European Union (Amendment) Bill

I was not referring specifically to the hon. Gentleman. I was referring to the point about Wales generally, which the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) made. I know for a fact that many companies in Wales have had some of that funding. Instead of locating in constituencies like mine, they have moved to constituencies in Wales. There has not been a net benefit to the UK at all. The funding has simply moved the jobs around. I shall speak to the amendments tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends, starting with amendment No. 237. As I said briefly in an intervention, the Government—and the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) was working on behalf of the Government at the time—wanted to do exactly what our amendment says. I shall read out an amendment that he tabled at the Convention, on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) served. The amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Neath stated:"““The Community does not have exclusive competence in relation to measures to ensure free movement in the internal market. . . If the Community were to have exclusive competence . . . Member States would have no power to take any measures (e.g., in relation to the protection of health or consumer protection) which could affect free movement, nor to establish rules to promote competition.””" We shall even be restrained from taking measures to create a more competitive market if the exclusive competence measures go forward. The right hon. Member for Neath made the point that"““Member States currently exercise powers in these areas. The Community has power to harmonise the rules in these areas, but authority to take action . . . is . . . shared.””" That is a perfectly sensible arrangement. Maintaining the status quo will hardly lead to all the appalling outcomes that some Labour Members have tried to scare people with. One of the key points, which was not touched on in the debate on the motion and has so far been dealt with only by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells, is that competition is not an end in itself. On that I agree with one or two Labour Members. The purpose of a competitive market is to make our businesses more able to compete not just within Europe, but with the rest of the world. As a number of hon. Members said, Europe currently accounts for a significant chunk of the world economy and a significant chunk of world trade, but those of my generation are looking at what will happen over the next 10, 20 or 30 years. Because of the economic growth in other parts of the world, we need to make sure that we win business in India, China, Russia and the fast-growing markets in south America such as Brazil and Mexico, and that we continue to do so in the United States, which will continue to grow very fast. My concern is that this debate is in danger of becoming not little Englander—I have heard that phrase thrown over from the Labour Benches—but little European. We are focusing on the European market to the exclusion of the world outside. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells highlighted a danger of regulation—if we regulate within the European Union thinking only of the EU, we could handicap ourselves in competing in a global market.