Oral Answers to Questions

David Lidington Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

2. What recent progress has been made on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

TTIP is our top trade policy priority, worth up to £10 billion a year for the UK. The EU-US summit two weeks ago re-emphasised political support for that agreement, and our ambition remains to conclude the deal next year, with the fifth negotiating round due to take place next month.

[Ian Lavery]

Will the Government use the options open to member states to exclude public services, most importantly the NHS, from the scope of the TTIP agreement?

[Mr Lidington]

The Prime Minister has already made it clear that part of our negotiating objective will be to make sure that, when it comes to health services, any provisions included in TTIP are broadly in line with our existing obligations under GATT. We do not envisage any significant change from the current position.

[Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that there is a read-across between Ukraine and TTIP, with some seeing TTIP as an economic NATO? Binding the EU and the US together is bound to have political and geostrategic implications, and TTIP can become a symbol of Atlantic solidarity that may well check Russian imperialism.

[Mr Lidington]

I agree with my right hon. Friend about the symbolic as well as practical economic importance of the proposed deal. In practice, a successful transatlantic trade negotiation would establish global regulatory standards for business and trade on a transatlantic basis instead of the transatlantic powers having to copy others.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

3. If he will make it his policy to publish a list of all meetings between Ministers of his Department and officials since May 2010.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

We publish details of ministerial meetings with external organisations on a quarterly basis, but in line with the practice of previous Governments, we do not intend to publish a list of meetings between Ministers and their departmental officials.

[Helen Goodman]

Will the Minister tell the House whether at the meeting that the Foreign Office had on 24 February with Dmitry Firtash the question of asset freezes or sanctions was discussed?

[Mr Lidington]

I am obviously not going to go into details of what may or may not have been discussed at a meeting, particularly one at which I was not present, but it remains the case that Foreign Office officials and Ministers speak to people of all types from many different parts of the world with a single objective in mind, which is how best to enhance the United Kingdom’s understanding of global events and strengthen its interest in world affairs.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Given today’s visit, can the Minister confirm whether he has had any meetings with the Republic of Ireland’s Foreign Minister about its entering the British Commonwealth?

[Mr Lidington]

Not to my knowledge. We take the view that this is a matter for the Government of Ireland. Clearly, there are strong bonds of friendship and history between the two countries, but it has to be a matter for the Irish people and the Irish Government to decide about any relationship with the Commonwealth.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

4. What recent discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues on repatriation of powers from the EU.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

The Foreign Secretary and I regularly speak to our European counterparts about all aspects of EU reform, including the powers and competences of institutions.

[Ian Murray]

Given that Lord Heseltine has now admitted that the Prime Minister’s approach to Europe is based on narrow party interest rather than the British national interest, will the Minister at last—this is the third time I have asked him at the Dispatch Box—tell us what his top policy priority is for repatriation from Europe and whether that would mean that the Government would then campaign to stay in the EU?

[Mr Lidington]

Our top policy priorities in European reform are to make the European Union more democratically accountable, more globally competitive and more flexible than it is today, that arrangements should be fair to eurozone members and non-members and to ensure that power can flow in both directions between Brussels and member states. I would have hoped that those were objectives that the Labour party would share, but it seems that I am to be disappointed.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should seek to repatriate control over social and employment legislation, which was handed over to Brussels by the previous Labour Government when they gave up our opt-out from the social chapter?

[Mr Lidington]

There are aspects of social and economic policy, such as the working time directive, the application of which have harmed the interests of the United Kingdom, and we do indeed need to seek changes to those policies where we think they make not just the United Kingdom, but the whole of Europe less competitive than we need to be.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

No Foreign Office Ministers were present during yesterday’s debate on European matters, so will the Minister for Europe comment on the presidency text, which suggested that we would have to make a decision by June of this year as to what parts of the justice and home affairs opt-out we will opt into?

[Mr Lidington]

I read the comments in yesterday’s debate by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. As she told the House then, she is engaged, with my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary, in negotiations with other member states and with the European Commission. Those talks are moving forward constructively. We hope for agreement at the earliest possible date, but there is no artificial deadline, save the one in the treaties, which is 1 December this year.

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the repatriation of powers under the common fisheries policy has enabled important localisation of benefits for British fishermen, and will he condemn UKIP, which voted against the iniquitous practice of fish discards?

[Mr Lidington]

The ban on the obscene practice of discarding and the shift of fisheries management back to local and regional level is a real achievement for United Kingdom MEPs working with colleagues from other countries and with the European Commissioner concerned. It is disappointing if some UK MEPs felt that there were more important calls on their time than to defend British fishing interests in the way that our MEPs did.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister promised us all that EU treaty change would happen by 2017 and that a major repatriation of powers would follow. Given that the French, the Germans and the Italians now, have all confirmed that this is not their priority, could that be why the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) thinks that the Prime Minister has made such a mess of winning back powers from the European Union?

[Mr Lidington]

Oh dear, dear, dear. I am heartened by the strong support in Denmark and the Netherlands for our ideas on strengthening the role of national Parliaments in the European Union, by the words in the German coalition agreement about the need for treaty changes in the future, and by the practical achievements in repatriation of powers, whether through fisheries or the arrangements for double voting on the single supervisory mechanism. What the British people are waiting to hear is whether the Opposition are prepared to trust the British people with the final decision on our membership of the European Union.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

5. What recent assessment he has made of respect for freedom of religion or belief worldwide and how it can be improved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Following the successful renegotiation of fisheries policy back to regional control, will the Government use their good offices to ensure that they decide which greening measures to use rather than them being dictated by the EU?

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs always have in mind in the application of European rules how they can secure the best possible opportunities for this country’s agriculture. They will continue to do so.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

T9. Will the Minister give us an update on the political situation in Venezuela, and tell us what prospects he sees for dialogue and an end to violence? What action are the UK Government taking in relation to that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Following the Minister for Europe’s visit to Georgia last week, does he now discern a pattern of prosecutorial intimidation of Opposition politicians, and does he share my extreme concern that the highly respected Giga Bokeria was hauled in by prosecutors on Friday?

[Mr Lidington]

In my conversations with the Prime Minister and other Ministers when I was in Georgia last week, I repeated very clearly that it is in Georgia’s interests, as well as the expectation of the United Kingdom and Georgia’s other friends, that while no one should be exempt from due process, we should avoid any appearance or risk of selective justice of the kind we saw under the previous regime in Ukraine.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Once again there has been very little discussion today of the situation in Syria, yet the conflict continues. Thousands are being killed and millions are being displaced. What are the Government and the international community doing to stop this dreadful conflict?

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

Fifteen thousand UK jobs rely on employment in the Ford plants at both Dagenham and Bridgend, which is close to my constituency. What does the Minister make of the comments by Steve Odell, the chief executive of Ford’s European operations, who said:

“I don’t want to threaten the British government”—

but, and it is a big but—

“I would strongly advise against leaving the EU for business purposes, and for employment purposes in the UK”?

[Mr Lidington]

Mr Odell, like many other business leaders in this country, has been very clear about the economic risks that would be taken were the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. That, no doubt, will be one of the chief arguments in the referendum debate that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has promised. At the end of the day, it should be for the people to decide, having taken into account all arguments, both for and against membership.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Blasphemy Law (Pakistan)

David Lidington Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) on securing this debate. He spoke with passion, sincerity and very detailed knowledge. It was clear that he has a great love for Pakistan and its people and wants to see Pakistan move further towards the human rights of all its citizens being properly recognised and safeguarded.

I also want to acknowledge the interventions by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) and my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). The cross-party nature of these interventions will have demonstrated to anyone observing our affairs that Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, particularly in relation to the use of the death penalty, concern the entire House and no particular party or faction.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham knows, my noble Friend Baroness Warsi has raised this issue in many conversations with senior members of the Pakistani Government, who are in no doubt about the concern that we attach to human rights in Pakistan and, in particular, to the issue of blasphemy as an offence.

In the past 15 years, an estimated 1,274 people have been charged under Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. The fact that I can contrast that total with just nine reported cases that we know of between 1929 and 1982 demonstrates the importance of this issue and why my hon. Friend was right to draw the House’s attention to it today.

On the specific cases raised by hon. Members, I assure the House that we have made representations at the highest level. We continue to do so, and to do whatever we can to ensure that those who are facing charges or trials are treated properly and with respect for their human rights.

I say to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East that I am advised that Mr Mohammad Asghar has had a mental health assessment but has not yet been seen by the specialist whom his defence lawyer would like. We continue to do what we can and remain in contact with his lawyer to try to make sure that representations are being made by his legal team to have his mental health concerns taken fully into account in future proceedings.

To answer my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire, we do not link our aid programme to Pakistan directly to progress on this issue, but we design the programme in a way that helps to improve both the cultural understanding of the importance of human rights and the observance of human rights in practice.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham pointed out that a great proportion of our aid to Pakistan is directed at improving education there. The figures show that roughly one in 10 of all children in the world who are without any schooling live in Pakistan. Raising education opportunities is one important way in which to help bring about the sort of social change we wish to see there. Another element of our aid programme to Pakistan is directed towards giving particular help to people from minorities within Pakistan, to enable them to understand their rights and to have greater opportunities in Pakistani society.

Although it is important that the relationship between the United Kingdom and Pakistan is a broad and deep one, founded on history, human contact, development assistance, trade and a common need to resist terrorism, it is also important that that relationship is such that we can speak frankly to our Pakistani friends in Government about the kind of human rights problem that we have been debating tonight. To impose a death penalty for blasphemy is a breach of the international covenant on civil and political rights and of the universal declaration of human rights, to both of which Pakistan has subscribed.

At the risk of stating the obvious, these are Pakistan’s laws and it is only Pakistanis and the Pakistan Government and legislative bodies that can deliberate upon and make changes to the laws. As an external partner to and friend of Pakistan, we try to calibrate the language that we use in public about both individual cases and the general problem so as not to make things worse for people who might be at risk of persecution. There is no doubt that extremists within Pakistan are keen to look for any alleged evidence of western interference in their country.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham said, the space available for open debate in Pakistan about blasphemy—let alone campaigning—has become severely restricted over the past 20 years or so. It is important to recognise that although we are safe to debate this problem in this place or to discuss it with our constituents, men and women in Pakistan face abuse, threats, lynch mobs and even death for questioning the laws of their country in an equivalent way. We need to be careful about rushing to condemn people for at times being unwilling to stand up in public to tackle the iniquities of these laws when they would take severe risks upon themselves by doing so.

It is also evident, however, that the blasphemy laws are open to abuse for personal gain, typically in commercial disputes. Although used predominantly against other Muslims, it is true that they are also used to persecute religious minorities, especially Christians and Ahmadis. The Government believe that is an intolerable abuse of freedom of religion and belief, and we must ensure that our objections to it and our wish for reform are clearly stated.

This matter is a key part of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s human rights work bilaterally, with the EU and in other multilateral organisations. My noble Friend Baroness Warsi has led the way in raising the profile of religious tolerance, both in this country and in countries overseas, including with the Pakistani leadership.

Sadly, many in Pakistani society face death threats, including journalists, minorities, Ministers and officials. Only last weekend, we were shocked to hear of an attack on Raza Rumi, a journalist and commentator known for speaking up for democracy and human rights. He survived, but tragically his driver died. Our high commissioner in Islamabad noted:

“Mr Rumi has repeatedly spoken up for democracy and, in a democratic society, everyone has the right to speak up for their beliefs without fear of attack. We are committed to supporting the Government of Pakistan in encouraging an atmosphere of tolerance, where debate can flourish.”

He ended by sending a message of support to Mr Rumi and his fellow journalists across Pakistan who stand up for free expression in the most incredibly difficult circumstances.

[Rehman Chishti]

The Minister outlines a scenario in which those who talk about democracy and tolerance pay the price, or nearly pay the price, with their death. Shahbaz Bhatti lost his life because he wanted reform in Pakistan. Does the Minister agree that it is important that we in the UK urge Pakistan to ensure that those who have committed such horrific murders are brought to justice? On Shahbaz Bhatti’s case, if there can be no justice for a federal Minister who is a Christian, what hope is there for ordinary minority Christians, Sikhs and Hindus in Pakistan?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Whenever we make representations on individual cases, we address not only alleged abuses of human rights—such as the withholding of access to medical treatment—but the right of any individual to due and impartial legal process, including proper legal representation.

For all the reasons I have given, Pakistan remains listed as a country of concern in the FCO’s annual human rights report. The 2013 report will be published next week, on 10 April, and I urge Members to take note of what it says about Pakistan.

Last August, Human Rights Watch noted the “impressive gains” made in Pakistan since the restoration of democracy in 2008, but warned that those gains could be lost unless the Government halted serious human rights abuses. We agree.

It is true that no person convicted of blasphemy has yet been executed, and so far all death penalties imposed under blasphemy have been quashed by a higher court on appeal. However, hundreds of alleged blasphemers remain in jail pending the appeal of their original convictions and, regardless of the outcome of those appeals, the power of mob justice has made intolerable the lives of many of those against whom blasphemy has been alleged. We understand the cultural difficulties and why blasphemy is regarded as so offensive, but we must continue to pursue the issue with visitors from the Pakistani Government to this country, as well as through our contacts in Pakistan.

It is not within the gift of Her Majesty’s Government to organise the meeting for which my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham asks, but we will put his proposal to the Pakistani Government. I certainly hope that Prime Minister Sharif will find time during his visit to have discussions with Members of this and the other place on a wide range of issues, including human rights abuses, one egregious example of which has been the focus of this debate. I hope that we and our Pakistani friends can support a debate, a review and, above all, a long overdue reform of a dangerous and iniquitous abuse of human rights.

Question put and agreed to.

Foreign Affairs Council/General Affairs Council

David Lidington Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attended the Foreign Affairs Council on 17 March, and I attended the General Affairs Council on 18 March. The Foreign Affairs Council was chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, and the General Affairs Council was chaired by the Greek presidency. The meetings were held in Brussels/Luxembourg.

Commissioners Füle (Enlargement) and Oettinger (Energy) were in attendance for some of the discussions at the FAC. Commissioners Reding (Justice) and Füle (Enlargement) were in attendance for some of the discussions at the GAC.

Foreign Affairs Council (FAC)

A provisional report of the meeting and conclusions adopted can be found at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/141614.pdf.

Middle East Peace Process

Baroness Ashton briefed Ministers on work to prepare the “unprecedented package” of incentives promised in December’s Council conclusions. Following the FAC, Baroness Ashton stated publicly that the EU would offer “huge opportunities” for market integration and co-operation on security, research and innovation, and that the EU could support the parties in the fields of transport, energy, water, the environment and people-to-people links.

Iran

Baroness Ashton briefed Ministers on her 8-10 March visit to Iran. She had met human rights activists and the Iranian Government had signalled their disapproval. She noted that the EU’s special representative for human rights would visit shortly. Baroness Ashton also noted that E3+3 talks with Iran would resume on 18 March to continue discussions towards a comprehensive agreement on the nuclear file.

Middle East and North Africa

On Syria, Baroness Ashton noted that UN Special Envoy Brahimi was pushing for further talks between the regime and opposition. On Iraq, Baroness Ashton explained that the security situation made a full election observation mission of the 30 April elections impossible. Instead, the EU would send election experts to work with domestic observers. On Libya, Baroness Ashton thanked Italy for organising the 6 March Rome Ministerial meeting.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Baroness Ashton briefed on her 12 March visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). She had passed a strong message that BiH needed leadership and that progress could not wait until after elections. The EU should consider stepping up engagement with BiH, which should encourage leaders to respond to the socio-economic demands of recent protests. Baroness Ashton stated that she expected conclusions to be prepared for the April FAC.

EU-Africa Summit

Baroness Ashton briefed the Council on preparations for the fourth EU/Africa summit, which is to take place in Brussels on 2-3 April under the theme “Investing in people, prosperity and peace”. In addition, there will be an EU/Africa Ministerial meeting on 1 April, in advance of the summit. Conclusions were adopted on a number of African files, including on responding to the security challenges of the Gulf of Guinea, the situation in South Sudan, the Sahel and the Central African Republic (CAR).

Ukraine

The Foreign Secretary updated the House on 18 March on the situation in Ukraine, including on the actions agreed by the Foreign Affairs Council, 18 March 2014, Official Report, column 650. At the FAC, Ministers strongly condemned the holding on 16 March of an illegal “referendum” in Crimea on joining the Russian Federation, in clear breach of the Ukrainian constitution. The EU does not recognise the illegal “referendum” and its outcome.

In line with the statement of the EU leaders of 6 March, the FAC adopted the package of sanctions against 21 individuals in Crimea and Russia who were threatening Ukraine’s territorial integrity. The targets include Crimean political leaders, Russian parliamentarians, and Russian military commanders. Baroness Ashton outlined EU support to Ukraine and Ministers endorsed the signing of the political chapters of EU/Ukraine association agreement at the 20-21 March European Council. Conclusions were agreed setting out EU concerns, noting the sanctions, and repeating existing language about possible further measures.

Ministers also emphasised the importance of signing the association agreements with Georgia and Moldova.

Energy diplomacy

Ministers discussed EU energy diplomacy over a lunch which Commissioner Oettinger attended. As well as focusing on the immediate situation in Ukraine, Ministers considered the issue from a strategic viewpoint. The Foreign Secretary stressed how energy security would play an increasingly prominent part in the future of foreign policy, and encouraged consideration of options for decreasing dependency on any single particular source.

Other business

Ministers agreed without discussion a number of other measures:

The Council adopted a decision on the amendment of a specific protocol to each of the euro/Mediterranean association agreements as concerns the concept of “originating products”.

The Council updated the EU’s common military list, which defines the scope of EU rules on arms exports as set out in Common Position 2008/944/CFSP defining common rules governing the control of exports of military technology and equipment.

The Council approved revised guidelines on the appointment, mandate and financing of EU special representatives.

The Council amended the restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo so as to implement changes decided in UN Security Council resolution 2136 (2014) of 30 January 2014.

The Council adopted a crisis management concept for a civilian mission under the common security and defence policy to assist the internal security forces in Mali so as to enable the Malian state to ensure law and order and fight against terrorists, organised crime and cross-border trafficking.

The Council authorised the opening of negotiations for an agreement on the participation of the Swiss confederation in the EU integrated border management assistance mission in Libya (EUBAM LIBYA).

The Council approved conclusions on West Africa’s Economic Partnership Agreement Development programme.

The Council adopted the conclusions on the EU common position for the first high-level meeting of the global partnership for effective development co-operation, which will take place in Mexico City on 15-16 April 2014.

The Council adopted conclusions on the European Court of Auditors’ special report No. 9/2013 on EU support for governance in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

General Affairs Council (GAC)

The 18 March GAC focused on: preparation for the March European Council; the European semester; and the Commission’s communication on the rule of law.

A provisional report of the meeting can be found at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/genaff/141629.pdf.

The Preparation of the March European Council

The GAC discussed the March European Council (20 and 21 March), both in the plenary session of the General Affairs Council and over lunch with the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy.

The main focus of this European Council is the situation in Ukraine. In addition, the Council has a full agenda covering: the energy and climate 2030 package; the European semester; industrial policy; and EU/Africa relations including the preparations for the EU/Africa summit to be held on 2 and 3 April.

Following the Foreign Affairs Council’s extensive discussion on Ukraine on 17 March, the GAC concentrated more on the other European Council agenda items, though there was a substantial discussion at the Ministerial lunch. On the climate and energy 2030 package, I again stressed the importance of aiming for an ambitious outcome at the March Council, but made clear that member states needed flexibility to de-carbonise in the most effective way. The issue is not only about climate, but also ensuring Europe’s long-term energy security needs are met. On industrial policy, I said that it was important to create the right conditions to encourage re-shoring and investment in Europe by reducing unnecessary burdens in key industrial sectors and creating a regulatory environment that drives innovation, industrial growth and competiveness. The GAC also discussed widening the scope of the EU/Africa discussion to include trade, development and economic partnership.

The European Semester

The GAC endorsed the presidency synthesis report on the 2014 European semester for further discussion at the March European Council.

Commission Communication on the Rule of Law

The GAC received a presentation by the Commission of its communication on the rule of law mechanism and had a preliminary exchange of views. I made it clear that the focus on political dialogue and systemic threats was a step forward from earlier ideas but noted the need for further discussion after member states had considered the communication in detail.

Subsidiarity

Over lunch, ministers had a discussion on the principle of subsidiarity, following interventions by different member states, including the UK, at previous Council meetings. Germany and the Netherlands said that the EU needed to focus in the areas of its competence where it could add most value. I agreed and said this was a crucial debate at the right time given the upcoming institutional refresh.

Foreign Affairs Council/General Affairs Council

David Lidington Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend the Foreign Affairs Council on 17 March, and I will attend the General Affairs Council on 18 March. The Foreign Affairs Council will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, and the General Affairs Council will be chaired by the Greek presidency. The meetings will be held in Brussels.

Foreign Affairs Council (FAC)

Introduction—Iran

Baroness Ashton is expected to provide a short update in her introduction to the FAC on the Iran nuclear talks and on her visit to Tehran on 8-10 March. The first round of negotiations between the E3+3 and Iran on the comprehensive solution was on 18-20 February in Vienna, chaired by Baroness Ashton and Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif. The E3+3 and Iran will meet again on 18-20 March.

Ukraine

Ministers will discuss the latest developments in Ukraine. We expect the discussion to focus on the next steps to be taken following the Heads of State and Government meeting held on 6 March. The Prime Minister set out the UK’s position in his statement to the House of Commons on Monday 10 March 2014, Official Report, column 25.

Bosnia-Herzegovina

Ministers will discuss the latest developments in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), focusing on the EU’s response to the recent protests. Ministers will consider how the EU can encourage Bosnian leaders to address the socio-economic grievances of their population, and how best to offer support to BiH to implement the wide range of reforms needed to progress on its EU path. The UK will emphasise the right to peaceful protest, and the importance of BiH’s leadership responding rapidly and comprehensively to the population’s legitimate demands for change. The UK will underline that we remain committed to working in partnership with BiH’s leaders to deliver substantial reform.

Middle East Peace Process

Ministers will discuss the latest developments in the middle east peace process, and the prospects for the special privileged partnership as set out in the FAC conclusions in December 2013. The UK will encourage EU partners, in particular Baroness Ashton, to emphasise publicly the benefits that could be obtained from the special privileged partnership, supplying more detail on the proposed content of the package, and setting out a positive vision of a shared future with deep cultural, political and economic links.

Syria

The discussion at the Foreign Affairs Council will take place two days after the third anniversary of the uprising. The discussion will focus on the latest developments, including the agreement of the UN Security Council Resolution 2139 on humanitarian access. The UK will focus on the need to reinvigorate the political process, to implement the resolution, and to increase pressure on the Syrian regime, Russia and Iran to behave constructively.

EU-Africa Summit

Ministers will discuss preparations for the EU-Africa summit in Brussels on 2-3 April, in particular progress on proposed summit outcomes. The UK will reiterate our commitment to Africa, and underline the increasing importance of the EU-Africa relationship and welcome the opportunity that the summit presents to reinforce this.

Energy Diplomacy

Ministers are expected to discuss greater integration of energy security considerations in foreign policy objectives. The UK will note how events in Ukraine highlight the significance of energy issues and the need for an international approach to energy security. The discussion will explore areas in which the European External Action Service (EEAS) might support and complement action by member states and international energy organisations.

General Affairs Council (GAC)

The General Affairs Council on 18 March will focus on: the preparation of the 20 and 21 March European Council; and the European semester. A further possible agenda item is the presentation of a Commission communication on the rule of law mechanism.

The Preparation of the 20 and 21 March European Council

The GAC will prepare the 20 and 21 March European Council, which the Prime Minister will attend. The March European Council agenda is expected to include: the European semester; industrial policy; the energy and climate 2030 package; and EU-Africa relations including the preparations for the EU-Africa summit to be held on 2 and 3 April.

Following on from the 6 March Emergency European Council, there may also be further discussion of the EU’s response to events in Ukraine.

UK priorities for the European Council are likely to be: securing substantive conclusions on the climate and energy 2030 package; and agreeing firm actions to boost industrial growth, as highlighted in the Prime Minister’s speech in Davos.

The European Semester

The GAC will consider the synthesis report on the 2014 semester exercise. This is a policy discussion and there are no anticipated outputs at this stage. We welcome the focus of the annual growth survey on jobs and growth and emphasise that the semester should not be diluted by the inclusion of other agendas.

Commonwealth Day

David Lidington Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

I have to say that it was a disappointment, but I am unaware of the particular reason why that happened—whether it was carelessness or deliberate policy. It has always been a feature that Parliament square is decorated with those flags, and I am puzzled and disappointed that it did not happen this time.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I apologise for interrupting my right hon. Friend, but it might help the House if I say that there was a particular reason for not having the flags, which was that pavement works were taking place and they restricted access to Parliament square. It was not a shift of policy; there was a particular practical problem this year, and the Commonwealth flags were flown in Horse Guards road.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

I am grateful to the Minister for making it clear that it was a mundane reason, rather than one of high policy. It covers my blushes in being unable to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell).

I draw attention to the stand-out event in 2014 of the Commonwealth games in Glasgow. They are often described as “the friendly games”. While sport may be about rivalries, these gatherings can help to spread friendship and understanding in their own way.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) on securing this timely debate on the Commonwealth. I am sure I have the support of the whole House when I pay tribute to his tireless work in his three-year tenure as chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association executive committee. I hope that he will take it in the right spirit when I say that that is one of the great achievements and services he has given Parliament in what I believe is his 35th year of service in the House.

The CPA, as my right hon. Friend has described, makes a valuable and concrete contribution to promoting democratic values throughout the Commonwealth and we should applaud its achievements. I would also like to thank all my hon. Friends and the Opposition Members who have spoken today and outlined eloquently their views on the Commonwealth: both its strengths and the challenges and difficulties it faces.

I should add that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), who is the Minister with responsibility for the Commonwealth, regrets that he cannot respond to the debate. He is on a very long-planned ministerial visit elsewhere in the world. As Minister for Europe, however, I am delighted to deal regularly with two members of the Commonwealth as fellow members of the European Union, and—before my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) intervenes to remind me—with Gibraltar, a British overseas territory that is part of the EU and whose position in EU negotiations is something that I and the Foreign Secretary are always on the alert to safeguard.

In talking about the Commonwealth, we understandably focus on Governments and the incredible variety of countries, large and small, represented in this network of 53 nations spread across six continents and oceans. As has come through in the debate, we always need to bear in mind that those countries are home to no fewer than 2 billion citizens. The Commonwealth’s strength lies not solely in the relationships between the Governments of its member states, but in that web of around 100 different Commonwealth civil society organisations: professional, scientific and academic bodies that continue, month after month, usually unremarked and far from the national press headlines in any country, doing their important, constructive work for the good of the people of all those 53 countries.

This week, we marked Commonwealth day. This year’s celebrations have a special significance as we remember those soldiers from across the Commonwealth who fought and died for freedom and democracy during the first world war. Also, in September, we will mark the 75th anniversary of world war two, when we shall have occasion to reflect on the sacrifice of so many people during that conflict from Commonwealth countries and territories throughout the world.

Coincidentally, I was in a meeting earlier today with the Belgian Foreign Minister and one of the subjects we discussed was the work that the United Kingdom and Belgium are doing to commemorate the centenary of the first world war. The place of Commonwealth servicemen and women will be an important part of the British Government’s planning for that. I address this comment in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford): one of the very important events in the Government’s planning for those commemorations over the next four years will be the centenary of the Gallipoli landings next year, which is hugely significant in the collective memory of the people of New Zealand and Australia.

This summer, Glasgow will host the Commonwealth games. Scotland is no stranger to the games, having hosted them in 1970 and 1986. I know that the games organising committee, Glasgow city council, the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government are all working hard to make Glasgow 2014 a triumphant success. The“Team Commonwealth” theme of the 2014 games, is particularly appropriate. One reason the games will be a success is that the whole of the UK is working together at all levels as a team to achieve that.

Sport has a unique power to promote some of the Commonwealth values we cherish: teamwork, fairness, respect and equal treatment. This time last year, Her Majesty the Queen signed the Commonwealth charter, to which every Commonwealth nation has agreed and which sets out the Commonwealth’s core values for the first time in a single document. Those values are important in their own right, as respect for human rights and strong institutions are fundamental building blocks of development and prosperity.

However, as hon. Members have highlighted today, respect for the values set out in the charter is not yet consistent across the Commonwealth. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden said, not every Commonwealth member observes those values fully. During our debate, a number of hon. Members have drawn attention to particular problems in different Commonwealth member states.

I say to my right hon. Friend that member states have agreed to take forward all but 17 of the 106 recommendations that the eminent persons group made at CHOGM. Those include agreement on the Commonwealth charter and a strengthened Commonwealth ministerial action group, known as CMAG. The secretariat is now working on a new strategic plan to take it through to 2016-17. The key is the swift implementation of the recommendations of the eminent persons group, and this country will continue to work closely on that with the secretariat and with other member states.

We must be honest about the fact that the Commonwealth is an organisation that has always proceeded by consensus. There is no provision for majority voting or for a majority of the Commonwealth to mandate any one member to change its practices. It is more a question of the informal influence that can come from peer group pressure, or the advice of candid friends—perhaps it is best put that way. That is what we should rely upon to try to secure the change we want in line with the Commonwealth charter, which every Commonwealth member has undertaken to uphold.

I will respond now to some of the specific issues raised by hon. Members. I will take first the case raised by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). I am grateful to her for alerting me to the matter before the start of the debate. We are urgently investigating reports that a British national is facing execution in Malaysia. It is not yet certain that the man in question has kept British citizenship. Some media reports have suggested that he has joint Nigerian and UK citizenship, but we have also heard a suggestion from Amnesty today that the person in question no longer has United Kingdom citizenship. We are investigating that urgently, given what has happened.

Uganda has been mentioned in several speeches, particularly in that of the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash). As the House knows, on 24 February this year, the President of Uganda signed into law the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which increases sanctions against homosexuality. Ugandan civil society and human rights institutions have objected to that Bill in the strongest terms. They believe that it is incompatible with Uganda’s constitution and international obligations, and that it will harm human rights in Uganda. We share the concerns expressed by those Ugandan institutions. We have consistently raised, and will continue to raise, our concerns about the Bill with the Ugandan Government at the most senior levels.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), raised this issue with the Foreign Minister of Uganda on 28 December and again on 28 January and, most recently, with the deputy Foreign Minister of Uganda on 13 February.

As the hon. Member for Bristol East rightly said, both the Foreign Secretary and Baroness Warsi met Frank Mugisha, a leading Ugandan LGBT activist, yesterday to discuss the latest developments and to take his advice on how the international community might best support individuals and organisations in Uganda.

Our high commissioner in Kampala met the Ugandan Minister of Justice earlier this week. The high commissioner has also received assurances recently from the inspector general of police on the protection of individuals. I assure the House and the hon. Member for Bristol East in particular that we will continue to follow this issue closely and actively make representations at all appropriate levels of the Ugandan Government and Administration.

[Pamela Nash]

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer. I shall ask just one specific question, which I asked in my speech. Have the Government called in the Ugandan high commissioner here in London and if not, why not?

[Mr Lidington]

I will draw the hon. Lady’s question to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for Africa, who is travelling on ministerial duties this week. If we judged that to be the best way of making effective representations, we would not hesitate to do that.

The hon. Lady mentioned various options for action that might be taken. There is a judgment to be made about the right balance in these circumstances, between the megaphone and the candid words in conversation. We try to judge these issues so that we end up with a set of actions that are most likely to help those people who are under threat in Uganda. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and Baroness Warsi met Mr Mugisha yesterday so that they could hear first hand from somebody living in Uganda who feels that his position is at risk, and find out what he thinks are the most effective ways to try to seek a change in policy in Uganda.

The hon. Lady also mentioned Nigeria. We are disappointed that President Jonathan has given his assent to a Bill that would further criminalise same-sex relationships in Nigeria and infringe on the human rights of LGBT people. The Foreign Secretary made a statement on 15 January that highlighted our concerns and my hon. Friend the Minister for Africa raised these concerns directly with President Jonathan in Abuja, when he visited Nigeria on 27 February. Again, we will continue to lobby at the highest levels on this issue.

I was also asked about the persecution of Christians and other minorities in Pakistan. We continue to urge the Government of Pakistan to guarantee fully the human rights of all people in Pakistan, particularly the most vulnerable: women, minorities and children. These principles are, after all, laid down in the constitution of Pakistan and are in accordance with international standards, to which Pakistan has subscribed.

We regularly raise the issue of Christians and religious freedom more generally at senior level with the authorities in Pakistan, and did so during the Foreign Secretary’s visit to Pakistan in July 2013 and Baroness Warsi’s visit in September 2013. In fairness, the Pakistani authorities have publicly recognised the problems that their countries’ minorities face and the need to bring an end to religious persecution. The British Government remain fully committed to working in partnership with the Government of Pakistan to achieve that, and to tackle both terrorism and violent extremism in all its forms.

We cannot as one country impose change, particularly in public attitudes, which may in some Commonwealth nations be very different from public attitudes in this country, but we can and we will continue to speak out when basic human rights—life, liberty and personal safety—are violated. There can be no justification for infringing such fundamental human rights, which are central to a strong and prosperous society. The consequences of failing to respect human rights are apparent in Sri Lanka. I will give the Chamber the update for which the hon. Member for Bristol East asked.

The Prime Minister used his presence at CHOGM in Colombo in November 2013 to emphasise the United Kingdom’s and indeed the international community’s serious concerns about human rights in Sri Lanka. He made it clear that the Sri Lankan Government should begin a credible independent investigation into violations of international human rights and humanitarian law by both sides during the war by March, when the UN Human Rights Council meets to discuss Sri Lanka. No credible domestic process has yet begun.

Establishing the truth plays an important role in reconciliation. As a result, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon made it clear at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on 3 March that we would now call for an international investigation. I draw the attention of the Chamber to a written ministerial statement that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary published today on Sri Lanka. It is available in the Library and will be printed in tomorrow’s Hansard. That statement says, among other things, that a draft resolution was jointly tabled by the UN Human Rights Council on Monday 3 March by the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Mauritius, Macedonia and Montenegro. The draft resolution calls for the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to lead the international investigation and to report back by March 2015. Further discussions on the text will take place this month.

The adoption of the resolution is not a foregone conclusion. Ahead of the vote, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, I, other Foreign Office Ministers and other Ministers across the Government have been in contact with a wide range of UN Human Rights Council member states to encourage them to support a strong resolution that calls for an international investigation. In doing so, we have drawn attention to the assessment of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who points to the need for such an investigation as progress on accountability in Sri Lanka has been, in her words, “limited and piecemeal”. In the days remaining before the vote takes place, we will continue to urge UNHRC members to support this action, and we will maintain our close contact with non-governmental organisations and civil society throughout.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the Minister. I have seen the written statement. My concern is that Sri Lanka will not be happy to co-operate with this inquiry, and President Rajapaksa has more or less said so already. I will not put the Minister on the spot by asking a question about this, because his colleague, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Hugo Swire) is responsible for this policy area, but it is important that efforts are made to try to bring Sri Lanka on board and to convince it that it is in its best interests to co-operate with this inquiry rather than have it imposed from outside. It is in the interests of everyone in Sri Lanka, no matter what side of the conflict they are on, that a line can be drawn under past abuses and continuing abuses.

[Mr Lidington]

I agree with the hon. Lady. We will not for one moment stop trying to persuade the Government of Sri Lanka that it is in their interests on two counts—its effect on how Sri Lanka is seen internationally and the need for genuine reconciliation between different communities in that country. At the end of the day, the Government of Sri Lanka are sovereign and they will take their decision. We hope that they will eventually conclude that an independent inquiry of some kind is in the interests of Sri Lanka itself. That is why we are disappointed that they have not hitherto established an inquiry of their own. Had such an inquiry been set up in Sri Lanka, we would not need to call for one now at the UN Human Rights Council.

I should add that the Commonwealth ministerial action group has a key role to play in upholding the values to which all Commonwealth countries signed up when they agreed the charter. As CMAG meets for the first time since CHOGM here in London, we have a timely opportunity to restate our view that it is essential that CMAG lives up to the strengthened mandate that it received in Perth.

Our debate this afternoon is a reminder that democracy itself is a key Commonwealth value. The work that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association does to support and extend democratic values across the Commonwealth should not be underestimated. The CPA rightly enjoys associate organisation status within the Commonwealth and is the one Commonwealth organisation that directly represents parliamentary democracy. The Government recognise the CPA’s importance, and we remain happy to discuss proposals to enhance further its work through such measures as a democracy forum. I welcome the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden about the wish to see greater recognition of the CPA’s role in strengthening contact between elected local government bodies across the Commonwealth.

I also welcome my right hon. Friend’s creative and imaginative proposal for a Commonwealth youth parliamentary assembly of some kind. I look forward to seeing how that idea develops further within the CPA. I welcome the decision of the House—it was not welcomed in all quarters—to allow the United Kingdom Youth Parliament to sit in the Chamber. The idea that one day we could look at a Commonwealth youth parliament visiting different Parliaments in different Commonwealth member states and in different continents is very attractive indeed.

In addition to Commonwealth values, hon. Members have referred today to the potential to increase prosperity across the Commonwealth for all its members. The Department for International Development contributes directly to member states that are developing countries, and allocated about £2 billion of aid to those countries in 2013-14—that figure ignores regional programmes and therefore masks a higher total.

Local sporting events also drive economic growth, as previous Commonwealth games have shown. According to the organising committee of the New Delhi games, Manchester benefited to the tune of more than £2 billion in 2002, Melbourne by £1 billion in 2006 and Delhi itself by £2.5 billion. The United Kingdom exceeded its four-year Olympic legacy target, adding £11 billion to the economy through trade and investment in just over one year. The Glasgow games of 2014, which will draw in more than 6,500 athletes and officials in 17 sports, with a global audience of approximately 1.5 billion people, offer a great opportunity for the United Kingdom to provide leadership in enhancing Commonwealth prosperity.

To that end, UKTI is working with Scottish Enterprise, in partnership with the Commonwealth Business Council, on behalf of the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments together to deliver the Commonwealth games business conference on 22 and 23 July. That conference will explore opportunities to strengthen trade and investment between Commonwealth partners and seek new, innovative solutions to deliver sustainable economic growth.

After that conference, UKTI will also host the British Business House, to highlight the UK’s position as a centre of trade and investment. Businesses and key decision makers from the UK and across the Commonwealth will participate in a series of high level round-table and seminar sessions to explore new opportunities to increase trade and investment in the Commonwealth.

Those are just two examples of how the Commonwealth can harness the potential in its membership to increase prosperity. We should be increasing trade and investment with all our partners globally, including the Commonwealth and the EU. I welcome the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), especially in the knowledge of his long-standing, honourably held position on our EU membership, that it is not a matter of trading with either the EU or the Commonwealth but one of trading with both. Indeed, in the case of Cyprus and Malta, we have an overlap on our Venn diagram.

The free trade agreements that the EU has concluded, or is negotiating with Commonwealth countries, will enhance further the conditions for trade. We expect, for example, the EU-Canada comprehensive economic and trade agreement to benefit the United Kingdom’s economy and businesses by more than £1.3 billion every year.

[Andrew Percy]

I wanted to say this, but I got my timings wrong, because I had not realised that the debate was running until 4.30 pm. That was why I cut myself off after four minutes. In terms of our relationship with Canada and the CETA, we will have a special position once that agreement is implemented. Does the Minister not agree that we need a particular strategy that utilises our unique relationship with Canada to ensure that, when the CETA is in place, we are the country in Europe that benefits most from it? We need a UK Government strategy.

[Mr Lidington]

With my Minister for Europe hat on, I would caution my hon. Friend slightly, because France would think that it has a particular relationship with Quebec, but he makes a good point. Actually, that strikes a chord, because when I last discussed EU-Canada negotiations with Lord Livingston, our new Minister for Trade and Investment, he was focused on the need for the UK to build up a greater market share in Canada. Canada is one of those countries where we have not yet taken sufficient advantage of the commercial opportunities open to us. I shall make a point of drawing my hon. Friend’s comments to his attention.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I take on board the Minister’s comments and commend the fact that we will have a trading agreement with Canada via the EU. Does he not, however, agree that, as Canada is one of our closest allies, we could have done that decades ago? Why have we had to wait all these years for Brussels to negotiate that on behalf of Britain?

[Mr Lidington]

When looking at any one bilateral free trade agreement, it is difficult to make an accurate judgment about what might have been had we not been members of the European Union: whether it would have been easier or more difficult. Actually, until the Doha round ran into the sand, the policy of successive British Governments was to focus less on bilateral trade negotiations than on multilateral trade negotiations, first through the general agreement on tariffs and trade and then through the World Trade Organisation. That would have been the best way in which to address this agenda. The failure of those global trade liberalisation talks has resulted in the European Union and individual countries around the world looking for opportunities for bilateral deals instead. My word of caution to my hon. Friend would be that when we come to look at how trade negotiations progress—this is particularly true of the negotiations with the United States—we see that the value of and the leverage provided by membership of a market of 500 million people is greater than that of a market of 60 million people.

In respect of Canada, I have no idea how things would have gone had the United Kingdom some time ago decided to try to negotiate a bilateral agreement. I just draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the fact that the European Free Trade Association-Canada free trade agreement, which preceded the EU one, leaves out a number of key sectors, such as financial services, that would be particularly important to this country. Sometimes that European Union leverage does enable us to get, in my judgment, further than we would be able to on our own. That is certainly true of the talks with the United States at the moment. However, as I have said, I do not think that this is an either/or situation. We should be looking to get the greatest advantage out of our membership of all the international organisations to which we are party.

My hon. Friends the Members for Romford and for Mole Valley both talked about airports, passport queues and visa arrangements. They will not be surprised if I start by saying that, as the House will know, those are primarily matters for the Home Office, rather than for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It has been the consistent policy of successive British Governments to say that citizens from all Commonwealth countries should be treated, for immigration purposes, as third country nationals. It is also the case that the citizens of some Commonwealth countries, including at least one of the realms—Jamaica—require visas before they come into the United Kingdom; entry clearance on its own is not deemed sufficient. The position is more complicated than it is sometimes made out to be, but again I promise to draw to the attention of my colleagues in the Home Office the points that were made very strongly by my hon. Friends.

[Andrew Percy]

I thank the Minister for giving way; I do think that this issue is important. I understand the specific situation with Jamaica, but of course the Jamaican Government have stated very clearly that they wish to remove the monarchy from their constitution and become a republic, so perhaps at that point the situation will become a great deal simpler. This is something that we should, at least from the Government side, express as a desire and an aim, given that these are citizens coming to the country where their Head of State resides and we treat them as foreigners, which of course in law they are not.

[Mr Lidington]

I will draw my hon. Friend’s comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. She has the policy lead on these matters.

I would have been astonished had my hon. Friend the Member for Romford not seized the opportunity to speak about the British overseas territories. He is renowned as their foremost champion in the House of Commons. I accept and sympathise with his wish to see greater recognition for the overseas territories in Commonwealth affairs. It is worth noting in passing that of course Australia and New Zealand, too, administer island territories as dependencies that, as I understand it, are not full members of the Commonwealth in their own right.

The constitutional issue is that the Commonwealth has always operated on the basis that there is just one category of membership, which is full membership, and that is available only to sovereign states. That position was most recently reaffirmed by the Commonwealth Heads of Government in 2007. It would be perfectly possible to create some new status of associate member, but that would, of course, require the unanimous agreement of every member of the Commonwealth. I will ensure that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon, who has responsibility for the Commonwealth, learns of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford and of his wish for this country to take more of a lead in pressing for such a change. I will ask my right hon. Friend to write to my hon. Friend, to set out his response to those ideas in greater detail.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank the Minister and welcome his remarks and his offer to take this matter up with the Minister with responsibility for the Commonwealth. Following on from what he said about Australia and New Zealand, will he also undertake to discuss this issue with the Governments of Australia and New Zealand, as New Zealand has four realm states and Australia has seven external territories, such as Norfolk Island? Many of those are participating in the Commonwealth games and must also be considered in this respect.

[Mr Lidington]

That must be a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister responsible for the Commonwealth to consider, but my hon. Friend makes a fair point. Clearly, if there were a move to put the question of associated status on the Commonwealth agenda to members more generally, it would be important for the UK, Australia and New Zealand to work out some commonly agreed position between them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Romford also spoke about flags. Several different questions arise in that regard. I tried to deal with the particular problem about Parliament square, which was outside the control of central Government, in an intervention. I do not know which layer of local government was dealing with the pavements at the time and I do not want to point the finger and find that I have mistaken my target. However, we all agree that it would have been preferable had there not been that unfortunate coincidence this year. I hope that all relevant authorities can avoid a repetition of that in future.

We will continue—certainly, during the term of this Government—to ensure that the flags of the British overseas territories are flown from Government buildings on the national days of those territories. My hon. Friend knows that the Foreign Office has been doing that.

[Andrew Rosindell]

And the Crown dependencies as well?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

The question of the Crown dependencies, as my hon. Friend knows, is a matter for the Ministry of Justice, but I am sure that the Lord Chancellor will be delighted to learn of my hon. Friend’s interest in the matter and I will draw his comments to my right hon. Friend’s attention.

The Government want to ensure that the Commonwealth remains as relevant to us in the 21st century as it was 65 years ago, when the London declaration of 1949 marked the birth of the modern Commonwealth. In this, our values and our drive to seize on the Commonwealth as an economic and diplomatic force multiplier will be vital.

The hon. Member for Bristol East drew the House’s attention to climate change, a contemporary challenge facing Commonwealth countries. As she hinted in her speech, Commonwealth island nations, particularly the Maldives under the former president, played a leading role in some of the global negotiations. Their sense of urgency and their ability to point out directly the threat faced by the islands and their citizens helped make it possible to build a bridge between some contrasting positions held by developed and emerging economy countries. This Government are continuing to press for ambitious European Union offers to global negotiations.

At CHOGM last year, Commonwealth leaders collectively renewed their commitment to achieving an international climate deal in 2015 and to making real progress through the UN climate negotiations. There was also agreement on the need to build the capacity of Commonwealth states to respond to climate challenges. We welcome such commitments and look to work closely with all our Commonwealth partners this year to strengthen ambition and capacity through the UN climate negotiations and other forums, such as the Secretary-General of the United Nations’ summit on climate scheduled for September.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Will it be possible to move forward with this action through the auspices of the Commonwealth if some countries, particularly Australia, but also Canada, are not on board?

[Mr Lidington]

A Commonwealth position, as I mentioned in a different context earlier, requires consensus, but the Commonwealth can provide a forum, unique among international organisations, in which developed countries, vigorous, fast-growing, emerging economies, poor, developing states, enormous countries, such as India, and tiny island nations can all sit down together to discuss common problems. Through its network of connections—not just at Government level, but at civil society level—the Commonwealth provides a means of facilitating dialogue aimed at reconciling different interests and positions on climate change. In so doing, I hope that it would be easier to get the sort of global agreement that the Government want.

Our taxpayers rightly expect to know why institutions exist and what they achieve. The EU is familiar with such scrutiny, and the Commonwealth needs to define its relevance in a world of competing international organisations that cover all areas of activity. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon, who has responsibility for the Commonwealth, recently brought together high commissioners from right across the Commonwealth and why he will shortly host a further discussion at Wilton Park on the future of the Commonwealth. In the wake of the CHOGM in Colombo and in preparation for the CHOGM in Malta, the work will provide leadership in identifying how we can adapt the Commonwealth to reflect better all our needs and to strengthen it as an association that endures into the next century.

The UK is one of 53 equal members within the Commonwealth, and the other 52 members’ voices carry as much weight as ours, so it is incumbent on all members to ensure that it remains as powerful and as effective as it has always been.

The network of parliamentary relationships provided by the CPA will be an important element in trying to secure agreement on reforms and the evolution of the Commonwealth in a way that demonstrates to citizens in all member states the organisation’s continuing relevance.

The Commonwealth is a vast network of Governments and civil society. We should strive to harness its economic clout for the mutual prosperity of all members. At its best, when it is true to its charter, the Commonwealth can be an effective advocate for democracy and for human rights. It can stand up for what the Foreign Secretary described in a speech in July 2011 as the values that “ultimately make us secure”. That is the Commonwealth at its best. That is the vision that the CPA embodies and exists to support and enhance. I hope—and believe—that its work will continue to grow in importance, and I wish success to my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden and Members from all parties in this House who serve in the CPA.

Foreign Affairs Council

David Lidington Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I attended the extraordinary Foreign Affairs Council called to discuss Ukraine on 3 March in Brussels, chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland. Commissioners Füle (enlargement) was also in attendance.

A provisional report of the meeting and conclusions adopted can be found at: http://www.consilium.europa. eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/141294.pdf

Ukraine

Ministers condemned Russia’s acts of aggression in Ukraine, stating that Russian actions were unacceptable. I underlined the need for concrete actions, to ensure EU credibility and deter further aggression, as well as indicating potential further actions if Russia did not de-escalate.

The Council agreed conclusions condemning Russia’s acts of aggression against Ukraine and stating that, in the absence of quick Russian de-escalation, there would be consequences for EU-Russia relations. Ministers reaffirmed their support for Ukraine, and agreed to work swiftly on the adoption of restrictive measures for the freezing and recovery of assets of persons identified as responsible for the misappropriation of state funds, and the freezing of assets of persons responsible for human rights violations.

An emergency European Council will discuss the situation in Ukraine on Thursday 6 March.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lidington Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

9. What recent progress has been made on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

TTIP is this country’s top trade policy priority, worth up to £10 billion a year for the UK. Negotiations are progressing well and our ambition remains to conclude the deal next year.

[Nadine Dorries]

Does the Minister agree that TTIP provides an ideal opportunity to look at having a US free trade agreement based on sovereign states and not on political integration, as well at as our relationship with Europe?

[Mr Lidington]

The key advantage of TTIP is that a successful deal would create what would be by far the world’s most important free trade area, and would set global regulatory standards for trade on a transatlantic basis rather than having to wait for other countries to come and set the model for us to follow.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

The partnership does indeed offer great potential to Europe and the United States, but as the Minister will know, there are fears that it could lead to a watering down of workers’ rights and environmental and social protection. What are the Government doing to ensure that that does not happen?

[Mr Lidington]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that considerable legal and other measures already exist on both sides of the Atlantic to secure proper protection for workers, and those matters are indeed in the minds of negotiators. However, I do not think that we should take our eyes off the enormous prize that a trade deal of this kind would represent in increasing economic growth and mutual trade on both sides of the Atlantic.

[Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who campaign for us to leave the European Union would be turning their backs on a free trade area constituting some 40% of the productive wealth of the world, and that we would be unlikely to negotiate similar terms outside the Union?

[Mr Lidington]

I think it is true that the opportunity for a trade deal with a market of more than 500 million people in Europe as a whole is more attractive to United States negotiators than a trade deal with any single European country. Moreover, as my hon. Friend says, any member state that left the European Union would, unless alternative arrangements were negotiated, be abandoning the free trade agreements that the Union had negotiated with other countries around the world.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Will the Minister ensure in the negotiations that the multinationals pay their proper tax in this country, notwithstanding some of the things that have happened in the past?

[Mr Lidington]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to applaud vigorously the initiative taken by our Prime Minister through the G8 to try to secure an international agreement on a system whereby all multinational companies pay their fair share of tax, but I am also sure he will accept that that can be realised effectively only on a global basis.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

10. What discussions he had during his recent visit to Burma.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given Chancellor Merkel’s confirmation that she does not support a fundamental reform of the European Union’s architecture, will the Minister for Europe update the House on when we may expect some clarity from the Prime Minister about what powers he wants repatriated to the UK?

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I was heartened by Chancellor Merkel’s strong words about her determination to work with the Prime Minister to secure a European Union that is significantly more competitive, more democratic and more flexible than it is today. I wish that, instead of carping all the time, the hon. Gentleman would join us in that great project of reform.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

T2. The coalition Government have set great store by encouraging stronger economic, cultural, religious and tourism links with India. With that in mind, there is constant lobbying for the reintroduction of direct flights from London to Gujarat, and especially Ahmedabad. What diplomatic efforts can Ministers launch to assist that campaign and get that much needed reform in place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe agree that although the free trade agreement with the United States is a very good step in the right direction, it is nevertheless very unambitious that the EU spends only 2% of its annual budget on trade, compared with over 40% on subsidising farming?

[Mr Lidington]

I must say that if the Commission is looking for a way to allocate its priorities better, beefing up its excellent team in the Directorate-General for Trade would be a good way of going about it.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

There has been international condemnation of Putin’s actions as Russian aggression intensifies in Ukraine. However, European leaders seem hampered by the dependence of much of the European Union on Russian oil and gas. What effective action will be taken to stop Putin walking over the will of the people of Ukraine?

Foreign Affairs Council

David Lidington Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attended the extraordinary Foreign Affairs Council called to discuss Ukraine on 20 February in Brussels, chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland. Commissioner Füle (Enlargement) was also in attendance.

Foreign Affairs Council

A provisional report of the meeting and conclusions adopted can be found at: http://www.consilium.europa. eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/141113.pdf

Ukraine

Ministers met on 20 February for an extraordinary Foreign Affairs Council to decide on the EU’s response to the rapidly worsening situation in Ukraine. The Foreign Secretary said that the EU needed to react strongly and do what we could to stop the violence. He argued that the sanctions should be swift, well targeted and effective.

The Council agreed conclusions, which condemned in the strongest terms all use of violence, and called for those responsible for grave human rights violations to be brought to justice, and which set in train EU sanctions including assets-freezes and a visa ban for those responsible for violence. In addition, a ban on equipment that might be used for internal repression was also agreed. The conclusions recalled that the EU remained ready to support Ukraine in the process of reform to deliver a stable, prosperous and democratic future for its citizens.

The Foreign Secretary’s statement to the House on 24 February 2014, Official Report, column 26 set out how UK policy has developed to take account of the dramatic changes in Ukraine over the previous weekend.

Foreign Affairs and General Affairs Councils

David Lidington Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) on 10 February, and I will attend the General Affairs Council (GAC) on 11 February. The FAC will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, and the GAC will be chaired by the Greek presidency. The meetings will be held in Brussels.

Foreign Affairs Council

Eastern Partnership

The FAC will discuss the Eastern Partnership, focusing on the situation in Ukraine and how the EU can encourage all parties to take immediate action to defuse tension and increase trust. Ministers will also discuss how to contribute to finding a long-term solution which addresses the aspirations of the Ukrainian people and provides them with the prosperity and stability they deserve. The UK will stress the importance of the EU supporting Georgia and Moldova in their efforts to sign their association agreements this year.

Syria

Ministers will discuss the latest developments, concentrating on the Geneva II process, and the effects of the conflict on the wider region. The UK will stress the importance of the Geneva II talks reconvening on 10 February, noting that the National Coalition has been the only party willing to engage on the issue of political transition to a democratic and pluralistic model of governance. The UK will argue for the EU to give more political and material support to the National Coalition, and encourage member states to do more to put the Syrian regime under pressure, urging it to engage seriously in the second phase of the Geneva II talks. The UK will also stress the importance of encouraging Russia to use its influence over the Syrian regime to end its appalling violence against civilians and engage on the issue of political transition.

Southern neighbourhood: Libya, Egypt and Tunisia

Ministers will discuss the situation in Egypt including the conduct of the recent constitutional referendum and concerns over recent violence. They are likely to touch on the recent terrorist attacks; the closure of political space; political detentions; and restrictions on freedom of expression and of the media. The UK will highlight the importance of the EU providing a full election monitoring mission for the parliamentary and presidential elections. We will also encourage the EEAS and member states to consider how to maximise their influence with Egypt during its political transition. Conclusions are likely.

On Tunisia, Ministers will welcome the significant progress made recently, including the agreement in January on a new democratic constitution followed by the National Constituent Assembly’s vote of confidence for the new technocratic Government after several months of political impasse. Progress reinforces Tunisia’s position as a model for the region. Conclusions will welcome progress in the context of the EU’s “more for more” approach to encouraging reform, and reiterate the EU’s support for tackling the socio-economic and security challenges facing the Government and the holding of new elections in late 2014. The UK will note the importance of concrete support further to incentivise progress.

On Libya, the UK will encourage the EEAS and member states to do all they can to support a lasting political settlement and emphasise the need for the Libyan Government and General National Congress to work together in leading Libya to achieve a stable and democratic political transition. We will encourage member states to support international efforts to respond to the Libyan Government’s request for assistance in addressing the destabilising impact of weapons proliferation.

Yemen

Ministers are expected to discuss the conclusion of the national dialogue conference (NDC). The UK will stress the importance of continued EU support for the next steps of Yemen’s transition. The Council is expected to adopt conclusions on the NDC’s outcomes, urge for their timely implementation, and express concern for both the slow pace of economic recovery, and the security and humanitarian situation in Yemen.

Central African Republic

The 20 January FAC agreed that accelerated planning for an EU military operation in the Central African Republic should continue, subject to a Council decision. We therefore expect the discussion at this FAC to focus on the progress made on planning. There may also be a Council decision to establish the operation. In this context, the UK has been clear to EU partners about the importance it places on parliamentary scrutiny procedures.

General Affairs Council

The GAC on 11 February will focus on preparation for the 20-21 March European Council. The GAC will also hear a presentation of the Greek presidency’s work programme and consider the proposed authorisation of a type of GM maize for commercial planting.

Preparation of the 20-21 March European Council

The GAC will prepare the 20-21 March European Council, which the Prime Minister will attend. I expect a draft agenda to be circulated shortly before the GAC. At this early stage the agenda looks likely to cover: climate and energy, including the Commission’s 2030 framework; and industrial policy.

Presentation of the presidency’s programme

The programme of the Greek EU presidency was published on 8 January, and is due to be presented at the February GAC. The programme is partly shaped by the inherited Lithuanian agenda. Priority areas for the Greeks are the promotion of growth and jobs, eurozone integration, and maritime issues.

There is a good degree of convergence between the UK’s EU priorities and those of the Greek presidency. We welcome areas of the programme that reflect the growth and jobs agenda, such as the focus on deepening the single market, better regulation and trade agreements. We also welcome items relating to further stabilising the eurozone, and achieving a consensus on the 2030 climate change and energy framework. The Greeks also have a natural interest in migration given the pressures they face. The UK is particularly supportive of a focus on tackling illegal migration in countries of origin and transit.

GM maize 1507

The GAC will take a decision on the cultivation in the EU of a type of genetically modified (GM) maize known as 1507. The Government take a science-based approach to GM regulation and, given the scientific evidence in favour of approval in this case, the UK will support EU authorisation.

Ukraine

David Lidington Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I wish to update the House on the situation in Ukraine and the Government’s response.

Peaceful protests began in Kiev on the evening of 21 November 2013, as a result of the announcement by the Government of Ukraine that they would delay signature of the EU-Ukraine association agreement. The protests spread and turned violent, particularly after 16 January 2014, when the Ukrainian Parliament passed a series of “anti-protest” laws in a vote that was flawed. These laws limited the right to protest and the democratic space in Ukraine. There have been a number of deaths and, worryingly, a number of activists have also disappeared. The Ukrainian authorities have made hundreds of arrests and there has been evidence of mistreatment of protestors by the authorities. Journalists seem to have been disproportionately targeted by the security forces.

Working closely with our international partners, the United Kingdom has called for calm on all sides throughout the protests. We have also made it clear to the Government of Ukraine that they bear particular responsibility to refrain from violence. The Foreign Secretary made these points to the Ukrainian Foreign Minister on 24 January. He also told him that the laws passed on 16 January called into question Ukraine’s democratic course. I was pleased to see on 28 January that the Ukrainian Parliament voted to repeal those laws. I hope steps can now be taken to address the underlying causes of the protests.

This is now a crucial time for Ukraine, and I will continue to urge the Government and the opposition to find a compromise acceptable to all sides, that allows the Ukrainian people the secure, prosperous and democratic future they deserve.

I would like to pay tribute to the overwhelmingly peaceful nature of the demonstrations in Ukraine. The United Kingdom will continue to monitor the situation and make it clear to those concerned that any restrictions on fundamental rights or abuse of basic human rights by the authorities will have serious consequences for the relationship between Ukraine and the United Kingdom. We are also clear that there is no place for violence, and that all sides should focus on dialogue and confidence building as a basis for finding a way forward.