(10 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsMy right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will attend the Development Foreign Affairs Council on 12 December, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend the Foreign Affairs Council on 16 December, and I will attend the General Affairs Council on 17 December. The Development Foreign Affairs Council and 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 Lithuanian presidency. The meetings will be held in Brussels.
Development Foreign Affairs Council
Post-2015 agenda
Ministers will discuss next steps for the EU in the international post-2015 process, following the UN millennium development goals review event in September and current discussions in the open working group. Conclusions on “financing poverty eradication and sustainable development beyond 2015” will be adopted.
Agenda for change
Ministers will receive an update on implementation of the agenda for change, including programming of EU financial instruments. Baroness Ashton will also update on progress on joint programming and the results framework. Ministers will be invited to exchange views on these issues.
Progress on policy coherence for development
Baroness Ashton will reflect on the progress the EU is making on policy coherence for development, and Ministers will adopt conclusions on the 2013 annual report on policy coherence.
Regional issues
Ministers will discuss the great lakes. Other regional items are still to be confirmed.
Foreign Affairs Council
Introduction—Review of the European External Action Service
Baroness Ashton will outline the recommendations made in her review of the European External Action Service and comment on the views received from member states.
Introduction—Democratic Republic of the Congo
Baroness Ashton will cover recent political progress in the Democratic Republic of the Congo during her introductory remarks, focusing in particular on the opportunities this represents.
Iran
Baroness Ashton is expected to update the FAC on the E3+3 talks with Iran taking place on 9-13 December in Vienna. Discussion is likely to focus on the outcomes of the negotiations, the implementation timetable of agreements, and any implication for EU sanctions.
Southern neighbourhood
On Syria, the UK will ensure intensive preparations for the Geneva II peace talks. This will include encouraging the EU to give the National Coalition its political backing, so the moderate opposition can negotiate from a position of strength. We will encourage EU institutions and member states to donate generously at the UN’s humanitarian aid conference in January. We will use the attendance of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to send a united message that the Syrian regime must allow this aid to get to those who need it in Syria.
Lebanon is the country hosting the most Syrian refugees—over 830,000—and most at risk of overspill from Syria. The UK has increased hugely our humanitarian and security support to Lebanon this year. We hope the FAC will agree conclusions reiterating EU support for Lebanon’s stability, and to call for the urgent formation of a new Lebanese Government and for all parties to abide by the policy of disassociation from the Syria conflict.
Eastern Partnership and EU/Russia relationship
Ministers will discuss the outcomes of the Eastern Partnership summit in Vilnius and how this may impact on EU-Russia relations. Recent events in Ukraine are also likely to be covered. The UK was disappointed with Ukraine’s decision to delay signature of the EU-Ukraine association agreement, which it regards as a missed opportunity. We are watching events in Ukraine closely and continue to call for dialogue between all parties and for the rule of law to be respected. The UK will stress that the door remains open for Ukraine if it decides that it wants to sign the association agreement in the future.
Central African Republic
The Central African Republic (CAR) will be discussed in light of the UN Security Council resolution which authorised the deployment of the African-led international support mission to CAR (MISCA) and the deployment of French forces to support MISCA in the discharge of its mandate.
Middle east peace process
In support of the ongoing talks, the UK will press for a firm offer of EU economic and security incentives to both parties in the event of a deal, while making clear our concern at the possibility of actions that might damage the progress of these negotiations.
Western Balkans
Baroness Ashton is likely to update Ministers on the EU-facilitated Serbia/Kosovo dialogue and Ministers will discuss opening accession negotiations with Serbia, which will also be discussed at the GAC. We were pleased to see broadly successful municipal election reruns in Kosovo, which are a key part of the April dialogue agreement, while acknowledging that there is more to do on other dialogue agreements. The UK is clear that Serbia’s negotiating framework must ensure full normalisation before Serbia can join the EU. We also want to see Kosovo’s stabilisation and association agreement proceed swiftly towards completion in the spring and avoid reopening questions of status.
Burma
Our priority is to agree conclusions that incorporate language calling for reform of the Burmese constitution in advance of the report from Burma’s parliamentary constitutional review committee, which will present its recommendations for reform on 31 January 2014. We will stress the importance of reviewing those clauses which prevent the participation of individuals from being selected for Burma’s presidency on the basis of the foreign nationality of spouses or offspring. We expect the conclusions will also reflect the outcomes of the Baroness Ashton-led EU-Myanmar taskforce which visited Burma on 14 and 15 November.
Lunch with Lavrov
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will join Ministers for a discussion over lunch at the FAC. The UK will use this as an opportunity to reiterate the benefits that can accrue when the EU and Russia co-operate fully, for example, the E3+3 negotiations on Iran. We will also set out our view that the EU’s relationship with Eastern partners will bring benefits to Russia as well as the region and that Russia’s pressure on the region is counter-productive.
General Affairs Council
The General Affairs Council (GAC) on 17 December will focus on: preparation for the 19-20 December European Council; the review of the European External Action Service; and the enlargement and stabilisation and association process. The GAC will also receive a debrief from the informal ministerial meeting on cohesion policy held on 26 November in Vilnius.
Preparation of the 19-20 December European Council
The GAC will prepare the 19 and 20 December European Council, which the Prime Minister will attend. The December European Council agenda will focus on three main issues: common security and defence policy (CSDP); economic and monetary union; and economic and social policy. There will also be conclusions on enlargement, the content of which will be discussed at this GAC. I additionally expect there to be an update on the Taskforce for the Mediterranean and on completing the internal energy market.
The UK priorities for the European Council are likely to be: protecting the integrity of the single market, in relation to economic and monetary union; and on CSDP, agreeing a range of actions to improve CSDP’s effectiveness, strengthen European nations’ capabilities and improve competition and transparency in the European defence market, in a way that is complementary to NATO.
European External Action Service
The presidency hope to agree GAC conclusions on the review of the European External Action Service (EEAS). The review was sent to Foreign Ministers by Baroness Ashton in July 2013. As the Government set out in their 27 August explanatory memorandum to Parliament on this issue, we welcome the review as an opportunity to strengthen the EU’s collective weight in the world in areas that support and complement UK international objectives.
We agree that despite a difficult start, the EEAS has started to contribute to UK and wider EU foreign policy objectives, including Baroness Ashton’s role in securing the Serbia-Kosovo agreement and in leading the E3+3 process with Iran. We support Baroness Ashton’s assessment in the review of the three main elements of EU foreign policy to have emerged from the first two years of operation of the EEAS; namely the “neighbourhood”, the “comprehensive approach to crisis management”, and “international issues where our collective weight allows the EU to play a leading role in the world”. Of course, the EEAS is not perfect and there are still some outstanding issues to be resolved. To this end, we broadly welcome the proposals for change in the EEAS review.
Enlargement and stabilisation and association process Council conclusions
The GAC will discuss the Commission’s annual enlargement package, published on 16 October, and agree conclusions on the enlargement strategy and the western Balkans, Turkey and Iceland. The December GAC is the annual opportunity for the Council to take stock and give direction to the EU’s enlargement strategy and pre-accession reform priorities for individual countries.
The Government’s views on the package were set out in my explanatory memorandum of 28 October 2013. We will broadly welcome the Commission’s approach in this year’s package, reiterating our continued firm support for future EU enlargement on the basis of strict but fair conditionality, with countries moving forward on merit as they meet the conditions. We will also take the opportunity to introduce our thinking, in the context of future enlargement, on how to return the concept of free movement to a more sensible basis and look forward to a future debate.
The GAC will be considering progress by all of the western Balkans countries and Turkey, with particular attention on Serbia and Albania.
Cohesion policy
Ministers with responsibility for cohesion policy met in Vilnius on 26 November to discuss progress in preparing programmes for the 2014-20 funding period. This included their experiences to date in applying new arrangements in the regulatory package agreed between the Council and European Parliament, such as the preconditions to be met before spending on specific priorities can start, the requirement to concentrate funding on a limited number of objectives, the strengthening of results orientation and improved co-ordination between different funds. For this item, the presidency will present its conclusions from the meeting.
(10 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsI represented the United Kingdom at the 20th ministerial Council meeting of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) held in Kiev on 5 and 6 December 2013, hosted by Ukrainian Foreign Minister Leonid Kozhara. The Council is the key decision-making body of the OSCE and was attended by Ministers from across its 57 participating states.
The Council welcomed two ministerial decisions in the human dimension, after two years without agreement. The decision on freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief is particularly welcome as a human rights priority for the United Kingdom and the first ever self-standing OSCE decision on a fundamental freedom. We also joined consensus on a decision to update the OSCE’s existing Roma and Sinti action plan. It was, however, disappointing that a decision on the safety of journalists was not able to gain consensus, despite our and like-minded partners’ strong support. The events unfolding in Ukraine serve as a vivid reminder that journalists’ safety and freedom to do their job remains a concern in a number of OSCE countries. It is also disappointing that some states remain unwilling to acknowledge that freedom of expression and media freedom protections should apply equally online as they do offline.
I also strongly welcome the adoption at Kiev of the first internationally recognised confidence-building measures on cyber security, a long standing UK priority. Further agreements were reached across the OSCE’s three dimensions, including on combating the proliferation of illicit small arms and light weapons, and on combating trafficking in human beings. I regret it was not possible to reach consensus on a ministerial declaration on Afghanistan and we will continue to look for ways to underscore the OSCE’s capacity to act on issues such as border security in the central Asian region. A further declaration was agreed on the Helsinki +40 process, continuing the initiative launched last year in Dublin to reinvigorate the OSCE as we approach the 40th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act in 2015.
I look forward to supporting the incoming Swiss and Serbian chairmanships on both this and their wider agenda for the OSCE when they take the reins in 2014-15.
As I recalled in my intervention at the Ministerial Council (www.osce.org/mc/109248), the OSCE remains the world’s largest security organisation, and the United Kingdom remains committed to working with all its participating states to strengthen security across our region. The notion of security goes far beyond the absence of war, but extends to creating a framework for peace and stability with democracy and human rights at its core. To ensure that all its participating states live up to and fully implement the commitments they have all agreed to, they must demonstrate the political will to make this happen. No country is perfect, but some participating states appear determined not just to ignore these commitments, but to allow narrow national interest to undermine and weaken them.
The Council took place in Kiev at a time of heightened tensions in Ukraine following the Ukraine’s decision to postpone signature of the EU-Ukraine association agreement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I have taken every opportunity to express concern at the reports of violence being used to break up a peaceful demonstration and I underlined this again at the OSCE Council, drawing particular attention to the number of practising journalists who had been injured by law enforcement officers. I welcomed the Ukrainian authorities’ commitment to a thorough investigation, making it clear that the investigation must be rigorous, transparent and fair. I urged all parties to remain calm and avoid actions that could lead to an escalation of the situation or the restriction of personal freedoms.
In addition to attending the Ministerial Council, I had a lively discussion with Ukrainian thinkers and activists some of whom had just come from the protests. I was also able to talk to Yulia Tymoshenko’s daughter Yevhenia. I took the chance to visit the Maidan, or Independence Square, and observe for myself the genuine and peaceful nature of the protests. In my meeting with the opposition leaders, I described our efforts, including through clear and public statements in the context of the OSCE ministerial, to insist on the scrupulous adherence to fundamental civil and human rights and that those responsible for police brutality are held to account through rigorous, fair and transparent trials. I encouraged the opposition leaders to engage seriously with ideas to identify ways to help defuse the situation and map out a peaceful route forward.
I will place a copy of my statement to the plenary Session and all ministerial decisions agreed in Kiev in the Library of the House.
(10 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsI wish to inform the House that the Government have opted in to the following measures:
Council decision on the signing and provisional application, on behalf of the Union, of a protocol to the partnership and co-operation agreement between the European communities and their member states, of the one part, and Georgia, of the other part, on a framework agreement between the European Union and Georgia, on the general principles for the participation of Georgia in Union programmes.
Council decision on the conclusion of a protocol to the partnership and co-operation agreement between the European communities and their member states, of the one part, and Georgia of the other part, on a framework agreement between the European Union and Georgia on the general principles for the participation of Georgia in Union programmes.
The stability, security and prosperity of the south Caucasus region, of which Georgia forms a part, is of strategic importance to the EU. Continued stability in the region helps to deliver the UK’s prosperity and energy security goals. Progress towards EU standards and norms contributes to Georgia’s prospects of becoming a peaceful and prosperous neighbour to the EU. As Georgia adopts the reforms necessary, it becomes an increasingly viable trading partner which shares European values. We therefore support Georgian progress and welcome the fact that Georgia has just initialled its association agreement with deep and comprehensive free trade area with the EU. This is an important landmark.
The Council decisions allow Georgia to participate in European Union programmes and agencies, through its participation in the European neighbourhood policy. This will support Georgia’s integration into EU networks, and will pave the way for further Georgian progress.
(10 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsI would like to update the House on recent appointments and renewals of mandates to the General Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the appointment of an Advocate-General of the Court of Justice.
The following judges have had their mandates to the General Court renewed until 31 August 2019: Nicholas James Forwood (United Kingdom); Alfred Dittrich (Germany); Ingrida Labucka (Latvia); Miro Prek (Slovenia); Mariyana Kancheva (Bulgaria); Guido Berardis (Italy); Eugène Buttigieg (Malta); Carl Wetter (Sweden) and Irena Pelikanova (Czech Republic).
Additionally, the following judges have been appointed: Stéphane Gervasoni (France); Egidijus Bieliunas (Lithuania); Ignacio Ulloa Rubio (Spain) and Lauri Madise (Estonia).
In the Court of Justice, the Estonian judge Uno Lõhmus has been replaced by Küllike Jürimäe, and the Luxembourg judge Jean-Jacques Kasel has been replaced by François Biltgen. Their mandates expire in October 2015.
As a result of Croatian accession, Vesna Tomljenovic and Sinisa Rodin have been appointed as judges to the General Court and Court of Justice respectively.
Finally, Maciej Szpunar (Poland) has been appointed as Advocate-General of the Court of Justice.
(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons Chamber14. What assessment he has made of the recent decision by the European Parliament to meet in a single location.
We have been clear that there should be a single seat for the European Parliament. The current arrangements are indefensible, ludicrously expensive, impractical and one of the most striking illustrations of EU waste.
If there is one thing that unifies this House more than any other, it is that the European Parliament’s commute between Brussels and Strasbourg once a month, at a massive cost of over £10 million a time, is a waste of money. Is he not surprised, therefore, that one British political party abstained in the parliamentary vote and failed to protect the British interest and the taxpayer interest—the UK Independence party?
I am afraid that I am not surprised, because that party’s representatives are often absent in key votes in the European Parliament when significant British interests are at stake. I congratulate those Members of the European Parliament, from all political families, who supported the initiative that our colleague, Ashley Fox, led and co-ordinated.
The decision on a single seat was taken under a Conservative Government and in relation to an EU treaty, so presumably it will have to be amended by an EU treaty. Which other member states support us, and should we not wait until the Chamber is ready to host the European Parliament again in full session in Brussels before proceeding?
What was striking about the debate and the vote a few days ago was that the clearly expressed will of a decisive majority of Members of the European Parliament was that there should be a single seat, and it seems to me that their voice should be heard clearly. The Parliament has also said that it wishes to initiate proposals for treaty change at a future opportunity to try to give effect to the change it is now recommending.
Given that that travelling circus costs €180 million a year, or €1 billion over the course of the EU’s seven-year budget, which is a staggering figure, does the Minister agree that those involved in the single seat campaign in the European Parliament, including Members from my party, deserve to be commended for putting an end to that kind of waste?
I am happy to repeat those commendations. Of course, there is not only financial waste; an unnecessary amount of carbon is emitted as the Members, their staff and the accompanying luggage are transported from one place to another.
2. What recent steps his Department has taken to promote trade and investment opportunities for British firms operating in Africa.
3. What recent reports he has received on the situation in Gibraltar.
We remain very concerned by delays at Gibraltar’s border with Spain and are pressing the Spanish authorities to act on the European Commission’s recommendations to them. We continue to work closely with the Government of Gibraltar to uphold the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and the rights of the people of Gibraltar, including by challenging unlawful Spanish incursions into British Gibraltar territorial waters.
Having spent a short period of my Royal Air Force service in Gibraltar, I am aware of the importance of having a workable border crossing. Will my right hon. Friend urge the Commission to keep its promise to make it easier for traffic to cross the Gibraltar border and follow up this matter with Spain so that the people of Gibraltar can enjoy the EU rights that Spain owes them?
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We are indeed continuing to press the Spanish authorities to implement what the Commission has recommended they do, including adding to the number of traffic lanes so that cars can get through more smoothly and looking at how to risk-profile travellers crossing the border so that those who may be smugglers or other criminals can be properly identified and ordinary citizens not inconvenienced.
May I urge the Minister to use all his influence to temper the language that is being used in this dispute? There undoubtedly is a dispute, but the Spanish are great allies of ours: they are fellow members of the European Union and many British people live in Spain. Can we just lower the temperature and stop throwing brickbats at each other?
I would be only too pleased if we could lower the temperature. It is not just a matter of lowering the temperature in verbal exchanges but of expecting our NATO allies in Spain to desist from the unlawful incursions into British Gibraltar waters that have been all too common.
5. What discussions he has had with his US counterpart during negotiations on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership on the US blockade of the Republic of Cuba and its effect on European companies doing business in that country.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has discussed the transatlantic trade and investment partnership with Secretary Kerry. Both are keen supporters of this free trade agreement, which is worth up to £10 billion to the UK economy. They did not cover Cuba in those discussions.
Will the Minister use all his influence to persuade the United States to lift the blockade, which is bad for Cubans, bad for trade and bad for British business?
We make it clear to the United States that we disagree with its approach to Cuba. We think that the blockade is counter-productive and that the way to strengthen the chances of both economic and political reform in Cuba is through engagement, including on trade.
At the heart of this argument is a tactic that the United States has deployed in a number of different scenarios—namely, that it seeks to impose restrictions on US companies trading around the world, but also on non-US companies trading outside the jurisdiction of the United States. Will the Minister use the TTIP talks to try to persuade the United States to reconsider that tactic not just in Cuba, but more widely?
I am not sure that the TTIP talks are the right opportunity for doing that, but my right hon. Friend certainly makes a good point. As he knows, we have both UK and EU legislation specifically to counter the extraterritorial impact of US sanctions against other countries’ companies operating in or trading with Cuba, and we continue to keep under review the necessity for such legislation as regards other countries.
15. What assessment he has made of progress on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership talks.
Negotiations are progressing well and are on track to meet our shared ambition of concluding them in 2015. There will be a third round of talks next month, followed by an EU-US ministerial stock-take of progress to be held in early 2014 to set the direction of talks for next year.
I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he agree that these talks will, because of the enormity of both the European and the US economies coming together, lead to a substantial growth in the global economy? Does he also think that this will be a catalyst to a further improvement and enhancement of the single market, justifying Britain’s membership of the European Union?
I think that my hon. Friend’s hopes are very well placed. This deal has the prospect of being transformative for the world economy, bringing perhaps an additional £100 billion a year for the EU and £80 billion a year for the United States over the longer term. That would include £10 billion a year for this country.
Topical Questions
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
We welcome the prospect of the EU-US trade deal, but I would grateful if the Minister confirmed that the NHS will be exempt from the trade negotiations, in exactly the same way that Canada achieved such exemption in its EU trade negotiations. I have had confusing correspondence with the Government on this.
We are seeking a specific reference in the investment chapter of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership to enable the British Government to continue to legislate in the public interest where necessary, but we also want a deal that allows our pharmaceutical and medical devices sectors to compete for more business in the United States.
(10 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsMy right hon. Friend the Prime Minister attended the third Eastern Partnership summit on 28 and 29 November 2013 in Vilnius, Lithuania. My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Warsi accompanied him. The summit was attended by Heads of State and Government or representatives of the European Union member states and Eastern Partnership member countries. President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso; President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy; President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz; the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland; Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy, Stefan Füle; and the Commissioner for Trade, Karel De Gucht were also in attendance for parts.
28 November 2013
The President of the Republic of Lithuania, Dalia Grybauskaite, chaired a working dinner for the Heads of State and Government, which the Prime Minister attended. The High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, also chaired a working dinner for Ministers of Foreign Affairs. My right hon. Friend, Baroness Warsi attended. Both dinners focused on the future of the Eastern Partnership. The Prime Minister welcomed the signing and initialling of the agreements (listed below) due to take place on the 29 November; they mark a significant step forward in the EU’s relationship with the region. He expressed disappointment with Ukraine’s decision to put on hold the preparations for signature of its association agreement the EU, but made it clear that the door is still open in the future.
29 November 2013
In the presence of the Heads of State and Government, the agreement between the EU and the Republic of Azerbaijan on facilitating visas (relevant for Schengen member countries only); the agreement between the EU and Georgia establishing a framework for the participation of Georgia in EU crisis management operations; the agreements between the EU and the European atomic energy community and their member states and Georgia and the Republic of Moldova were signed. The association agreements, incorporating deep and comprehensive free trade areas, between the EU and Georgia and the Republic of Moldova were also initialled.
Heads of delegation then convened at the plenary Session where the UK was represented by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and subsequently by my right hon. Friend Baroness Warsi. The discussion focused on welcoming the progress made by Georgia and Moldova and looking to the future of the Eastern Partnership. The majority of EU member states also expressed disappointment that Ukraine was not signing its association agreement with the EU. All delegations agreed that the Eastern Partnership offers opportunities for increased prosperity and support for reform in eastern partner countries, which should enhance their wider relationships in the region.
In discussion with other Heads of State and Government, the Prime Minister made the case for the need to reform welfare rules and return the concept of free movement of people within the EU to a more sensible basis, as an essential step to regain the trust of people in member states in future enlargement of the EU.
(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberOf course I am sympathetic to those amendments. I have not commented on them because they have not been introduced by the Member who tabled them. I thought that it would be better to listen and to intervene at a later stage, if necessary.
I am happy to conclude by commending all my amendments to the House. I look forward to the consideration of the amendments that have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) and by other hon. Members.
This group of amendments deals with various matters pertaining to the detailed conduct of the proposed referendum.
Amendments 52 to 55 would impose deadlines on the Electoral Commission. Existing legislation gives the commission appropriate powers and responsibilities. Particularly as we do not yet know the exact date on which the referendum will take place, it would be wrong to impose undue inflexibility on the commission, as these amendments would.
Amendment 17 would impose thresholds. The Government believe that the referendum result should be determined, as in other referendums, by a simple majority of those who vote. Thresholds should not be required in respect of turnout or anything else.
No, I am going to make progress.
Amendments 5 to 7 and 84 propose arrangements for the referendum that would either duplicate or complicate arrangements that are set out clearly in existing primary legislation, namely the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
Amendments 16, 64 and 65—
No.
Amendments 16, 64 and 65 propose detailed rules on the conduct of the referendum.
The hon. Gentleman has made his point. He knows that it is not a point on which I should rule from the Chair. The Minister has been speaking for only a minute or two. He is in the opening stages of his speech and I am sure that he will take interventions when it becomes appropriate.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Amendments 16, 64 and 65 propose detailed rules for the conduct of the referendum, but these kinds of detailed arrangements will be dealt with in secondary legislation, provision for which is already included in the Bill. Amendment 61 would require the Government to consult the devolved Administrations. Clearly, any Government would take careful account of the situation in the three devolved areas, but we are talking about the electorate of the entire United Kingdom on a subject that is explicitly and unquestionably a reserved, non-devolved matter, so I believe it would be inappropriate to put such a requirement in the Bill. Amendment 85 would make voting compulsory. I disagree with the amendment. Voting should be a matter of civic responsibility and pride, not something enforced under threat of penalty.
If I dig deep into my reserves of good will, I might just, even now, be persuaded that these amendments were tabled with good intentions, but I think they are, for the most part, otiose. I disagree with them and hope that their proposers will, on reflection, not press them.
I start by congratulating you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your elevation to the Chair. This is the first opportunity I have had to say that. I was delighted when you were successfully installed in your place.
I want to speak in support of amendments 5, 6, 7, 16, 17, 52, 53 and 55, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), amendment 84, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), who sits on the Front Bench, and obviously my own amendment 85.
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsOn Friday 22 November two UK Government bags containing official correspondence and communications, and clearly marked as such, were opened by Spanish officials, while the bags were in transit. This represents a serious interference with the official correspondence and property of Her Majesty’s Government, and therefore a breach of both the principles underlying the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations and the principle of state immunity. We take any infringement of these principles very seriously.
Following reports of the incident, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office made representations to the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs at senior level over the weekend of 23 and 24 November and the British embassy in Madrid submitted a formal written protest to the Ministry on 25 November. In our protests we requested an urgent explanation of this incident from the Spanish Government and sought assurances that there will be no further interference with the UK’s official correspondence. We have now received that explanation from the Spanish and have been assured that we will not see a repeat of these actions.
The Vienna convention on diplomatic relations provides a legal framework for diplomatic relations between countries, including the privileges that enable diplomats to perform their functions, including official correspondence and the diplomatic bag. It embodies important international principles that protect official correspondence and communication between a state and its representatives. The UK strictly adheres to these principles and we expect other states to do the same.
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Spain in the light of recent escalating events concerning Gibraltar, most recently the searching of a diplomatic bag as it was leaving the Rock.
On Friday 22 November, two British Government bags containing official correspondence and communications, and clearly marked as such, were opened by Spanish officials while the bags were in transit. That represents a serious interference with the official correspondence and property of Her Majesty’s Government, and therefore a breach of the principles underlying the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations, and the principle of state immunity. We take any infringement of those principles very seriously.
Following reports of the incident, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office made representations to the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Co-operation at senior level over the weekend of 23 and 24 November, and the British Embassy in Madrid submitted a formal written protest to the Ministry on Monday 25 November. In our protests we requested an urgent explanation of the incident from the Spanish Government, and sought assurances that there will be no further interference with the UK’s official correspondence. The unauthorised opening of UK official communications, including diplomatic bags, is a matter of grave concern and we made that clear to the Spanish Government. If the Spanish authorities had concerns about the contents of our bags, internationally accepted practice would require them to contact the British authorities.
We have now received an explanation from the Spanish Government and been assured that we will not see a repeat of those actions. As the Spanish authorities know, overriding international principles provide for both state immunity and the freedom of official communication between a state and its representatives. Tampering with the bags was a breach of the principles embodied in the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations. The UK strictly adheres to those principles, and expects other states to do the same.
We are maintaining strong pressure on the Spanish Government to de-escalate current tensions and work with us to manage our differences through diplomatic and political routes. A major escalation could harm all parties, not least the many thousands of Spanish families who benefit, directly or indirectly, from the economic prosperity of Gibraltar. The UK wants to maintain a strong bilateral relationship with Spain across a range of policy areas, and such a relationship benefits the interests of this country, Gibraltar and Spain alike. We have reiterated to the Spanish Government the Foreign Secretary’s proposal of April 2012 for ad hoc talks involving all relevant parties, and there have been constructive discussions with the Spanish about these proposals.
I am grateful to the Minister of State for that response. As he said, the serious incident last Friday goes against the 1961 Vienna convention on diplomatic relations. Official correspondence and diplomatic bags should simply not be tampered with. Last time anything such as this happened was 13 years ago with the Zimbabwean regime of Robert Mugabe—not the best company to be associated with. This is the first time that an EU state or NATO ally has opened a UK diplomatic bag, violating the 1961 Vienna convention. That enormously serious breach comes on top of tedious and spiteful delays at the Gibraltar-Spanish border, and the incursion of a Spanish vessel into waters off Gibraltar. The deterioration of relations between the United Kingdom, Gibraltar and Spain serves nobody well.
The Spanish ambassador was summoned to the Foreign Office last week but clearly that has not had the desired effect. Nobody wants a further escalation of events or further deterioration in relations, but at the same time Spain must be made to know that its actions are intolerable, unwarranted, and will be met with an appropriate response, defending the rights of the people of Gibraltar and respecting international conventions. What actions will Her Majesty’s Government take to ensure that once and for all Spain gets the message? Hands off the Rock!
I think the Spanish authorities are in no doubt about the Government’s resolve and, I believe, the resolve of the House as a whole that there should be no transfer of the sovereignty of Gibraltar to any other country, unless that were freely consented to by the people of Gibraltar. I reiterate that we will not engage in any process of talks or negotiations about sovereignty with which Gibraltar is not content. I hope that that reiteration will be some assurance to my hon. Friend.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) on securing the urgent question. I reiterate the Opposition’s growing concerns, and those on both sides of the House, about this latest event in a series of events around Gibraltar’s borders.
We heard yesterday that two diplomatic bags were opened by Spanish police at the Gibraltarian border. It has been reported that the bags were taken from Gibraltar to Seville airport in Spain. As the Minister has rightly said, that represents a serious interference with the official correspondence of Her Majesty’s Government, and a serious breach of both the principles underlying the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations and the principles of state immunity.
In the written statement before the House today, the Minister says he has received an explanation from the Spanish Government—he reiterated that just now. I am sure Members on both sides of the House would welcome hearing the specific details of that explanation, which were missing from the Minister’s written statement. Will he therefore set out the details of that explanation and say whether they came in writing? Will he agree to lay them before the House by placing them in the House of Commons Library? Will he also set out how long it took to receive the explanation from the Spanish Government once he had become aware of the incident? Will he be clear for the House on whether the British Government have a taken a view that the explanation was sufficient? If it was not sufficient, will he set out what further assurances the Government will seek from Spain on the matter, and how such incidents can be prevented from happening in future?
Will the Minister tell the House whether the Prime Minister has been in touch with his counterpart in Spain to discuss not just this matter but the series of recent incidents at the Gibraltarian border? Will the Minister also make it clear whether it is the British Government’s view that this was a case of Spanish officials locally failing to follow due process, or whether it was an intentional provocation authorised by the Spanish authorities?
Following the EU Commission’s observation mission to Gibraltar in September, from which it concluded that there was “no evidence” of Spain’s infringing rules of the border controls, will the Minster call on the Commission to carry out an urgent further mission and investigate any further incidents as they arise?
Finally, it is vital that the Spanish Government today hear a united statement from the House that such provocative and unlawful acts are not acceptable to this Parliament or to the British people. They cannot be ignored.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his overall support for the Government’s position. I shall try to answer his questions.
As I have said, we were alerted to the incident over the weekend, and we made representations to the most senior officials we could reach in Madrid over the weekend. We also ensured that the Spanish authorities at all levels were well aware of the gravity of our concern about the incident.
The explanation that the Spanish have given to us—it arrived late yesterday—was that there was an error at junior operational level at the crossing point between Gibraltar and Spain, and that the more senior Spanish official present put a stop to that interference with our official correspondence as soon as he realised what was happening.
As I have said, we have had assurance that such action will not be repeated. We trust that Spain will live up fully to its obligations under the Vienna conventions and international law.
It is rather an easy explanation—is it not?—to say that the decision was taken at junior operational level. If I may say so, I think we are entitled to press the Spanish Government further on the protocol and the understanding of those who have responsibility for these matters at the border. The House will be united in condemnation of any breach of the Vienna convention. Have we had an unequivocal apology for the incident from the Spanish Government at the necessarily highest level, and an equally unequivocal assurance that steps will be taken to ensure that it never happens again?
The protocol that should be observed, not simply at the border between Gibraltar and Spain but at any international crossing point, is that containers that are clearly marked as diplomatic and official correspondence are inviolate under the terms of the Vienna convention. It is true that, from time to time, people at operational level make mistakes. I trust that the Spanish authorities will now show, by their actions, that they will adhere fully to their international obligations.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) for putting this question. If this alleged error by a jobsworth was the only act of interference and aggression by the Spanish authorities on the frontier with Gibraltar, it might just get by, but it is part of a succession of harassment after harassment after harassment, and it will not do. The Government’s softly, softly approach is simply not working. May I put it to the Minister that if anything like this ever happens again, the Spanish ambassador should be expelled from this country?
Clearly, any repetition, in the light of the weekend’s events, would be a matter of the utmost seriousness. The right hon. Gentleman decries the Government’s approach, but last week we had evidence that it worked in the case of the Spanish oceanographic survey vessel, which mounted an incursion into Gibraltar waters and sought to carry out survey work. Following the Government’s vigorous protests, including summoning the Spanish ambassador, and the strong views expressed in this House, notably in questions put to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) following his oral statement last week, the Spanish vessel pursued its survey work but did not mount any further incursion into British Gibraltar waters. The vessel carried out its survey work within Spanish waters. That shows that we should not write off the Government’s approach.
The Minister of State must surely now realise that this is a long series of acts of aggression by the Spanish Government against the loyal subjects of Gibraltar, and that the time has come to take firm and decisive action. Is it not time to send the Spanish ambassador back to Madrid?
I endorse the strong criticism across the House of the serious breach of an international treaty in opening the bag, but may I probe the Minister’s diplomatic strategy to resolve the escalating tension of the past few months? Will he revisit the work done by Lord Howe and Lord Garel-Jones under his party’s leadership in government, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and I under the previous Labour Government, which respects the paramount rights of Gibraltarians but recognises that Spain, currently one of our closest friends, has an historic grievance? Until we bring people together for proper negotiations, we will not resolve these matters.
I would like to see people come together through the ad hoc talks on practical issues, which were proposed in 2012 by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. We still hope that it will be possible for such talks to take place. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support, but may I add, as gently as I can, that I do not believe that the example he and the former Foreign Secretary set when they were in government would help? It added hugely to the sense of mistrust in Gibraltar about the intentions of the British Government.
Which Royal Navy warships are currently in the waters around Gibraltar, and do not these provocations give the lie to those who have complacently argued for years that the Royal Navy was not important? The best preservation of peace is the strength of the Royal Navy.
No one in this Government has ever decried the importance of the Royal Navy. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on ship deployments.
Spain is a fellow member of the European Union and a NATO ally. What are the Government doing with the member states of both those bodies to bring pressure to bear on the Spanish Government? Surely that is an important aspect.
The most important thing that we can do with fellow members of the European Union and other allied countries—indeed, this is what we have been seeking to do—is draw their attention to the fact that Gibraltar is not some exploited colony; it is a self-governing territory whose people have time and again freely expressed their wish to remain under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.
In order to build more trust with the Gibraltarians, would not it be a good idea for some Royal Navy ships to make a good will visit there—preferably a couple of gunboats?
Royal Navy vessels make frequent good will visits to Gibraltar as part of their operations, and I am sure that pattern will continue in future.
Hundreds of thousands of British people live in Spain and large numbers of Spanish people live in this country. Many of them will be very concerned about a possible deterioration in the relationship between the two countries. What action will the Minister take to resolve the matter by involving the European Commission again, given that we are both member states of the European Union?
We will always consider trying to involve the European Commission where it has competence, but it does not have competence to determine sovereignty. That sovereignty was set out in the treaty of Utrecht and has been confirmed by the freely expressed vote of the people of Gibraltar many times.
Does the Minister agree that the explanation that the Spanish Government have given is extraordinary and, frankly, would not pass muster in the Bromley magistrates court, let alone anywhere else? Will he redouble his efforts to explain through our NATO allies that the behaviour of the current Spanish Government, who are stooping to the levels of Franco’s Government, is not that of a NATO ally and is not acceptable? Will he consider reinforcing the naval deployments available to us in Gibraltar?
What would be in the interests of both this country and Spain, as fellow members of NATO and the European Union, would be to take forward talks on practical issues concerning co-operation on matters that affect Gibraltar and the campo, to park the admitted irreconcilable difference over sovereignty and to focus on the wider agenda, where the UK and Spain have a great deal on which they should be able to work together constructively.
Just a few days ago Members on both sides of the House warned that every time the Foreign Office summoned the ambassador there was some sort of nonsense from the Spanish in response. Will the Minister answer the specific question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar), which he forgot to answer? Has either the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary personally spoken with their counterparts in Spain?
The contacts with the Spanish authorities have been at all appropriate senior levels. We remain ready, in the event of further serious incidents—we hope that they will not happen—to make representations to Spain at whatever level we consider appropriate given the circumstances.
About 200 metres off the coast of Morocco lies Perejil island, a rocky and disputed outcrop in sight of the Moroccan coast. The Spanish refuse even to negotiate or discuss its position. Perhaps we could help our Spanish allies understand the frustration we feel with this type of interference if we recognised Morocco’s right to the island.
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsI attended the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) on 18 November and the General Affairs Council (GAC) on 19 November. My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for international security strategy attended the European Defence Agency steering board on 18-19 November and the Defence Foreign Affairs Council, which will be reported on in due course. The FAC and Defence FAC were chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, and the GAC was chaired by the Lithuanian presidency. The meetings were held in Brussels.
Commissioners Barnier (international market and services), Füle (enlargement and European neighbourhood policy), Commissioner Georgieva (humanitarian aid), Piebalgs (development), and Tajani (industry and entrepreneurship) were in attendance for some of the discussions at the FAC and Defence FAC.
Commissioner Šefcovic (inter-institutional relations and administration) was in attendance for some of the discussions at the GAC.
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/139633.pdf.
Introduction—Serbia-Kosovo
Baroness Ashton updated Ministers on the EU-facilitated Serbia/Kosovo dialogue and the 3 November elections in Kosovo. She welcomed the rerun of the Mitrovica local elections, and praised the EU rule of law mission (EULEX) for its close working with local authorities.
Introduction—Burma
Baroness Ashton briefed the Council following the EU-Myanmar Task Force which she led on 14-15 November. She had been accompanied by three fellow Commissioners, over 100 business leaders and a European Parliament delegation. She said the taskforce had successfully brought together political, economic and development agendas, as well as holding discussions with both President Thein Sein and Aung Sang Suu Kyi. I called on member states to sustain the EU’s push for constitutional reform to secure genuine democratic elections in 2015 and requested further discussion at the December FAC.
Introduction—Philippines
Baroness Ashton expressed sadness at the devastation brought by typhoon Haiyan. Some €20 million had been mobilised by the EU, with a further €100 million from member states.
Eastern Partnership
Discussion focused on the preparations for the Vilnius summit to be held on 28-29 November in Vilnius. Ministers exchanged views on Ukraine’s progress in implementing the conditions for the possible signature of the EU-Ukraine association agreement. I stated that it was important to send the message to Ukraine that we hoped to sign the association agreement at Vilnius but that, even at this late stage, we still needed to see further reform from Ukraine. The summit would also see the initialling of the association agreements with the Republic of Moldova and with Georgia.
China
Baroness Ashton briefed Ministers on the preparations for the 16th EU-China summit on 21 November. She also briefed on her recent visit to Japan ahead of the EU summit on 18-19 November. Her discussions focused on security and defence policy and welcomed the strength of EU-Japan strategic relations.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Ministers discussed the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). Commissioner Füle said that BiH leaders had until December to reach agreement on implementation of the Sejdic-Finci ruling, if it was to be incorporated into BiH’s electoral law by April, ahead of the October 2014 elections. The Commission was pressing ahead with reallocating 54% of BiH’s 2013 instrument for pre-accession (IPA) funding. I stressed the importance of finding a way to overcome vested interests, and the need to do more to foster a political environment that encouraged alternative voices and ensured politicians were held accountable. We needed to highlight to the Bosnian people the opportunities they are missing as a result of their leaders’ failure to move forward. We needed also to target financial support as a key positive incentive for change. I supported the proposed IPA cuts.
Southern neighbourhood
Over lunch, Ministers discussed the situation in Syria. Commissioner Georgieva argued that more money was needed to respond to the ongoing humanitarian crisis. Ministers agreed conclusions which call for Geneva II to be convened quickly and welcome the National Coalition’s decision to attend. They committed the EU to do its utmost to further increase its humanitarian contribution and supported the October UN Security Council presidential statement calling for increased humanitarian access. Ministers also agreed conclusions expressing grave concern about the impact of the Syria crisis on the region, especially on Lebanon and Jordan.
Ministers discussed migration issues, both through the Mediterranean and across land borders, focusing on the humanitarian and security aspects. I argued that work on tackling migration flows should be taken forward in the context of the Task Force for the Mediterranean, established by the October European Council, which is working to identify short and medium-term measures to reduce the risk of further tragedies.
On Libya, the UK underlined the need for continued efforts to support stability. The EU should continue to urge the Libyan Government and General National Congress to put aside their differences and develop a single, inclusive national dialogue. Increased EU efforts were needed to help the Libyans tackle arms proliferation, by supporting work led by the UN mine action service. Ministers approved conclusions on Libya, which condemned the recent killing of civilians and emphasised that the Libyan Government and GNC needed to work together for a peaceful democratic political transition. They also committed to enhanced EU border security assistance to Libya, including via the border assistance mission EUBAM Libya.
Baroness Ashton underlined her continued commitment to supporting Egypt, stating that the decision to lift the state of emergency and invite EU electoral observers seemed positive signs. However, concerns over inclusivity and security remained, and she would continue to be active and engaged on these issues.
Ministers approved conclusions on Tunisia, which encouraged all actors to engage in the national dialogue to agree a way for a new constitution to be adopted rapidly and elections to be held. They underlined EU support for Tunisia in tackling socio-economic and security challenges, reiterating the connection between level of support and Tunisian progress in implementing reforms. Condemning the recent terrorist attacks, they welcomed Tunisian engagement on regional security, and indicated EUBAM Libya’s potential role on this issue.
Other business
Ministers agreed without discussion a number of other measures:
The Council approved the conclusion of a protocol to the association agreement with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan on the general principles for the participation of Jordan in EU programmes.
The Council adopted the EU priorities for co-operation with the Council of Europe in 2014-2015.
The Council agreed to support the activities of the World Health Organisation in the area of biosafety and biosecurity, in the framework of the EU strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The Council established the EU position for the 12th meeting of the EU-Kyrgyz Republic Co-operation Council, to be held in Brussels on 21 November 2013.
The Council decided to sign and conclude an agreement enabling the participation of the Republic of Chile in EU crisis management operations.
The Council agreed to sign and conclude an agreement establishing a framework for the participation of Georgia in EU crisis management operations.
The Council noted the report by the head of the European Defence Agency.
The Council took note of the single progress report on the development of EU military capabilities for the period from November 2012 to October 2013.
The Council endorsed a note on EU rapid response capabilities and EU battle groups.
The Council agreed a declaration extending until 31 December 2014 arrangements concerning the financing of incremental transport costs for land, sea and air deployment of battle groups at short notice to the joint area of operations.
The Council approved the exercise specifications for the MILEX 14 crisis management exercise.
Joint Meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council and Defence Foreign Affairs Council:
Common Security and Defence Policy
In a joint session, Foreign and Defence Ministers welcomed the high representative’s report on common security and defence policy (CSDP) ahead of the December European Council discussion on defence, spanning the three agenda items: increasing the effectiveness, visibility and impact of the CSDP; enhancing the development of defence capabilities; and strengthening Europe’s defence industry. Member states set out their priorities for December Council discussion. The UK highlighted the importance of CSDP playing to its strengths as part of a comprehensive approach to crisis management operating in partnership with others, principally NATO. The European Council was an opportunity to demonstrate political will to develop capabilities and to act: but the package of proposed measures on the defence industry should not impinge on national sovereignty, nor should the Commission develop or own dual use capabilities. Ministers were unable to agree draft conclusions on CSDP at the Foreign Affairs Council, but following further discussions in Brussels working groups, they were subsequently approved by the Education, Youth and Culture Council on 25 November.
A copy of the conclusions adopted can be found at:
http://consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/139719.pdf.
General Affairs Council
The 19 November GAC focused on: the Commission work plan for 2014; the 2014 European semester launch; the follow-up to European Council conclusions; and the agenda for the 2013 December European Council, to be attended by the Prime Minister on 19-20 December.
A provisional report of the meeting adopted can be found at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/genaff/139649.pdf.
Commission work programme for 2014
The Commission introduced its work programme for 2014, which continues the emphasis on delivering jobs and growth, and on completing banking union. In welcoming the Commission’s document, I drew attention to priorities on better regulation and underlined the importance of the Council having input ahead of these work programmes.
2014 European semester
The incoming Greek presidency gave an update on changes with this semester compared to previous years, highlighting the role the European Council would play in focusing on the main priorities in the annual growth survey (AGS) at its December meeting, and guidelines on its implementation at the March European Council.
The Commission explained that the AGS was part of a broader package, including the alert mechanism report, in-depth reviews, single market implementation report and joint employment report.
I welcomed the single market report and the references to reducing regulatory burden, and warned against any dilution to the main focus of the semester process. On social indicators, I recommended that sectoral Councils hold political discussions of the proposed scoreboards.
European Council conclusions follow-up
The presidency presented its report on how European Council conclusions were being followed up. In welcoming the report, the Commission noted the significant progress made and the remaining work to be done, including on banking union, savings taxation and youth employment. I stated that this is an important strand of work for the GAC, both in preparing future Councils and ensuring that there is genuine momentum to achieve progress in the areas set by Heads of State and Government.
Preparation of the 19-20 December European Council 2013
The GAC discussed the draft annotated agenda for the 19-20 December European Council. This European Council, to be attended by the Prime Minister, has an extensive agenda covering: common security and defence policy; economic and monetary union; economic and social policy; enlargement; the Task Force for the Mediterranean; and energy. There was general agreement on the agenda.
Under any other business, the Netherlands Foreign Minister briefed the GAC on their review of subsidiarity which aims to identify areas where action should remain at national level, as well as areas where the Europe Union could do more. I welcomed the review as an important contribution to building a more flexible, competitive and democratic EU. Most member states supported the report’s findings, placing emphasis on different themes, with some particularly mentioning better regulation.
I drew attention to the wider context, on engaging citizens directly and using new communication technologies to do so. I made clear that the European Union had to be effective, and this meant knowing where it should limit action. Making the Europe Union work better would promote public confidence in it: this was about citizens seeing results.