planning applications mean that one is not supposed to talk about such issues publicly. It has been suggested that he spoke about the issue for the purpose of electoral gain on 1 May. However, he was unable to take part in the debate and to represent the people who voted for him.

The council has nevertheless rejected the application. St. Lawrence church is 1,000 years old and we were first told that it would be moved. It would be a complicated and expensive process to put a 1,000-year-old church on to wheels and move it a few hundred yards. A little later the word "demolished" was said to be among the issues that the council was considering, but we were eventually told that the church would be rebuilt. Whatever the circumstances, the council has decided that the church will not be moved. I salute the council, and I have been inundated with thousands of representations from not just local residents but from people throughout the country. People have loved ones buried by the church and others have moved to Southend for various reasons. They were very upset by the application.

I do not know, at this early stage, whether the airport owner intends to appeal against the council's decision. If an appeal is made, it will go before the Deputy Prime Minister. No one in Southend wants the airport to close. The problem started because the safety organisation that is responsible for airports in this country decided that the church was too near the take-off point for aeroplanes. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will pass the issue on quietly to the Deputy Prime Minister. As I said, local residents do not want the airport to close.

---