Afghanistan: Monthly Progress Report
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I wish to inform the House that today, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, is publishing the first progress report on developments in Afghanistan, which I announced we would publish every month in my statement to the House on 27 October.
The report focuses on key developments during the month of November.
At the NATO Lisbon summit, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)’s 48 contributing nations reaffirmed their enduring commitment to Afghanistan’s security and stability. NATO and Afghanistan also agreed the framework of a long-term partnership that looks beyond the end of ISAF’s current mission. The summit set out the timetable for transition of lead responsibility for security from international to Afghan forces by the end of 2014.
Transition to Afghan lead security responsibility will be dependent on the conditions in each district and province. It will see ISAF’s role evolve away from combat towards increased training, mentoring and support. In Lisbon, ISAF partners joined the UK in pledging additional trainers to help Afghan security forces build capacity and prepare to assume lead responsibility for security, as set out at the summit.
Pressure on the insurgency is increasing due to ISAF’s operations. The significant uplift in troop numbers has corresponded to an increase in military operations, particularly in those areas where insurgent activity is still strong, although this has not caused a significant increase in civilian casualties.
Progress continues to be made in developing the Afghan national army and the Afghan national police, both of which are on track to meet the targets for trained soldiers and police officers, agreed at the London conference in January this year, by November 2011. Investment continues in the training of both the army and the police, particularly their leadership.
The results of September’s parliamentary elections were declared. While by no means free of irregularities or fraud, they were broadly credible, given the circumstances. Approximately 60% of Parliamentarians are new to the National Assembly. Female candidates have done well. Both of the two seats in Nimroz province were won by women—the first time any Afghan woman has won a seat not reserved for a female candidate.
The Afghan Government reported progress on the commitments made at the Kabul conference in July on security, anti-corruption, human rights and public financial management.
An important example of the region’s commitment to supporting Afghanistan was the fourth regional economic co-operation conference on Afghanistan (RECCA), held in Istanbul, Turkey on 2-3 November. The UK was central to establishing the RECCA process in 2005, and this year funded the establishment of a centre for regional co-operation at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Kabul.
A long awaited Afghan-Pakistan transit trade agreement was finally signed by Afghanistan and Pakistan on 29 October, enabling cargo trucks to reach Pakistani ports and the border with India. This will provide a significant boost for Afghan trade.
I am placing the report in the Library of the House. It will also be published on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk) and the HMG UK and Afghanistan website (http://afghanistan.hmg.gov.uk/).
UK's Relationship with the Commonwealth
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
Her Majesty’s Government have undertaken to strengthen the United Kingdom’s relationship with the Commonwealth and to ensure that the United Kingdom is closely involved in plans to reinvigorate this unique organisation.
The purpose of this statement is to inform the House about the Government’s reasons and objectives for doing this.
The Commonwealth today is as important to the United Kingdom as ever. The coalition agreement sets out a vision
“to strengthen the Commonwealth as a focus for promoting democratic values and development.”
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will lead a co-ordinated, cross-Whitehall approach to help the Commonwealth achieve its potential and which underlines the United Kingdom’s commitment to this unique global organisation.
Our relationship with the Commonwealth has been primarily based on its history, values and common bonds. But the modem Commonwealth, including countries that were never British colonies, has been transformed. Today’s Commonwealth bridges all the continents, embraces almost 2 billion people, and represents all of the world’s major faiths. Its membership includes many of the fastest-growing and increasingly technologically advanced economies in the world. These are the great markets of today and tomorrow. Equally important is the forum it provides for numerous smaller nations which may feel that their voice is lost in the wider United Nations structure and who find the more informal Commonwealth setting an ideal place to be heard.
The Commonwealth of the 21st century should stand for democracy, development, and human rights, and act as a recognised force for good on the issues of our times. It could also be used much more effectively to further the United Kingdom’s foreign policy priorities and worldwide economic interests. The United Kingdom is already at the heart of this ready-made network, which fits perfectly into the new global environment. In the words of the Head of the Commonwealth, Her Majesty the Queen, the Commonwealth is indeed “the face of the future”. It is a future in which the United Kingdom will play a full part.
To achieve this, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will work closely with Whitehall partners to:
Define and develop ways in which the modern Commonwealth can add value to the delivery of United Kingdom policy goals and act as a global soft power network.
Use the Commonwealth to develop trade and investment opportunities for the United Kingdom and to promote intra-Commonwealth trade.
Support Commonwealth development programmes and bilateral assistance in Commonwealth countries.
Reform, strengthen and renew the Commonwealth structures and purposes through the Eminent Persons Group, the Commonwealth ministerial action group reform process, and in concert with key partners ahead of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in 2011.
Focus Commonwealth activity where it has strengths and conclude activity where others are better placed and better resourced.
Strengthen the Commonwealth through expanded membership and partner and observer agreements.
Work with the Commonwealth secretariat better to demonstrate the benefits of membership to the public in Commonwealth nations
Use the Commonwealth in other international institutions (e.g. the United Nations, the Group of 20) where we can develop common foreign policy aims.
Connect with the “internal Commonwealth”, the many United Kingdom communities with close ties to Commonwealth countries, to the benefit of social cohesion within British society.
European Union Bill
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the European Union Bill, has consented to place her prerogative, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the official Opposition.
Mr Hague
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
In the past 25 years, the EU has changed many times, each change marked by a new treaty: the Single European Act, the Maastricht treaty, the Amsterdam and Nice treaties, the failed EU constitution and its modified successor, the Lisbon treaty. As a result, the EU now has a greatly enlarged place in our national life, policy and politics. At the same time, we have seen a growing disconnection between the people who put us here in Parliament—the British people, the voters—and the EU’s institutions. There is a growing sense, shown by falling turnout in European elections and a variety of surveys, that the EU’s democratic legitimacy in this country has been weakened.
It can be said in mitigation that all but one of those treaties had its place in the manifesto of the party that won the general election, the exception—a rather important exception—being the last such treaty, the Lisbon treaty. It cannot be denied, however, that there is a problem—a severe one—that will only grow worse unless we take steps to address it, and the European Union Bill is part of the coalition Government’s answer to that problem. Indeed, the crowning argument for the Bill was the behaviour of the last Government, who opposed a referendum on the EU constitution, then promised one, then refused to hold one on its substantially similar reincarnation as the Lisbon treaty. The Bill will prevent Governments from being so deceptive and double-dealing when it comes to giving voters a say.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing this important Bill, which will ensure that parties do not make a proposal on one side of an election only to conduct a U-turn on the other. Has he had any discussions with the Labour party on its position on the Bill, or will it be walking into the next election supporting a case in which the British electorate will again be denied the opportunity to conduct affairs on Europe?
Mr Hague
That is something for the Opposition to consider and they will have some time to do so before the next election. The position set out in their amendment appears to be at best uncertain in that they agree with the principle of doing such a thing but not with doing it in practice. That is rather like the position they often occupied in government of being in favour of referendums but never actually holding one on any European matter for which they were responsible.
Ms Gisela Stuart
How would the Secretary of State describe a party that promised a referendum and then, in order to avoid one, simply changed the question, as the Members who are now in coalition with his party did in the last election?
Mr Hague
I am not here to answer for the party policies of other members of the coalition but for the coalition Government as a whole. The hon. Lady can rest assured that both parties in the coalition join strongly in their support for the Bill. It is sponsored by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister, and it is therefore easy for people in a third party to join us in supporting it, as the hon. Lady will no doubt want to consider doing.
Mr Cash
Given that we stood united as a party in opposing the Lisbon treaty and supporting a referendum, and given that we voted for that, will my right hon. Friend explain why we have done a U-turn on that within the coalition Government? Will he also explain why he was not prepared to come to my European Scrutiny Committee to explain the circumstances behind the Bill?
Mr Hague
On the first point, I do not think the coalition Government have done a U-turn, as the Bill implements part of the coalition agreement that was set out in the few days after the general election. It is true that the Conservative party, when the Lisbon treaty was ratified last year, said that in those circumstances we could no longer hold a referendum on the treaty. That, of course, was made clear before the general election. My hon. Friend is being a little unfair to both parties in the coalition.
On the second point, I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe gave a splendid exposition of the Government’s position to the European Scrutiny Committee. As the Minister who was most involved in drafting the Bill, he was best equipped to go before the Committee. I look forward to discussing these issues with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) on many occasions. Let there be no fear about that.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
In our manifesto we promised to amend the European Communities Act 1972, and the coalition agreement states:
“We will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that any proposed future treaty that transferred areas of power, or competences, would be subject to a referendum on that treaty—a ‘referendum lock’.”
But the Bill does not amend that Act.
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend may have worked out that the Bill has exactly the same effect as amending the Act and that it therefore absolutely honours the commitment in the coalition agreement. We additionally agreed, in the coalition agreement, that we would not agree to any transfer of powers from Westminster to Brussels for the duration of this Parliament. In addition, if Parliament approves the Bill, any future treaty change that transfers powers from Britain to the EU could be agreed only subject to the consent of the British people. That will provide a referendum lock to which the British people hold the key. The Bill makes a very important and radical change to how decisions on the EU are made in this country. It is the most important change since we joined what was then called the European Economic Community. It marks a fundamental shift in power from Ministers of the Crown to Parliament and the voters themselves on the most important decisions of all: who gets to decide what.
It has been said that because the Bill will place a high democratic test before any Government can agree to participation in deeper political integration in the EU, it will marginalise Britain, but I believe that that argument is dangerously mistaken in its assumption of what progress in the EU means. The yardstick for progress in the European Union is not the depth of political integration. The lost opportunities of the past decade of institutional navel-gazing have made that plain. Progress for the European Union means its institutions’ ability and willingness to help its member states meet the challenges of today, and for us today that means our international economic competitiveness, sustainable low-carbon growth and the use of our collective weight in the world to advance our shared values and interests.
That is why, from their first day, the Government have been active and activist in European policy. That is why we have played a strong and positive role in the EU which in six months has delivered significant results—agreement on EU sanctions against the Iranian Government that are already having a material effect, and agreement on measures that will substantially aid Pakistan’s economic recovery in the aftermath of the floods. We have pushed hard at EU level on measures to further free trade, in particular with Pakistan and South Korea, thus far with success.
The UK has not taken part in every aspect of the EU’s development. The euro was created, and the decision to retain our own currency has, for example, been vindicated. Staying out of the euro and maintaining our own border controls has not weakened our influence, either. The previous Government’s successful championing of enlargement to the east, to which I pay tribute, is proof of that. In the single market—for example, on patent reform—the UK should be ready to move forward in the national interest with other like-minded partners.
As in all matters, the Government’s policy on European issues should be based on the pursuit of our enlightened national interest. Our ability to advance our goals by working with European partners is crucial to that. Ensuring that our role is based on democratic consent is equally necessary, and that is what the Bill is about.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Foreign Secretary explain why, when the Government are giving away powers to regulate the City, powers over criminal justice, powers in two regulations and a directive that will affect our economic governance, and big new powers for an expanded External Action Service, none of those qualifies for a referendum under the Bill? People want a referendum now on the powers that the current Government are giving away.
Mr Hague
That is simply because we are not giving away those powers. The European External Action Service was agreed, established and given its role by the Lisbon treaty. My right hon. Friend may regret that, and I may regret that, but it was given by the Lisbon treaty. On the City, the European Union has long had the power to legislate in this area, which has equally long been subject to qualified majority voting and co-decision with the European Parliament. On economic governance, it is clear—for instance, in the Van Rompuy report on economic governance—that the proposed sanctions do not apply to the United Kingdom and that the proposed changes will not affect the United Kingdom. I reject my right hon. Friend’s basic thesis.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Is not the argument between my right hon. Friends precisely the problem? Surely Parliament must be sovereign because the people must be sovereign. What will happen in future if there is some row about whether a referendum should take place or not once the Bill becomes law? Will not our affairs then become justiciable? Is that not an attack on the sovereignty of Parliament, which we must believe in?
Mr Hague
I shall come to that point. It requires clarity in the Bill, as far as possible, on the circumstances in which a referendum would or would not be held. That is the safeguard against what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) is complaining about in relation to rights that have been given away in the past. It would have been good to have a referendum on those. The Bill is about the future—let us be clear about that—and we have to make it as clear as possible.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has mentioned the Lisbon treaty a number of times, saying that because of it we cannot do certain things. Surely the public will think that no Government should be committed to previous Governments’ decisions, and that it would be perfectly possible—there would be huge support for it—for the coalition Government to say, “Now we are in government, we want a referendum on the Lisbon treaty.” That would sort out the whole situation, because clearly the public would vote against it.
Mr Hague
As the hon. Lady knows, since the Lisbon treaty was ratified it has been built into the treaties of the EU. It does not have a separate existence once it is ratified. A referendum on that would be the same as a referendum on taking part in all the EU’s institutions—in other words, being in the EU at all.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) mentioned criminal justice powers, and the last Conservative manifesto saw fit to promise to work to bring back key powers over legal rights and criminal justice. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government have not just not sought to repatriate these powers, but have actually given additional powers to the European Union, as they did just last Friday when they chose to opt in to a criminal justice directive over which there was an opt-out, not only without a referendum but without even a vote in this House of Commons? Will he give serious consideration to requiring a vote of the House of Commons and the House of Lords before there are any further opt-ins to significant pieces of criminal justice legislation from the EU that will give the European Court of Justice jurisdiction over our courts?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend raises a very important subject—a rather large subject, unfortunately, for those watching the length of speeches today, because I want to answer his question properly. Let us be clear that in the context of the Bill, it is any proposal to give up our freedom not to participate in justice and home affairs decisions that would be subject to a referendum. That would be from where we are starting—the extension of the power of the EU. But it is also important to be clear that the justice and home affairs ratchet clauses, as I call them, covered in the Bill amend the treaties by allowing for an expansion of what can be done within existing areas of EU competence. They are clearly passerelle clauses. We said in the coalition programme for government—that is our reference document here—that the use of any passerelle clause would require primary legislation, so that is also the case.
The opt-ins, which are a different category, are a very important subject, but they are not for this Bill. Given that there are strict time limits applying to the UK’s decision to exercise an opt-in, which is within three months of the receipt of a proposal—
Mr Hague
I am answering my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison), so I had better complete the answer before I give way again.
The fact that there are also 30 to 40 proposals per annum means that it is not possible to place a primary legislative lock or parliamentary resolution requirement on the exercise of the opt-in. Therefore, it is important to be clear about the distinction of these different categories of decisions on justice and home affairs.
Mr Hague
I had better make some progress, because I will return to all those subjects in the course of my speech.
The nature of how our society relates to its politics, and the expectation of the British people’s involvement in decisions that affect them, has changed. In the years since 1997, we have had referendums in Scotland, Wales, Greater London and the north-east of England on proposals for devolution of power; in Northern Ireland we have had a referendum on the Belfast agreement; and legislation is before Parliament now to hold a referendum on a change to the parliamentary voting system. Changes that affect the powers exercised on behalf of the people by Parliament have been considered to be important enough to require the endorsement of the people in a referendum.
At the same time, there is a widespread perception that the really important decisions about the EU have been taken without real consideration for the wishes of the people, and much of that is reflected in my hon. Friends’ comments. Many in the House, including me, think that the ratification of the Lisbon treaty, without the promised referendum, was wrong, and it did a great deal of damage. That perception reinforces public alienation from the EU and decisions taken on the EU by Governments, and that is what we now have to put right. Therefore, we in the coalition Government have resolved that we need to rebuild trust and reconnect people and enhance parliamentary control over EU decisions, so, as with our proposals for elected police commissioners, our plans to enable parent groups to establish free schools in their communities and our proposals to hold a referendum on the voting system, we are giving more power from the centre to the citizens of this country.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary speaks of public alienation, but does he recall saying:
“If you believe in an independent Britain, then come with me, and I will give you back your country”?
Does he understand the disappointment felt by so many Members on the Government Benches and in the country about the European journey he has since taken?
Mr Hague
I remember well saying that. It was a very good speech, and it is recommended reading for all those who have trouble sleeping. It is even in a book somewhere, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for quoting it. He can rest assured that I would have held a referendum on many things that have happened since then, including on the Lisbon treaty. Indeed, I asked for a referendum on other European treaties that were introduced during that time. However, it is our misfortune when we start in government, whenever we start, to start from where we are, and we start from here—in a coalition Government, meeting the commitments in our coalition agreement. That is what we now have to take on.
As hon. Members who were present for the Lisbon treaty debates might remember, there are now essentially two ways in which treaty change can be agreed by the Governments of member states: the ordinary revision procedure, under which any amendment to the treaties must be agreed unanimously by member states, and, following the Lisbon treaty, the simplified revision procedure, under which the European Council can decide to amend those parts of EU treaties devoted to internal policies, such as the single market and justice and home affairs.
Under our current law, any change under the simplified procedure, defined in this Bill as an “Article 48(6) decision”, would require only a Minister of the Crown to move a motion in both Houses and for both Houses to vote positively to approve the change. It is easy now, and it was easy in 2008 when that provision was debated, to see how that level of parliamentary control for a formal treaty change is grossly inadequate. The Bill therefore ensures that any future amendment to the treaty on the European Union or to the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, under either revision procedure that I have just outlined, will require parliamentary approval by Act of Parliament before the United Kingdom is able to ratify the change.
That is a significant addition to the powers of Parliament to hold Ministers to account for the decisions they take in Brussels. It was an addition that I championed in opposition and one that this Government will now put into statute to ensure that parliamentary control is enhanced further. That is the first thing that the Bill achieves.
Henry Smith
I welcome the Bill, but if it becomes law a future Parliament will be able to repeal it, so ultimately, do we not, like other European countries such as Germany, need to codify the sovereignty of this Parliament in a written constitution?
Mr Hague
That is a wider debate, and there is a legitimate argument for that. I hope that the Bill becomes part of the accepted constitutional framework of this country, for which, over time, it will have to receive widespread public support and the acceptance of parties from all parts of the House. The Opposition, as we have said, will have some time to think about it. Indeed, they might have a very long time before they return to government—I certainly hope so. I hope that the Bill becomes part of our permanent constitutional framework, but the argument for a written constitution ranges much wider than the scope of the Bill.
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Gentleman knows well that I have long opposed referendums on almost everything. I am not a fan of referendums; I believe in parliamentary democracy, but that is a different debate from today’s.
The hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) makes a good point—that the Bill does not really introduce a referendum lock. It closes the door for a while, until such time as a Government of any colour, whether Conservative, Liberal Democrat—well, that is fairly unlikely—or Labour, choose, if they want to, to derogate from the Bill in any provisions that they introduce. Is that not the danger—that the Bill might just seem like no more than political posturing?
Mr Hague
As I go through the description of what the Bill entails, the hon. Gentleman will understand that it is a lot more than that. It means a great deal for what happens in this Parliament. It means that not only do we have our commitment not to transfer more powers from this country to the European Union, but that in a vast range of circumstances we would have to hold a referendum if we contemplated doing so.
It will be very difficult for future Governments to go back on those commitments, but we will see; that is something for the Labour party to contemplate. In future elections, it can choose whether to say that it will weaken democratic accountability in this country or whether to accept the changes for the long term. That is a choice it will have to face, and there is no sign in its reasoned amendment today that it is yet making that choice. However, it will have to make that choice, and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) will have to make it.
Mr Hague
I shall try to space out the interventions, but I will come to my hon. Friend.
Clause 4 sets out the criteria that the Government of the day would have to apply to determine whether a transfer of competence or power would occur under a future treaty change. The Act of Parliament seeking parliamentary approval for the treaty change would also make provision for the holding of the referendum, if a referendum were required. Following the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty, the different types of EU competence—a European legal term that really means the power to act in an area of policy—and the extent of each type of competence has been set out explicitly in the treaties. Under this legislation, any extension of competence would trigger a referendum. That would also include any extension or creation of a new objective for the European Union. That is all clear in the Bill.
Power, on the other hand, is not so clearly defined, so I want to establish here what we mean by a transfer of power as set out in clause 4. First, it means the giving up of a UK veto in a significant area of policy because that would mean that the UK would lose the ability to block a future measure made under that treaty article. There is a large number of vetoes in the treaties, and many of them are in areas that hon. Members on both sides of the House consider important and sensitive—for example, foreign policy, tax, justice and home affairs. It is right that any treaty change that would transfer from unanimity to qualified majority voting the way in which decisions were taken over those key areas of policy should require the consent of the British people before a Government agree to such a change.
We do not propose to hold a referendum over the giving up of the veto over more minor or technical measures such as any future agreement to change the numbers of Advocates-General in the Court of Justice of the European Union. In my view, giving up such a veto would be a mistake and should require primary legislation in the House, but I do not think that the British public would understand it if such a narrow and relatively minor measure were to require a national referendum.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
If the right hon. Gentleman has the power of veto, he can stop anything that he does not like. Why does he then need a referendum?
Mr Hague
We need a clear framework for referendums because Governments such as the right hon. Gentleman’s promised the people a referendum and then reneged on that commitment, and because the level of public trust has dramatically declined. This is a new framework of law for this country and I believe that it will enjoy growing support over the years. It already enjoys the strong support of two political parties in this country. That in itself is an enormous advance on where we were starting from in the last Parliament, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows.
Charlie Elphicke
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the central point of the Bill is that if a future Government came along and attempted to cheat the British people out of a referendum, as the previous Government did—as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) well knows—they would not be able to do it without explicitly repealing and amending the Act? They could not hide behind word games and semantics.
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, the Labour party will be asked before future general elections what its approach would be. It will be asked to give the commitment to maintain the referendum lock; otherwise people will know that it would propose in office to do exactly what it has done before—give away the rights and powers of the British people without the consent of the British people. If the Labour party wants to go into a general election on that basis, let it do so, but it would be wiser for it to adopt this framework for the future.
Mr Hague
I will give way, but I want to make some more progress and get through my speech, as well as taking interventions.
The second way in which power will be transferred from Britain to Brussels, as defined for the purposes of the Bill, will be by granting an EU institution or body, through treaty change, a new ability to impose further obligations or sanctions on the United Kingdom or on individuals and organisations within the United Kingdom.
That point has been the subject of some debate, although some of that has been based on scant acquaintance with the content of the Bill. It has wrongly been claimed that Ministers will be able to use a significance test on any future treaty change. That is not true. The Bill places an absolute and unqualified referendum requirement on the transfer of competence, the creation of new competence, or the removal of limits to existing competences and upon a whole raft of vetoes. The Bill also provides that the consent of the British people will be required if the Government wish to agree to certain other specific decisions—for example, joining the euro, joining a common European army, or joining the group of countries that have shared border controls.
If the only reason for a proposed treaty amendment being caught by the referendum lock is that it would, while not transferring or extending competence, confer upon the EU the ability to impose new obligations or sanctions on this country, we need to be able to distinguish between important and minor changes. We are providing a workable, sustainable solution to prevent referendums being held on matters that we could not justify to the public as having the significance to merit a referendum.
Mark Hendrick
The right hon. Gentleman is making it plain in his remarks that the Bill is not aimed at the current Government; it is aimed at a possible future Labour Government. He says that he would not trust a future Labour Government, but does he trust his current partners? He has described the Liberal Democrats as wanting to go all the way towards a united states of Europe, so what is his position? Does he trust them, or does he trust us?
Mr Hague
The Bill is aimed at all Governments, including our own, any future Governments and any combinations of Government. Yes, we have new partners in government and, on the basis of the past seven months, I trust them a great deal more than I would trust the Government we had before the election. Let the hon. Gentleman be absolutely clear about that.
On how the Bill works and ministerial accountability for decisions on whether to hold a referendum, a Minister of the Crown will be required to make a statement within two months of a treaty change being agreed by member state Governments. That ministerial statement will have to give reasons why the treaty change does or does not require a referendum, and those reasons will have to refer to the criteria set out in clause 4.
Mr Hague
I will in a moment, yes. Like any ministerial decision, it will be open to any member of the public—yes, any member of the public—who is entitled to vote in a referendum to challenge the Minister’s judgment through judicial review. The reasoned statement set out in clause 5 makes any such ministerial decision as amenable to judicial review as is possible. That provides a powerful reason for Ministers to stick to both the letter and spirit of the law, and not to seek to sidestep the requirement for a referendum. We have ensured that we are as precise as possible about what would require a referendum.
Mr Hague
I will give way again in a moment, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) next.
We have also provided further clarity on the scope of the referendum lock by setting out certain categories of treaty change that would not require a referendum: first, the accession of a new country to the EU—the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston looks surprised—would not require a referendum, although each accession treaty would still require approval by an Act of Parliament; secondly, a treaty change that, while it would have to be agreed and ratified by all member states, would not apply to this country; and, thirdly, a treaty change that merely sought to codify EU practice in relation to the previous exercise of an existing competence. The Bill does not cover any use of the EU’s existing competences as defined in the treaties, because those competences have already been transferred and the extent of the competences is set out in European law.
Mr Carswell
The Foreign Secretary has spoken of a referendum lock. Given that this Parliament cannot bind the next, that a future referendum would rest on a ministerial decision in the way that he describes, and that a new law would be required for such a referendum to be held, in what sense is it a referendum lock? It is a piece of legislative PR, perhaps, but not really a lock.
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend, perhaps deliberately, understates its importance by overstating the scope for ministerial decision and the significance test. The Bill is very clear that, on 44 specific treaty articles, the removal of the veto requires a referendum, and that the substantive use of 12 treaty articles requires a referendum. There is no scope for Ministers to decide that those things do not require a referendum. There is no scope for Ministers to decide that a decision to join the euro, to subscribe to a European army, to give up our veto on the financial framework, to give up our veto on foreign policy or to give up control of our borders does not require a referendum. Let us be absolutely clear about that.
My hon. Friend said that we cannot bind our successors in this respect, but of course that could be said about so many of the laws that we propose, and are proposed under future Governments, which we intend to have long-term effect. If we took that attitude on everything, there would be no point in doing anything or ever getting up in the morning to come to Parliament at all. We are trying to create a long-term and enduring framework, and I believe that we have a very good chance of doing so.
Graham Stringer
When the right hon. Gentleman was in opposition, I enjoyed his speeches on Europe: they were magnificent; leonine. I voted with him on the Lisbon treaty—not just on the basis of his speech, but because it was in our manifesto to vote for the Lisbon treaty. However, I wish that he was using now the arguments that he used then. The public are not interested in the details in this Bill—they think that too much money is spent on the European Union and that it has too much power. Are not the Conservative party and the Foreign Secretary going to give the people of this country an opportunity to have their say on that?
Mr Hague
The public are right, and my arguments are the same as they were on the Lisbon treaty—[Interruption.] They may not sound like it; I have to explain an 18-clause Bill, so they may not sound quite as dramatic. The hon. Gentleman may be right that the public are not interested in the details of the Bill, but Parliament needs to go through those details. My argument is exactly the same as the one that I made on the Lisbon treaty—that where a Government propose to hand over the powers of this country, there should be a referendum. There should have been a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. If there is any future treaty change of the kind that I have described, there should be a referendum. It is exactly the same argument. I am grateful to him for voting with me then, and I trust that on the same basis he will be voting with me today.
I will now give way to someone else—
David Miliband
I, too, very much enjoyed the right hon. Gentleman’s speeches when he spoke for the Opposition, and it is nice to be able to ask him some questions now.
Schedule 1 of the Bill is entitled,
“Treaty provisions where amendment removing a need for unanimity, consensus or common accord would attract referendum”,
and it lists things such as the appointment of judges and advocates-general of the European Court of Justice. Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that we are going to have a referendum in this country if his Government, or any future Government, decide that they want to transfer competence on that issue?
Mr Hague
We welcome the right hon. Gentleman back to the House. It is traditional in these circumstances to sit on the Front Bench below the Gangway in a menacing posture towards his own party, and we notice that he has gone to sit in that particular position. There is some political significance in that.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for stressing the detail into which the Bill goes and the extent to which we are insisting that a referendum should be held, because that should be of enormous reassurance to some of my hon. Friends. On the specific subject of the advocates-general, one of the matters that I said would not be subject to a referendum is the loss of our veto on the number of advocates-general.
Mr Cash
I am extremely grateful again to my right hon. Friend. Does he recall that in the evidence that was given to my Committee and in the conclusions of the report that it produced last night, there was an assertion and a conclusion that the Bill invites litigation in the courts? He has just confirmed, with regard to the circumstances of a referendum, that he too would invite litigation. Does he not think that the time has come when this House, as the ultimate authority of the law of this land, should decide such matters, and not just buck them over to the courts?
Mr Hague
The Bill is about many matters being decided in this place or by the people. The hon. Gentleman’s point is distinct from the one that was raised in the European Scrutiny Committee report about clause 18. I made the point that an executive ministerial decision is subject to judicial review, which is always the case. The decision of the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) on the Lisbon treaty was taken to judicial review by Mr Stuart Wheeler, albeit unsuccessfully. Ministerial decisions are subject to judicial review and that is not changed by the Bill.
The right hon. Member for South Shields is still looking puzzled about the position of the advocates-general. The loss of the veto in the appointment of advocates-general and European Commissioners would be a significant loss of national—
Ms Gisela Stuart
Accession treaties are exempt from the referendum requirement. Will the Foreign Secretary explain how the accession of Turkey, which by that stage would probably have a larger population than Germany, would not amount to a considerable loss of influence for the United Kingdom, given the system of qualified majority voting? Why is it therefore exempt from a referendum? I just do not get it.
Mr Hague
That is a different argument about referendums on accession treaties. Such treaties do not extend the powers and competences of the European Union, and so are not within the terms of the Bill. If the hon. Lady wants to advocate a referendum on the accession of Turkey, there will, sadly, be time for her to do so because the process will take a while. However, that is a separate argument from the extension of powers and competences.
Mr Hague
No, I must make a bit of progress.
The Bill will give Parliament more control over whether the Government can agree to a number of other important EU decisions, sometimes referred to as the self-amending provisions of the Lisbon treaty. Those decisions, which are known as passerelles or ratchet clauses, contain built-in mechanisms that allow modifications to EU treaties or the exercise of one-way options, without recourse to either of the formal methods of treaty change.
The Government have identified three types of ratchet clause, although I hesitate to go into detail after the comments of the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer). However, it is important to be clear on this matter. There are clauses that allow for a change of legislative procedure, clauses that allow for changes in voting procedure and clauses that allow for the expansion of the scope of an article allowing the European Union to act.
Given the lack of a universal definition and the Government’s aim of ensuring that our proposals are as clear as possible to Parliament and the public, we have set out explicitly which treaty articles require additional levels of control. As with future treaty changes, passerelles or ratchet clauses that entail a transfer of power or competence will require the consent of the British people in a referendum. There will be a referendum requirement on any methods in the treaties for giving up vetoes that we have deemed to be significant. Clause 6 covers the simplified revision procedure and six provisions in the treaties that allow for vetoes to be given up without formal treaty change.
Clauses 8 and 9 provide for parliamentary controls over two types of decision: the use of article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the EU—the so-called broad enabling clause—and the use of three ratchet clauses in the field of justice and home affairs. Some additional proposals that require a vote in both Houses, rather than a Bill, are listed in clause 10. They are mostly articles that modify the composition, rules of procedure or statutes of existing EU institutions or bodies.
The coalition stated in its programme for government that it would examine the case for a United Kingdom sovereignty Bill. I announced in October that, following that examination, we had decided to include a provision in this Bill to place on a statutory footing the existing common law principle of parliamentary sovereignty. The doctrine that EU law has effect here for one reason only, namely that authority has been conferred upon it by Acts of Parliament and subsists only for as long as Parliament so decides, has been upheld consistently by the courts. However, we can see considerable merit in placing that position beyond speculation on a statutory footing. That will guard against any risk that in future, common law jurisprudence might drift towards accepting a different argument. In other words, we have included a clause that underlines the fact that what a sovereign Parliament can do, a sovereign Parliament can undo.
Mr Cash
I wish to put on record the fact that, in the conclusions to the European Scrutiny Committee’s report issued last night, we unequivocally rejected the notion of a common law principle, because it would offer the courts a gateway to take over jurisdiction in areas that we regard as unacceptable in UK constitutional law.
Mr Hague
Yes, I have read the report, of course, and I note the concerns about the references to the common law in the explanatory notes. However, those references are meant simply as a contradistinction to statute, given that the principle of parliamentary sovereignty is defined nowhere in statute. They are not meant to be determinative of the origin of the principle, which is an issue that goes far beyond the scope of the Bill.
As I set out a few moments ago, under current law any proposal to amend the EU treaties using the ordinary revision procedure can be ratified by the United Kingdom only once parliamentary approval has been obtained by Act of Parliament. We have therefore made provision in the Bill for Parliament’s approval of the transitional protocol on MEPs. That will allow 18 MEPs from 12 member states, including one from the UK, to take up their seats without having to wait until the next scheduled elections in 2014. As that protocol does not transfer any power or competence from the UK to the EU, a referendum is clearly not required. As it is a treaty change, however, all member states are required to ratify it. The Bill also makes the necessary provisions to elect our new MEP, who will, based on the recommendation made by the Electoral Commission in its report last month, represent the West Midlands.
Chris Bryant
Is the Foreign Secretary satisfied that the process that the French and Italians are using to change their representation is sufficiently democratic?
Mr Hague
I am satisfied that it does not affect the rights or powers of the United Kingdom and therefore does not require a referendum in this country.
The Bill will give the British people and Parliament powers that they have not previously enjoyed in decisions about engagement with the European Union. Some have criticised the Government’s proposals, saying that they will necessarily stymie further progress or put the UK in the slow lane of Europe. The Government do not subscribe to that argument, for three reasons.
First, it is wrong to accept continuous political integration as a definition of progress. Secondly, although other European nations have different constitutional frameworks, a number of countries require a referendum of their people to be held if a treaty change proposes a further shift of powers to Brussels. Some, most notably Germany, also have provisions in place to ensure effective parliamentary control over specific key decisions taken by their Governments. There is a growing trend across Europe to give citizens and Parliaments more control over the decisions taken by their Governments on EU matters, and it is right that we should be not just part of that trend but leading it from the front.
Thirdly, if a future Government can demonstrate a compelling case as to why a further transfer of power is in the national interest, they should be able to persuade the British people of its merits. If a future Government were to take a different view from ours, they would have to convince the British people. Whatever the outcome of such an argument, our democracy would be all the healthier for the decision lying in the hands of the British people as a whole. That fulfils an important part of the Conservative manifesto, but it also draws on a line of thinking that has found its place in recent Liberal Democrat manifestos. I hope that Opposition Front Benchers will in time support it too, because when the voters cast a party out of government, it must understand why. The previous Government’s high-handedness on EU matters is one reason why Labour is no longer in government, and it should now learn from that.
The Bill can receive support from those who like the EU just as it is, those who want it to do less, and those who want it to have more power but who are prepared to argue for that. The Bill does not determine the shape of our future place in the EU, but it ensures that our position will command the voters’ consent. It will give the British people the assurance, which they are entitled to expect, that the sovereignty of Parliament and the ultimate right of the people themselves to decide which powers are the subject of collective decisions within Europe are both properly safeguarded. Those safeguards will put our participation in the EU on a sturdier and more democratic footing. That is why we present the Bill to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House declines to give a second reading to the European Union Bill on the grounds that, while the principle of referendums on significant constitutional and monetary changes is appropriate, the Bill is a flawed measure which would confuse the important issues at stake and make vital constitutional issues justiciable by the courts rather than resolved under the sovereignty of Parliament.”
The Foreign Secretary has been on a long and tortuous journey to get here today. The man who voted for the Maastricht treaty without a referendum and the former party leader who put Euroscepticism at the heart of his unsuccessful election campaign now finds himself in government with what he has described as
“the most fanatically federalist party in Britain.”
The Foreign Secretary’s diary engagement from last night rather sums things up for him, and I am sorry that he chose not to share it with the House. Last night, he went back to Smith square, to the old Conservative central office. From the windows where once Margaret Thatcher waved on election night now waves a blue flag with yellow stars. Where once sat Tory party researchers working on the Bruges speech, there are now French, German and Italian officials. He was invited for the opening and renaming of central office as Europe House. It cannot be easy for him. He is caught between the realities and the responsibilities of government and the rhetoric of Eurosceptic opposition. He is caught, as they say, between a rock and the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash).
Mr Hague
The record should also show that the room where I spoke last night was named the Churchill room by common agreement, and that I took the opportunity to remind all who were there of the need for EU institutions to bring down their budgetary aspirations just as the Government have had to do in this country.
Yvette Cooper
If only the Foreign Secretary’s willingness to open EU buildings extended to opening a proper debate on European issues in the House. Clause 10 purports to increase Parliament’s role before ministerial decisions are made, yet the truth is that the Government do the opposite. We have had no discussion of the European economy prior to the discussion between European Finance Ministers today, no discussion of practical measures to cut the European budget, such as reform of the common agricultural policy, and no discussion of working with Europe on human trafficking or the directive that the Government continue to opt out of.
This very morning, European Finance Ministers met to discuss the Irish support package and the European economy. In 10 days’ time, decisions will be made on the crisis resolution measures that will affect the entire European economy—not just the eurozone—for many years to come. National leaders will discuss a treaty change to introduce that package, yet when is the debate in the British Parliament? We have no idea what British Government Ministers are proposing or asking for.
We should hold pre-Council debates in this Chamber. The economic and political pressures that Europe faces are serious. European growth is slowing, unemployment has increased and markets are putting pressure on several eurozone countries, all of which matters immensely to Britain, yet we have had no pre-Council debates. At the end of this year, there will have been four European Councils, but no debate.
Linda Norgrove
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
With permission, I shall inform the House of the outcome of the investigation into the tragic death of the British aid worker, Linda Norgrove, who was taken hostage by insurgents in Afghanistan on 26 September, and who died during a US-led rescue operation on the night of 8 October.
As I informed the House in my statement on 11 October, initial reports about the rescue suggested that Linda Norgrove’s death was cause by the detonation of a suicide vest worn by one of her captors, but new information came to light on the morning of 11 October that called that account into question. The Prime Minister therefore agreed with the international security assistance force commander General Petraeus, and confirmed with President Obama, that a full US-UK investigation would be launched, reporting to General Mattis, commander of US central command, with a remit to investigate the operation itself, the inaccuracy of the original accounts and to make recommendations for the future.
Today, I should like to update the House on the outcome of that investigation, but before I do so, I pay tribute to Linda Norgrove’s family, who have shown inspiring strength, dignity and fortitude throughout their terrible ordeal. They, above all others, deserve to have the fullest account possible. Throughout the investigation, Foreign Office officials have been in close contact with the Norgrove family. Linda’s parents, John and Lorna, were briefed yesterday on its outcome, and I met them this morning to discuss its findings.
I shall now report how the investigation was conducted, the conclusions it reached and what action will now follow. However, I must first remind the House that Her Majesty’s coroner for Wiltshire and Swindon is legally responsible for determining the cause of death, and my statement today must not in any way prejudice the course of his inquiries.
The investigation team began work immediately, led by US Major-General Joseph Votel and British Brigadier Robert Nitsch. A 10-man investigative team worked for two and a half weeks in Afghanistan. It conducted interviews with all the personnel involved in the rescue attempt, and assessed hours of video evidence and hundreds of pages of documentary evidence. I am grateful to the investigation team for the thorough work it has done and for the willingness of our US allies to share their most sensitive operational information with us.
We judged that Linda Norgrove’s life was in grave danger from the moment she was abducted, and we feared that her captors would pass her higher up the Taliban chain of command or move her to more inaccessible terrain. We also judged that the only credible prospect of securing her release was through a rescue attempt, which is why I authorised such an attempt to be made.
Locating and rescuing Linda Norgrove became the sole mission of approximately 1,000 US and Afghan forces, leading to significantly stepped-up activity in the region where it was believed she was being held. As a result of those intensive efforts, Linda’s captors were tracked to two small groups of buildings high in the Dewagal valley in Kunar province, a region of steep mountain valleys and peaks ranging from 8,000 to 14,000 feet, which were accessible in most areas only by pack animal or by foot.
On the night of 8 October, a rescue attempt was launched following analysis and surveillance of the area. The rescue force, chosen for its operational knowledge of the area, specialist training and experience in carrying out hostage rescue operations, set off in two separate helicopters. The operation took place during the night in total darkness. US forces were required to land on the near-vertical incline of a rugged mountainside, 8,000 feet in height, within a narrow valley, and to assault a series of buildings built in to the steep slope on several levels.
On the basis of intelligence, analysis and surveillance, it was judged that Linda was being held in the upper group of two groups of buildings. One of the two teams of soldiers landed near the lower group of buildings. The team came under attack as soon as they left the helicopter. As the soldiers progressed towards those lower buildings, Linda Norgrove’s captors came out and were engaged by the soldiers who were advancing on a narrow ledge and under threat. A grenade was thrown by a member of the rescue team—who feared for his own life and for those of his team—towards a gully from which some of the insurgents had emerged. When the grenade was thrown, no member of the team had seen or heard Linda Norgrove. All the actions that I have described so far took place within the space of less than a minute.
The team moved on immediately to the other group of buildings higher up the mountainside, where it was believed Linda Norgrove was being held. It was when the team returned to the first location that it became apparent that Linda had been taken by her captors into the gully into which the grenade had been thrown, and where her body was now discovered. She was examined immediately by the team medics. The investigation team had access to the provisional post-mortem results, which concluded that Linda Norgrove died as a result of penetrating fragmentation injuries to the head and chest. After the investigation, it is clear that those injuries were caused by the grenade.
This incredibly difficult operation was carried out with the utmost courage by elite US forces. The United Kingdom is grateful that they risked their own lives in the attempt to rescue Linda. They did so just as if she were one of their own. None the less, it is a matter of concern that the facts of how Linda Norgrove died were not made clear immediately after the operation was carried out. Initial reports suggested that she had died as a result of the detonation of a suicide vest because of the nature of the wounds found on the captor lying closest to her. The explosion observed was in line with the team’s experience of suicide vests or other weaponry exploding. Although the US soldiers did report their own use of a grenade, it was not immediately reported up the military chain of command. It was only on later examination of the video footage that the possibility that a grenade was thrown became known to more senior officers.
The investigation team found that the failure to disclose information that a grenade was thrown breached US military law. As a result, members of the rescue team have been disciplined for failing to provide a complete and full account of their actions in accordance with US military procedure. I cannot announce any more details of the disciplinary action taken by the military of another nation, but the fact that that action has been taken will confirm to the House how seriously the US authorities regard the matter.
As a result of the investigation, the US military is reviewing post-operation procedures to ensure that the true sequence of events in such complicated operations is revealed earlier and more accurately than was the case on that tragic occasion. In the aftermath of a rescue operation in which a hostage died, the US military is conducting a number of other reviews of the tactics, techniques and procedures involved in hostage rescue operations. Senior British military officers have been briefed on the results of the investigation and will ensure that the lessons learned from the operation are shared.
Following this statement, the US authorities will release their own statement on the outcome of the investigation, a copy of which I will place in the Library of the House. The coroner will now be able to conduct his inquest, which has been adjourned until the new year. Once he has issued his verdict, it will be possible for the investigating team to publish its findings, including judgments made by the investigators, but in advance of the coroner’s verdict I cannot go into that greater level of detail.
Linda Norgrove’s death was a terrible tragedy. Her parents have paid tribute to her inspiring devotion to the people of Afghanistan and her love for the country. I believe that all in this House will have been moved by her example and her dedication. Her parents have set up a foundation in their daughter’s name that will honour her memory and fund projects that support education and health for Afghan women and children, including scholarships to help Afghan women to go to university. The House will want to join me in paying tribute to all those working to support the people of Afghanistan in extremely difficult circumstances, and in sending our sincere condolences to Linda Norgrove’s family, as they come to terms with their irreplaceable loss.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for providing such a thorough statement today on such a tragic and difficult set of events, especially as he is constrained by the inquest procedures. I join him in sending our deepest condolences to the family and friends of Linda Norgrove and in paying tribute to Linda Norgrove’s parents, John and Lorna Norgrove, who have acted with such great dignity and strength since the tragic death of their daughter. The House will want to wish well the Linda Norgrove Foundation, which they have set up to provide education and health and child care for women and families in Afghanistan, to continue the courageous and selfless work to which Linda Norgrove dedicated her life.
I thank the Foreign Secretary for the details of his response today. Linda Norgrove’s family have made it absolutely clear that they are grateful for the bravery and efforts of the US special forces who attempted to rescue her, and the whole House will agree with the Foreign Secretary’s tribute to their bravery. We are grateful that they risked their lives to attempt to save Linda Norgrove.
Operations such as the one launched by those US forces are of course high risk, and we must all recognise that success can never be guaranteed. The practicalities of that specific operation were especially difficult. I know that the House will also want to condemn utterly the actions of Linda Norgrove’s kidnappers, who must take responsibility for putting her life at risk from the very moment of her kidnapping.
We welcome the swift conclusion of the inquiry and not only the commitment of the US forces to investigate the events, but their readiness to involve senior British personnel in the inquiry. That point was raised when the Foreign Secretary made his first statement on the matter and I am grateful to him for taking it forward.
It would be helpful if the Foreign Secretary would address a few further points about the inquiry’s conclusions and the importance of the lessons that are being learned. He said in his statement that the special forces believed that Linda Norgrove was held in an upper group of buildings when in fact she was held in a lower area, in a gully. The operational conditions were clearly difficult, as he said, but will he tell the House whether the investigation examined the intelligence before the operation, or whether that will be done as part of the subsequent review? Can any lessons be learned?
Will the Foreign Secretary tell us more about the grenade that was thrown, including about the practice of using such grenades in a rescue operation of this nature? Was that covered by the investigation, or will it be dealt with in the US forces’ subsequent consideration of such cases? Again, will lessons be learned?
The Foreign Secretary set out further information about why the facts did not emerge immediately, but it would be helpful if he would clarify part of his statement. He said: “Although the US soldiers did report their own use of a grenade, this was not immediately reported up the military chain of command.” However, he also said that “failure to disclose information that a grenade was thrown breached US military law” and that members of the rescue team had been disciplined as a result. It was unclear from his statement whether the investigation concluded that the failure of information lay with the rescue team or the upward reporting processes. It would be helpful if he could give us clarity on the matter so that lessons can be learned.
The Foreign Secretary is aware of the considerable concern and confusion that was caused by the inaccurate information that was disseminated in the immediate aftermath of Linda Norgrove’s death. At the time of the previous statement, I raised concern about the early information that was given to journalists by the Foreign Office and the apparent level of certainty that was given in responses about suicide vests and in reply to journalists’ questions about grenades. Although he has provided details of why incorrect information was held, may I press him further on the certainty in the responses, because clearly there must have been considerable uncertainty about the events at that time, given the difficulty of the operations? Will he say whether Government communications have been reviewed in light of that?
Will the Foreign Secretary tell us how the outcome of the inquiry and the details of what he has said today came to be, regrettably, reported in The Sunday Telegraph? I hope that that matter concerns him, given that the importance of accurate information has been at the heart of the case.
This tragic case reminds us all of the dangers faced by those who work so bravely to support the people of Afghanistan. The civilian effort in Afghanistan, especially working on the ground with Afghans in rural areas, is crucial to finding and sustaining a political settlement and lasting stability in the country. We all want Linda Norgrove’s work in Afghanistan to be continued, and we pay tribute to her work and that which other aid workers are doing today.
Mr Hague
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her questions and wider remarks. She joined me in paying tribute to Linda Norgrove’s family and extending the House’s condolences to them, for which I know that they will be appreciative. The Prime Minister hopes to meet them this afternoon, and he will be able to convey the heartfelt condolences from all quarters of the House.
The right hon. Lady was right to pay tribute to the bravery of the forces involved who, as I said in my statement, operated in total darkness with no moonlight or artificial light of any kind. They disembarked directly into a hostile environment from helicopters that could not land because of the near-vertical nature of the terrain. She was also right to condemn those who were entirely responsible for this chain of events: the people who kidnapped Linda Norgrove and deliberately placed her in grave danger.
As the right hon. Lady acknowledged, the United States has been ready to involve UK officers at a senior level. Our brigadier has had full access to all information and has been fully involved in the investigation, so we have truly had a joint UK-US investigation.
The right hon. Lady was quite right to raise the report of the statement in The Sunday Telegraph at the weekend. I strongly deprecate any advance leaks of, or revelations about, statements to the House, especially those about such a matter. I have made that absolutely clear within Whitehall and I appreciate her reinforcement of that point.
The right hon. Lady asked about the initial information that we gave on the Saturday lunchtime after the rescue operation, when we said it appeared that Linda had died at the hands of her captors or due to the explosion of a suicide vest. We were clear about that because that was the unequivocal information that was given to the Government, and to our embassy and military in Afghanistan. Indeed, that was how senior US officers understood it. During our exchanges on the October statement, I think I said that if we err on the side of transparency, as we try to do in governmental matters these days, it can sometimes lead to apparent certainty. We made a correction as soon as possible. As soon as General Petraeus and his colleagues realised that an inaccurate account might have been given, he was straight on the telephone to No. 10 Downing street and the Prime Minister, and we immediately made a correction that morning. We will all reflect on the dilemma when balancing transparency and showing certainty. However, the Government gave the information that was available to them in good faith.
The investigative team examined the surveillance and intelligence that was available before the operation, and it will make further comments about that in its final report, which will be published at the time of the coroner’s verdict. However, as the House will understand, any details that would reveal how we gather intelligence will, of course, have to be withheld. Nothing in the investigative team’s analysis contradicts the overall analysis that all of us involved came to, which was that the best chance—the only credible chance—for Linda Norgrove to return alive was to mount a rescue operation. However, the team has examined the use of intelligence and the belief that she was being held in a particular group of buildings distinct from the group where she was actually killed.
It is hard for me to make further detailed comments about the use of a grenade without cutting across what the coroner might wish to pursue although, as I said in my statement, the investigative team will make further comments about that in its full report. We should be clear that it is not normal practice for special forces of the United States or the United Kingdom to use grenades—to employ explosive munitions—in a hostage rescue operation. Nevertheless, there are issues in this case about when a hostage rescue operation begins, because the troops involved believed that Linda Norgrove was being held in a different set of buildings from those around which they were fighting at the time a grenade was thrown. We have to understand that to be fair to all concerned.
The right hon. Lady asked about responsibility for not giving information in a timely fashion. I think that I can go so far as to say that responsibility lay with the rescue team, but not its junior members. The disciplinary action has fully reflected the responsibility of the individuals identified by the investigative team as not having passed on information in a timely way.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, and join him and the shadow Foreign Secretary in paying tribute to the Norgrove family. The House will want time to digest the contents of the statement, but in the meantime, will my right hon. Friend say a little more about the procedure for authorising rescue attempts of this nature? He said that he had authorised such an attempt to be made. Was that part of a standard operating procedure, and did he actually give the order himself or did he delegate it to others?
Mr Hague
I gave the general authority for a rescue attempt to be made, based on the intelligence that we had received, which covered the intelligence and other information that we had received that gave rise to our fears that Linda Norgrove would be taken to more and more inaccessible places, and that she would be passed higher and higher up the Taliban chain of command. We were aware that her life was in grave danger at the time, and within a very short time after her kidnap. Based on that, the normal procedure is for the Foreign Secretary—in this case, with the knowledge and agreement of the Prime Minister—to give the authority for a rescue operation to take place, if he or she thinks that that is the right thing to do. It is also entirely common—and, as in this case, the normal procedure—for the actual details of such an operation to be worked out on the ground in Afghanistan by the forces involved, with a final go-ahead to be given by our representatives in Afghanistan, in this case in the British embassy. So that was the procedure involved.
I would also stress that, in this case, all involved—the military commanders, the staff of our embassy in Kabul and everyone involved in COBRA here in London, as well as the Ministers involved—were clear that this was the best course of action. Risky as it was, the risks associated with inaction were greater. The procedure therefore involved an authority to proceed, which came from me, but with a final go-ahead based on the details cleared by our embassy in Kabul.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement about my constituent, Linda Norgrove. He will of course be aware that her parents, John and Lorna, have sought not to apportion blame but to find the truth. From the outset, at a time of great personal difficulty for them, they have publicly expressed their gratitude for the transparency and openness of the Americans, and indeed from UK diplomats as well. They are now greatly involved in continuing Linda’s work, and I wonder whether the wider Foreign Office, and perhaps other Government Departments, could help by highlighting and helping the foundation and its website, lindanorgrovefoundation.org, which was set up by her parents and which aims to continue Linda’s great humanitarian work for women, families and communities in Afghanistan.
Mr Hague
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We will all want to support the foundation in different ways, and I particularly drew attention to it in my statement. It is inspiring that Linda’s family have set up this foundation and are conducting this work for the future in memory of her life and work. There will be tremendous respect and enthusiasm for it across the House, and it is something with which the Government want to assist. Linda’s parents have been to the Department for International Development this morning, after their meeting with me, to discuss how DFID might be able to assist with the work of the foundation. We will provide support where we can, in keeping with Government policy and the wishes of the family. The foundation will fund projects to support education and health for Afghan women and children, as I have said, and I think that it will serve as a fitting testimony to Linda Norgrove’s dedication to the people of Afghanistan.
Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
On international volunteers day, does my right hon. Friend agree that it behoves all of us who are able to sleep soundly in our beds at night to remember that there is an army of volunteers and aid workers around the world who are placing themselves in harm’s way and in grave danger and discomfort in the interests of humanity? Will he assure the House that his Department will do everything in its power to recognise the service and courage of those people, as exemplified by Linda Norgrove, and to ensure that they receive as much help as possible in their work?
Mr Hague
Yes, and my hon. Friend’s question forms part of the recognition for which he calls. We often rightly pay tribute in the House to the work of our armed forces and the sacrifices that they make as they try to bring security and stability to Afghanistan, but we must never overlook the work of others, including the many voluntary workers and aid workers who are doing their utmost to give assistance in many different ways. They do so out of their humanity, bringing their expertise and compassion to the people of Afghanistan, and it is absolutely tragic that someone who was simply seeking to do that for the benefit of humanity should have ended up in those tragic circumstances, and the victim of such a tragic death. That is a reminder of the risks that those people run, and of the need to recognise their efforts, as my hon. Friend has suggested.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his decisiveness in making the very difficult decision to authorise this mission. Despite its outcome, that was clearly the right decision to make. May I urge him not to forget the wider context of all this? It is hugely impressive that ISAF managed correctly to identify where Linda was being held within days of her capture, and we came extremely close to liberating her. The actions of the military forces on the ground will act as a huge disincentive to other Taliban groups thinking of trying to do the same thing again.
Mr Hague
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He makes an important point. We should recognise that the operation came tantalisingly close to success. Linda Norgrove was located in very difficult terrain, and the troops managed to get very close to her, despite having to fight their way in. Nevertheless, it was a failed mission, because the hostage was killed. We have to be very clear about that, but we must not lose sight of the enormous expertise, skill and bravery that was involved even in getting to that point and enabling us to have any prospect of rescuing a hostage in those circumstances.
Women, Peace and Security
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I wish to inform the House that, today, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, will publicly launch the UK’s national action plan on women, peace and security.
Ten years ago, the UN Security Council agreed Resolution 1325 and we committed to reduce the impact of conflict on women and girls and to promote their inclusion in conflict resolution. Ten years on, there is clearly more to do. Our new national action plan sets out how we will pursue progress through a range of initiatives and through incorporating our commitments into our diplomatic, defence and development activity.
The key commitments are:
to make “Women, Peace and Security” an integral part of our conflict policy, including through providing specialised training to civilian and military staff; placing women at the front and centre of our development policy; and the deployment of female military personnel as “Female Engagement Officers” in support of UK battle groups to improve military engagement with female Afghan civilians;
to implement specific action plans for priority countries, starting with Afghanistan, Nepal and DRC;
to strengthen the action taken by the international community, including by taking a strong advocacy role at the United Nations and supporting the enhancement of UN structures that assist women in conflict.
Revision of the national action plan has been carried out by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, in consultation with civil society, particularly the civil society coalition group: Gender Action for Peace and Security (GAPS).
The plan will be reviewed annually, incorporating feedback from civil society focus groups. Progress will be reported to Parliament and civil society through the Associate Parliamentary Group on Women, Peace and Security. A full evaluation of the plan will be carried out after three years.
I am placing a copy of the national action plan in the Library of the House. It will also be published on the FCO website (www.fco.gov.uk).
Departmental Expenditure Limits
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
Subject to parliamentary approval of any necessary supplementary estimate, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office departmental expenditure limit (DEL) will be increased by £95,878,000 from £2,127,148,000 to £2,223,026,000. The administration budget will be increased by £64,250,000 from £420,448,000 to £484,698,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:
Voted | Non-voted | Voted | Non-voted | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Resource | 138,143 | -17,000 | 2,124,381 | 29,000 | 2,153,381 |
Of which: | |||||
Administration budget | 81,250 | -17,000 | 468,068 | 16,630 | 484,698 |
Capital1 | -25,265 | - | 168,695 | - | 168,695 |
Depreciation2 | - | - | -99,050 | - | -99,050 |
Total | 112,878 | -17,,000 | 2,194,026 | 29,000 | 2,223,026 |
1Capital DEL includes items treated as resource in Estimates and accounts but which are treated as Capital DEL in budgets. 2Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting. |
The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from:
Request for Resources 1
Administration
I. Take up of £15,000,000 Administration EYF in respect of modernisation of the core FCO.
II. A claim on the Reserve of £15,000,000 Administration costs in respect of Corporate Services modernisation.
III. Transfer of £1,850,000 administration from the Department for Education in respect of the Papal visit.
IV. Transfer of £1,850,000 administration from the Department for International Development in respect of the Papal visit.
V. Transfer of £1,850,000 administration from the Department of Energy and Climate Change in respect of the Papal visit.
VI. Transfer of £1,850,000 administration from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in respect of the Papal visit.
VII. Transfer of £1,850,000 administration from the Department for Communities and Local Government in respect of the Papal visit.
VIII. Transfer of £180,000 administration from the Department for International Development in respect of the gratis visa operation in Chernobyl.
IX. Capital to Administration switch of £25,000,000 in respect of exchange rate pressures.
Programme
I. Transfer of £100,000 programme from the Department for International Development in respect of the Strategic and Bilateral fund work in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
II. Transfer of £40,000,000 programme from the Department for International Development in respect of support for British Council Official Development Assistance (ODA).
III. Transfer of £200,000 programme from the Department of International Development in respect of Tanzania Police Training Project.
Capital
I. Capital to administration switch of £25,000,000 in respect of exchange rate pressures.
II. Capital transfer of £265,000 from FCO to DFID as a contribution towards building a new office in Juba, Sudan.
Request for Resources 2
Programme
I. Transfer of £16,467,000 grants from DFID in respect of conflict prevention and discretionary Peacekeeping funds.
II. Transfer of £54,000 grants to the Security Intelligence Agencies for expansion and capability.
Sudan (UN Security Council Special Session)
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I am pleased to update the House with regard to the UN special session on Sudan I chaired at the UN Security Council on 16 November in New York. The session was attended by: UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon; Head of the African Union high-level implementation panel, President Mbeki; Sudanese Foreign Minister, Ali Karti; Secretary-General of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, Pagan Amum; UN Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) Special Representative, Haile Menkerios; UN/African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) Joint Special Representative, Ibrahim Gambari; US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton; Austrian Minister for European and International Affairs, Dr Michael Spindelegger; Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sven Alkalaj; and Nigerian Foreign Minister, Henry Odein Ajumogobia. Deputy Foreign Ministers from Brazil, Uganda and Japan also attended as did Permanent Representatives from China, Russia, France, Lebanon, Gabon, Mexico and Turkey.
As I made clear to the UN Security Council in my statement, this is a defining moment for Sudan and its people, as they enter the final stages of the comprehensive peace agreement. It is a period of great risk and therefore a situation that the Security Council cannot ignore; but it is also a time of opportunity that the world cannot let go by. It is vital that the international community stands united and steadfast in its support of the CPA. That is why Sudan is the top priority for the UK’s presidency of the Security Council this month and why I convened a special session of the Council last week to discuss Sudan.
I welcome the start of voter registration for the referendum on self-determination for southern Sudan which began as scheduled on 15 November. This is the first of a series of essential steps. Early indications suggest that registration is proceeding in an orderly manner. We must all encourage timely and calm completion of this process. The process must be peaceful, credible and reflect the will of the people of southern Sudan.
We must support the parties in their efforts to agree outstanding CPA issues, particularly on the status of Abyei. I am encouraged by political talks between the parties to address issues of fundamental and long-term importance to both north and south, including citizenship, security arrangements, natural resources, assets and liabilities and the north/south border. I welcome the strong leadership of President Mbeki in bringing the parties together and welcome the work of the UN under Special Representative Haile Menkerios.
We must not lose sight of the situation in Darfur, where hundreds of thousands have suffered and died. We must work intensively with all parties involved towards a peaceful and inclusive political settlement, addressing the violence and insecurity, including by combating impunity, and supporting the peace talks in Doha. As I reiterated in New York we strongly support the work of the International Criminal Court in Darfur and urge the Government of Sudan to comply with their obligations under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1593.
I strongly support the role of the UN/AU mission in Darfur under the leadership of Joint Special Representative Ibrahim Gambari. Access for humanitarian workers and peacekeepers must be improved and kidnappings in Darfur must end.
I welcome the role played by the Chief Mediator, Djbril Bassolé, and the support of the Government of Qatar. I urge all parties to participate in peace talks to put a definitive end to the misery in Darfur.
A stable Sudan will help build security and prosperity in the region. It will mean that Sudan does not again become a base for terrorism, or a source of refugees fleeing to neighbouring countries. And most importantly, it will help the Sudanese people receive the tangible benefits of peace that have eluded them for so long. We must continue to strive to this end. I will be discussing Sudan at the Foreign Affairs Council today and will use the opportunity to stress the importance of finding solutions to the issues facing Sudan and supporting the parties in their efforts to bring a lasting peace to Sudan.
My statement to the UNSC can be found at:
http://ukinsudan.fco.gov.uk/en/news/?view=Speech &id=93202682.
The presidency statement on behalf of the Security Council can be found at: http://ukinsudan.fco.gov.uk/en/news/?view=Speech&id=92388682.
European Count of Justice (Appointment of Romanian Judge)
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
At a conference of representatives of Governments of member states on 18 November 2010 the appointment of a Romanian judge to the General Court is to be considered.
The nomination is in respect of Andrei Popescu.
Having consulted with the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice and the Attorney-General, I agree to the appointment.
Advisory Group on Human Rights
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
In my statement on 15 September 2010, Official Report, columns 45-46WS following my speech on “Britain’s Values in a Networked World”, I announced that I would convene an Advisory Group on Human Rights to ensure that I have the best possible information about human rights challenges and benefit from outside advice on the conduct of our policy. I would now like to provide the House with further details.
Members of the group will be:
Kate Allen, Director of Amnesty International UK
Dr Chaloka Beyani, LSE and UN Special Rapporteur on Internally Displaced People
Dr Agnes Callamard, Director of Article 19
Mr Joel Edwards, International Director, Micah Challenge
Malcolm Evans OBE, University of Bristol, Member of the United Nations Sub-committee on the Prevention of Torture
Sapna Malik, Partner, Leigh Day and Co. Solicitors
Professor Susan Marks, LSE
Tim Otty QC, Blackstone Chambers
Tom Porteous, Director of Human Rights Watch, London
Sir Nigel Rodley, University of Essex, Member of the UN Human Rights Committee
Dame Barbara Stocking, Chief Executive of Oxfam GB
Professor Surya Subedi OBE, University of Leeds and UN Special Rapporteur for Cambodia
Sir Nicholas Young, Chief Executive, the British Red Cross
These are eminent individuals with a broad range of human rights and humanitarian experience. They are drawn from NGOs, the legal and academic communities and international bodies.
I will chair the group. I intend to hold two meetings a year. Ministers and officials will also chair additional meetings on specific issues agreed by the group. The first meeting will take place on 2 December 2010.
The members of the group will not be paid. FCO officials will provide the secretariat for the group from within existing resources.
As I made clear in my statement of 15 September, human rights are essential to and indivisible from the UK’s foreign policy priorities. This Government intend to improve and strengthen our work to promote human rights internationally.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
1. What recent representations he has received on the procedure for amendment of EU treaties.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I refer my hon. Friend to the Prime Minister’s statement on the European Council on 1 November. The Council agreed that Herman Van Rompuy should consult member states about a limited treaty change connected with the establishment of a permanent crisis resolution mechanism for the eurozone. We also secured a clear agreement that any such treaty change, should it occur, would not affect the United Kingdom.
Mr Turner
It is said that the eurozone needs a new treaty to make it lawful to bail out Greece. It is claimed that that will not affect the United Kingdom as we are not part of the eurozone. Will the Minister confirm that the UK will not need to sign the treaty or, if we do, that the public will be given a referendum on the issue?
Mr Hague
It is my long-standing position—and, I think, that of my hon. Friend—that any treaty that transfers new areas of power or competence to the European Union should be subject to a referendum. Clearly, there are still consultations about what form a treaty change might take. It is clear beyond doubt that the United Kingdom will continue to be exempt from any sanctions under the stability and growth pact and we established at the last Council that any possible future treaty change would not affect the United Kingdom and would not transfer power or competence from the UK to the European Union.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Given the promises made in the Conservative party manifesto, will the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether the Government will be bringing forward proposals to repatriate powers from the European Union? Yes or no?
Mr Hague
The Government’s position is set out in the coalition agreement. What is also clear from that agreement is that one of our top priorities in Europe is to bring realism to budgeting in the European Union since the hon. Gentleman’s party gave away many billions of pounds of the British taxpayer’s money for nothing in return the last time the financial perspective was negotiated, in 2005. The answer to his question is that our top priority in seeking change in the European Union is to ensure realistic budgeting in the future.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
Now that the German Chancellor is insisting on the amendment of European treaties, including Lisbon, will there ever be a better opportunity for Britain to renegotiate its relationships with the European Union and seek the repatriation of powers abandoned by previous Governments, or is that vetoed by the Lib Dem members of the coalition?
Mr Hague
It is certainly a coalition Government that we have here and my hon. Friend should bear that in mind. I would also ask him to bear in mind that instability in the eurozone, as he well knows, is a serious danger to the British economy. It is clear that the United Kingdom will be exempt from the provisions of any such treaty change. Where we have considerable negotiating leverage in the European Union, as we certainly will over the coming years, our first priority—as I said in answer to the previous question—is to change the way in which the budgets are determined so that, unlike the previous Government, we are not involved in spending billions of pounds extra of the UK taxpayer’s money.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
May I congratulate those on the Government Front Bench, and the Foreign Secretary in particular, on their new flexible approach on this issue? I understand that the new treaty change would happen under the passerelle clause. Clearly, the non-euro-using members of the EU—Poland, ourselves, Denmark and Sweden—and our officials and Ministers will be involved in this discussion, and there will be a small transfer of competences. I thoroughly welcome this and congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his new Europe-friendly approach.
Mr Hague
I am glad the right hon. Gentleman agrees with an approach that involves not joining the euro, transferring no more powers or competences to the European Union, making sure that this country will have a referendum if any future Government ever propose doing such a thing, and bringing the European budget under control—all things that he has never agreed with before and which his Government never did.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
2. What assessment he has made of the effect on the BBC World Service of the proposed transfer of its funding away from his Department; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
The transfer of the BBC World Service funding from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the licence fee from 2014-15 represents a £212 million reduction in public spending. I will continue to set the objectives, priorities and targets for the World Service with the BBC, and no language services will be opened or closed without my agreement.
Mr Bradshaw
Is it not the case that in parts of the world the World Service can be a better ambassador for Britain than any number of embassies and diplomats? But does not the change raise some serious questions about its long-term governance and funding? Why should the licence fee payer in Britain pay for programmes that they cannot receive and probably would not be interested in receiving, and why, therefore, should the BBC continue to fund them?
Mr Hague
The BBC is very enthusiastic about the change. I have discussed it with Sir Michael Lyons and with Mark Thompson, the director-general of the BBC. They believe there is more that they can do, through bringing the BBC World Service and other BBC activities together, to develop the World Service in the future. Clearly, we would want them to do that, and I do not think that any future Foreign Secretary would allow them to run it down, given the powers that are reserved to the Foreign Secretary. So here we have an arrangement that can maintain or improve the World Service, has the necessary safeguards, and saves £200 million of public spending without increasing the licence fee. That is something that we should all be enthusiastic about.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary said that responsibility for the finance of the World Service is being transferred to the BBC, but can he say whether responsibility for the strategic direction of the World Service is also being transferred? In other words, who has the last word on editorial content?
Mr Hague
The responsibility for the direction of the World Service will remain exactly as it is now. What I agreed with the BBC Trust and the director-general of the BBC is that the key parts of the governance arrangements previously agreed in 2006 will be replicated in a new agreement, so the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, with the BBC, will set the objectives and priorities and, as I mentioned earlier, the Foreign Secretary will retain a veto over the opening and closing of services. So those arrangements stay the same as now.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
3. What recent discussions he has had on the blockade of Gaza.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I discussed Gaza with the Israeli Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and Defence Minister during my visit there last week. I stressed that economic revitalisation will best safeguard Israel’s security. Gaza’s dependence on aid will continue until there is progress on exports and a better framework is developed for enabling imports of reconstruction materials for UN-led projects.
Mr Hague
Yes, I do agree with my hon. Friend. I have said before in the House that I think the blockade of Gaza is unsustainable and unacceptable. The tunnel economy that has arisen in Gaza often serves the interests of Hamas, rather than the interests of anyone else, so it is important for Israel to continue to allow an improvement in the flow of goods into Gaza and, as I said, to begin to allow reconstruction materials in so that there can be a real improvement in conditions on the ground in Gaza. That will help the security of the whole region.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a briefing provided for me last week in Jerusalem by John Ging, the admirable head of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in Gaza, Mr Ging said that the situation in Gaza now is worse than it was before the flotilla incident, that huge numbers of children are hungry and undernourished, and that the schools are not being built? Will the right hon. Gentleman take every action available to him to impress on the Israelis that persecuting the people of Gaza will not bring peace?
Mr Hague
As I mentioned earlier, I raised the issue with all the leaders of the Israeli Government on my own visit to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv last week. The right hon. Gentleman is right that the school construction that we wanted to take place is not yet taking place. The British Government have announced additional help for the work of Mr Ging and UNRWA—£23 million of new support for the Palestinian Authority, £8 million of that for UNRWA and £2 million to help 300 businesses in Gaza. Britain is doing a lot to help the situation there and we must continue to do so.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on an outstanding visit to the state of Israel last week, but Israel has clearly honoured obligations of humanitarian areas and aid for Gaza. Did the discussion that took place last week concentrate on the effect that Hamas has had in terms of its rocket capability and launching rockets and bombs into the state of Israel?
Mr Hague
It is important to bear in mind that dimension as well. The behaviour of Hamas obviously makes all those issues much more difficult to deal with. Indeed, I visited the family of Gilad Shalit, who is still imprisoned—held hostage—in Gaza, and I believe that he should be released immediately and unconditionally. So my hon. Friend is right that it is important to bear in mind that dimension to what is happening in Gaza, but I think that we are united in this House in making the case to Israel, as I did last week, that the best way to improve its security is to permit and encourage an improvement in the conditions in Gaza. That in itself will, over time, weaken Hamas and help to ensure that a new generation of Palestinians is not turned against Israel and against peace.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s recognition of the importance of lifting the blockade of Gaza. He will know the importance for the people of Gaza not just of lifting the blockade, but of being part of a viable Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel in a two-state solution. Therefore, what discussions did he have during his recent visit on the role of Gaza in the future peace process?
Mr Hague
Gaza plays, ultimately, a very important role in the peace process, because there cannot be a successful peace in the long term without its involvement and inclusion. The immediate priority is to get the peace process going again and the direct talks going, and of course I put the argument very strongly to Israeli leaders and on Israeli media that that requires a new freeze on Israeli settlement building on the west bank. That is the immediate issue, and in that regard the announcements that we have heard in the past 24 hours are extremely disappointing. The immediate priority is to get the direct talks going. A real settlement would have to involve Gaza as well.
Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
4. What recent discussions he has had with the Government of Turkey on the deployment of Turkish troops in Northern Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.
Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)
10. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on the defence capabilities required to meet his foreign policy objectives.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I have had extensive discussions with my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary, and other members of the National Security Council. The national security strategy and the strategic defence and security review set out our place in the world, our foreign policy objectives and the breadth of capabilities that we require to meet those objectives. Together they demonstrate the strategic and co-ordinated approach the Government are taking to advance our national interests and protect our security.
Mr Hamilton
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Does he agree that a robust foreign policy must, by its very nature, have a strong military capability to back it up, as we saw with the role that we played in Sierra Leone and Kosovo, for example? Is he satisfied that we still have that capability, following the defence cuts that are being made?
Mr Hague
I am satisfied that we still have the necessary capabilities. We have had to sort out a defence budget that was £38 billion overcommitted when we inherited it, but as Secretary Clinton of the United States said:
“We are reassured that the UK conducted its review in a thoughtful and clear-eyed manner, and that the result will be a UK military capable of meeting its NATO commitments and of remaining the most capable partner for our forces as we seek to mitigate the shared threats of the 21st Century.”
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State please clarify the way in which foreign policy can really drive defence policy institutionally, and in particular, could you define the relationship between the National Security Council and the Joint Intelligence Committee?
Mr Speaker
Order. I cannot, but I feel sure that the Foreign Secretary can.
Mr Hague
Yes, I can. That is one of the objectives of setting up a true National Security Council, on which the Foreign Secretary sits with the Defence Secretary and the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee—and, indeed, with the directors of all our intelligence services. Really for the first time on a systematic and weekly basis—sometimes more than once a week—we sit together and look at the issues of foreign and defence policy in the round. That is a huge step forward in the way British government works.
Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
13. What his priorities are for the European Union in 2011; and if he will make a statement.
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I have just returned from Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt, where I lent British support to efforts to restart the middle east peace process, and discussed vital security issues, including Iran’s nuclear programme. I look forward to discussing those matters further with Secretary Clinton in the US next week, when I will lead a special UN Security Council session to discuss the situation in Sudan. I will meet President Abdullah Gül of Turkey later today, and tonight I will give the Canning lecture in which I will emphasise the importance of building links and elevating our relations with Latin American countries.
Gavin Williamson
Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will continue to put pressure on the Iranian Government to stop their appalling abuse of human rights?
Mr Hague
Yes, I certainly will. I discussed the matter directly with the Iranian Foreign Minister, Mr Mottaki, when I met him at the UN General Assembly in New York at the end of September, and I made this country’s views on human rights in Iran absolutely clear. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), and I have often made statements to the same effect, and we continue to lead and rally opinion in other nations to raise those issues.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
May I welcome the Government’s delegation to China and its work to strengthen economic ties? We wish it well. The Foreign Secretary knows that the strategic dialogue that was agreed with China before the election also provided a framework to pursue human rights and climate change, as well as trade and the economy. Given the importance of human rights, as well as economic ties, will he assure the House that the Prime Minister will raise the case of Liu Xiaobo with Premier Wen during his visit?
Mr Hague
I thank the right hon. Lady for what I think is support for the strong continuity of policy with China. The last Government pursued an expanded commercial and economic relationship but also raised human rights issues, and that is exactly this Government’s approach. When I conducted the strategic dialogue in Beijing in July, I raised Liu Xiaobo’s case, and I did so directly with Premier Wen. The Prime Minister will certainly be raising human rights issues on his visit, and we will give the details when he has had those meetings.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
T2. Now that legal routes seem to have been exhausted following the disappointing High Court judgment on investment scams in Northern Cyprus, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Minister will take up the matter, and will he meet me, my constituent Sandra Kacinski and other victims to discuss it?
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
T7. Although I fully understand our treaty obligations on Cyprus, and I wish next week’s talks with Ban Ki-moon well, will the Foreign Secretary acknowledge the reality that there continues to be de facto partition, from which the Greek Cypriot side benefits and with which it is comfortable, but which leaves the Turkish Cypriots in isolated limbo? Does he agree that that situation cannot go on as it is?
Mr Hague
The right hon. Gentleman is right to recognise our treaty obligations. He will know that we want the forthcoming talks hosted by the UN Secretary-General to be a success and that, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe said earlier, we have been supporting the work of Alexander Downer, the UN negotiator. I read the right hon. Gentleman’s article in the newspapers yesterday, so I am fully cognisant of his views on this matter, but I am sure he will appreciate that, as the incumbent Foreign Secretary, I do not want to say anything at this moment that might make those talks more difficult.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
T3. I am delighted that the Prime Minister is visiting China today. Will the Foreign Secretary join me in congratulating Renishaw and other fine Gloucestershire companies on the growth of their exports to China? Does he agree that other companies should be encouraged to follow their path of hard work and success in that crucial market?
Mr Hague
Yes, absolutely; I congratulate that firm and many others. The agreements signed during the Prime Minister’s visit to China could add up to about £1.7 billion of contracts. We have already seen the announcement of a huge contract for Rolls-Royce engines earlier today, and my hon. Friend has given us another excellent example of how British businesses can do much more in China.
Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)
T8. Does the Minister share my concern, following Richard Falk’s comments, that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land is irreversible? Will he assure the House that the Government are doing everything they can to press for a Palestinian state and to support the Palestinian people?
Mr Hague
We certainly are doing that. I visited Ramallah last week and met Prime Minister Fayyad of the Palestinian Authority. I also met non-violent Palestinian human rights activists and other leading figures in east Jerusalem. During my visit, I restated the position of this country, and indeed of the whole European Union, which is that we want to see a settlement based on the 1967 borders with a just settlement for refugees and with Jerusalem as the capital of both states. That is the clear British Government position.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
T4. May I applaud my right hon. Friend’s decision to focus the FCO’s attention on promoting British exports?
Andrea Leadsom
Thank you. Can my right hon. Friend also reassure me that, as well as promoting exports, the FCO will play its part in attempting to reduce the interminable red tape that is preventing a company in my constituency, Enterprise Control Systems, from servicing the award-winning defence products that it is successfully selling overseas?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is welcome to applaud that decision and anything else she might wish to applaud; we are grateful to her for that. Cutting barriers to trade is an important part of our approach to expanding British commerce. In many of our meetings with other Governments, we ask for improved market access. If she would like to give me the details of the difficulties that the company in her constituency is experiencing, we will look at that matter specifically.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
T5. I am pleased that the Prime Minister will raise human rights issues while he is in China. I hope this is a sign of a Government who take international human rights seriously and who want to have a truly ethical foreign policy. Will the Prime Minister also take the opportunity to talk to the Chinese about the sale of weapons to Sudan and ensure that they are not used there to cause human rights problems and further the conflict?
Mr Hague
I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the approach we take to human rights. As he knows, we argue that that goes hand in hand with the expansion of trade and business across the world because it is the rule of law and respect for human rights that help to assure businesses that they are able to do business across the world.
I very much take note of and agree with the point about Sudan. As I mentioned earlier, I will be chairing a special session of the United Nations Security Council specifically to discuss the situation in Sudan. One of our objectives is to show that the whole world is working together and that China—it is, of course, a permanent member of the Security Council—participates fully in the vision for the future of Sudan that we will set forth.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
If the inter-city express programme goes ahead, Hitachi will build the rolling stock in Newton Aycliffe, adjacent to the Foreign Secretary’s constituency. The Foreign Secretary said in Japan in August that Britain is open for business. I know that the British Prime Minister and the Japanese Prime Minister have spoken about this issue, but if it does not go ahead, what effect does the right hon. Gentleman think that will have on bilateral relationships with Japan?
Mr Hague
Of course we have had strong representations—to the Prime Minister, to me and to other Ministers—from the Japanese Government about that, as one would expect. This is a very important project. At the same time, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we have to get Government expenditure under control, so the decision is primarily one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The hon. Gentleman’s representations will, as ever, be conveyed to the Secretary of State.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that one of the less well known but most insidious aspects of the blockade of Gaza is that Israel threatens to shoot any Palestinian considered to be near the Israeli border? Israel defines 17% of the entire territory of the Gaza strip as constituting nearness to that border, while 17 of the 22 Palestinians killed have been killed in the area. What can the Foreign Secretary do to get Israel to see sense on that issue?
Mr Hague
There have certainly been shooting incidents in the area. That underlines the importance of what we discussed earlier: a different approach to Gaza. We need to ensure that reconstruction takes place to prevent, for instance, arguments and incidents involving people who try to collect building materials from near the border and are shot at. That is one of the controversial incidents that have taken place. An improvement in reconstruction and a general improvement in economic conditions would be at least a first step towards dealing with the situation that the hon. Gentleman has described.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
T10. I applaud the Foreign Secretary for obtaining the agreement of 12 other member states to a cap on any increase in the European Union budget. Can he square that with the EU treaty provisions which state that the budget must be set through co-decision between the institutions? What progress can be made in that regard?
Mr Hague
That is the position of 13 members of the European Council. They are therefore able to resist any proposal for a budget increase larger than 2.9%. As my hon. Friend has said, the procedure involves co-decision between the Parliament and the Council, and negotiations are now commencing. If there is no agreement, the 2010 budget will be rolled over into 2011. Everyone concerned had better bear that in mind.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary realise how fed up people are with the foot-dragging over the universal jurisdiction issue? Instead of all these vague promises, why can we not have a simple, straightforward piece of legislation to sort the problem out once and for all?
Mr Hague
It is a bit of a cheek for someone who supported the last Government to ask that question. The last Government’s feet were not dragged; they were stuck solid in the cement of inertia that characterised their closing months in office. We have set out what we are going to do. We will introduce the relevant clauses in the next few weeks, and I hope that, given the support of Opposition Members, they will be passed in the current Session of Parliament. Where there was complete inaction opposite, there has been rapid action on this side of the House.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), for the attention that they have given recently to the case of Shaker Aamer, who has been detained in Guantanamo Bay for eight years. He is a former resident of my constituency, and his wife and four children remain my constituents. Ministers are aware that this is a critical period. Will they undertake to press their United States counterparts hard, in person, for Mr Aamer’s early release back to the United Kingdom?