European Union (Referendum) Bill
David Lidington Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
At the moment of interruption, Mr David Lidington was on his feet in response to an intervention by Mr Chris Williamson.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have evidence that the Foreign Secretary, possibly, and certainly the Minister for Europe, are not 100% committed to the 2017 date, and have already considered scenarios in which that supposed commitment could be scrapped.
Mr Lidington
I think the answer to the intervention is closely related to comments I want to make about the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), and by Opposition Members, which seeks to bring the date of the referendum forward from 2017, at the latest, to a date in 2014. In responding to those amendments, and accepting the good faith in which they were tabled—
Mr Thomas
I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. He was hiding at the back. His question to the Minister for Europe two weeks ago was extremely pertinent. He asked when the Prime Minister—or perhaps the Minister—would reveal which powers and competences the Prime Minister wants to repatriate to the UK as a result of the treaty change that is coming. Two weeks ago the Minister would not answer his hon. Friend, so perhaps he will give us an answer today.
Mr Lidington
Oh dear, dear, Mr Speaker. Labour Members cannot think of something new today, so they just put on the old record and try to repeat it again. I am tempted simply to refer the hon. Gentleman to remarks I made last time we debated this Bill. I pointed out to him achievements that the Government already have to their credit in terms of significant reform of the European Union, from the first ever budget cut, to reform of the fisheries policy of a kind that Labour said it wanted during 13 years in office but was never capable of achieving.
Yet again, the hon. Gentleman has failed this morning to spell out whether his party and leader are prepared to commit themselves to giving the British people a final say over the terms of our membership of the European Union. [Hon. Members: “Give way!] I am giving the hon. Gentleman the answer I believe he deserves. He may believe that the right approach would be for the Government to spell out in 2013 precisely what terms Ministers in a future Conservative Government would hope to put to the European Union after the 2015 general election. I say only that if that is the sort of naive approach to negotiation he currently endorses, it shows why the Labour party so signally failed to achieve much while in office.
Let me return to the points I was addressing to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, and others who want to bring the referendum forward to 2014. First, I ask them to consider British circumstances in 2014. We will already have an important referendum on the future of Scotland in the UK. I believe it would be an unnecessary complication to that debate to have a European referendum as well next year. Secondly, I suggest to the House that we should bear in mind the European timetable. Next year there will be elections to the European Parliament and the appointment of a new European Commission. That period will entail a break from normal European business, during which it would simply not be possible to engage in the serious work of reform and renegotiation that so many people on both sides of the House and millions of our fellow citizens want to see.
The choice that the British people deserve is a choice between membership of the European Union on reformed and renegotiated terms or leaving. That is the right choice. I do not believe it would be possible to come to an informed view about that choice as early as next year. It is that understanding of the European context that has led the Government to propose a 2017 date.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
They have not, but I am sure the promoter of the Bill will have heard the point made by the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), and he will have plenty of time to deal with it in the usual course of the debate.
Mr Lidington
The amendments in the second group fall into four broad categories. First, there is the amendment that would provide for an additional consultation process on the referendum question, going beyond what is set out and what has already been undertaken. The key point that I want to make is that it has been normal practice under successive Governments for a referendum question to be spelled out very clearly on the face of the Bill that authorises that referendum, and the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) therefore follows that established practice.
Secondly, amendment 71 in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) seeks to add to the requirements for when the power to set the date of the referendum is used. The amendment specifies that the Secretary of State could appoint only the day for the referendum that was specified in a resolution of each House. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that under clause 1(6) the Bill already requires the order to be approved in draft by a resolution of each House, and that draft would include the date of the referendum.
The third category of amendments deals with the languages in which the question should be posed. We have amendments before us dealing with both the Welsh language and Scots Gaelic. Amendment 37, which seeks to substitute the phrase “Welsh translation” for the phrase “Welsh version”, would have no substantive legal effect. It would not serve any particular purpose. It would not change anything. I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) to the fact that the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, which authorised the referendum on the alternative vote system for the House of Commons, used the term “Welsh version” rather than “Welsh translation”. Again, we are going by established precedent.
Mike Gapes
I will speak to the amendment if I am called later, but the Minister makes an interesting point. When I tabled the amendment, I was not sure whether Mr Speaker would select it for debate. In fact he has done so on the basis that it is a serious amendment, so I assume that there is a substantive question that needs to be explored, which is why it is on the amendment paper.
Mr Lidington
I am sure that every amendment tabled to any Bill by the hon. Gentleman is serious in intent, but Mr Speaker judges not the quality of the content of an amendment, but whether it is in order. If it is in order—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
It is orderly. I am sure that no one will want to challenge Mr Speaker’s decision. I am correct on that I take it, Mr Gapes.
Mr Lidington
I was not challenging Mr Speaker’s judgment on this matter, but the hon. Gentleman was perhaps over-interpreting the reasons why his amendment had been selected for debate.
With regard to the amendments on the Welsh language, we have already had legislation on referendums that uses the terminology set out in this Bill.
Stephen Doughty
What consultations have the Minister and the Bill’s promoter had with the Welsh Language Commissioner, a new office set up in the past year to provide advice on issues such as whether there is an important difference between “version” and “translation”, and all the permutations of that?
Mr Lidington
I will leave that to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South, if he wishes to respond as the promoter of the Bill. We have a clear example within the past two years of a referendum that has been conducted in the UK, including within Wales. I do not recall any instance in that context when people in Wales protested that the wording in the Welsh language was in any way misleading. That question was based on the use of the term “Welsh version” in the parent legislation.
With regard to Scots Gaelic, we are dealing here with a UK-wide referendum. We have, under specific legislation, provision for UK elections and UK referendums to include a Welsh language version of the questions or party names on the relevant ballot papers. There is no equivalent in UK legislation for Scots Gaelic, Irish Gaelic or any other language to be used in that way, so, again, the provisions in the Bill are completely in line with normal precedent as regards UK practice in legislation.
Finally, there is the important category of amendments on the wording of the question, which draw upon the Electoral Commission’s recent report. It is important to bear in mind how the commission went about its work and the tone with which it presented its report. It carried out 103 interviews with individuals and received representations from 19 individuals and organisations. On the basis of those consultations and its own analysis, it concluded that the Bill met most of the tests that it would normally expect any referendum question to meet. It did not put forward an alternative wording but, rather usually, suggested—I use the term deliberately—two possible alternative wordings. There was no suggestion anywhere in its findings that the question drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South was misleading or in any way designed to be unfair, but it suggested that Parliament might like to consider some alternative forms of words.
Mr Thomas
With all due respect to the Minister, the Electoral Commission’s view is crystal clear. It stated:
“We recommend that the wording of the proposed referendum question included in the European Union (Referendum) Bill should be amended to make it more direct and to the point, and to improve clarity and understanding.”
Surely he read that sentence.
Mr Lidington
If the hon. Gentleman goes back to the report, he will see that the commission stated very clearly that it believed that the question drafted by my hon. Friend met pretty much all the tests it would expect. There was a debate on the degree of clarity, and the commission drew attention to the fact that there were different views among the people they consulted and from whom they received representations about both my hon. Friend’s wording and the various options that the commission invited Parliament to consider.
Martin Horwood
Surely the whole point of having an Electoral Commission is that we do not settle for referendum questions that are just about satisfactory and that we certainly go for those that it decides are the best and clearest. On a matter of such critical importance, surely the Minister should accept that.
Mr Lidington
An interesting feature of the report is that the commission did not come up with a firm alternative recommendation. Rather, it posed a number of questions and stated that it thought it should be for Parliament to consider whether those recommendations would meet the desire, which I think everyone shares, for maximum clarity and fairness.
Mr Lidington
I am going to make some progress. [Hon. Members: “Give way.”] The commission first proposed—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. In fairness to the Minister, he has given way a couple of times and does not want to do so again. Having three Members shouting “Give way” when he has no intention of doing so is not good for me or for Members, because I cannot hear anything.
Mr Lidington
The commission first suggested that Parliament should reflect on whether to use the word “remain” in place of the phrase “be a member of”. As it acknowledged in its report, the judgment about that wording boiled down to an assessment of whether one believed that either form of wording would tilt the electorate unfairly towards supporting one or other camp in the referendum campaign. The problem with trying to make that assessment is that it requires making an assumption about how other members of the electorate will be affected by the wording. My own view is that if we look not just at the theory of how people might react but at the practical context of a referendum campaign, the outcome of which will certainly be a subject of very vigorous public political debate, it is hard to see how the form of words proposed by my hon. Friend is likely to tilt the playing field one way or the other.
Mr Lidington
No.
The second alternative put forward by the Electoral Commission is that we should abandon the traditional distinction we have made in referendums in this country between a yes and no choice and instead offer the public the alternatives, “remain a member of the European Union”, or, “leave the European Union”. While the commission was careful not to express a definite preference for one or other of the alternatives it proposed, implicit within its report, certainly as I read it, was a tendency towards looking to the second option, which it felt would more closely meet the optimum standards of transparency, clarity and fairness. However, the commission acknowledged in its report that to move away from the traditional choice between yes and no would be a major step and an important decision for Parliament to take. My preference is to retain the clarity of that choice between yes and no.
Looking at what is likely to happen in the context of a referendum campaign on our membership of the European Union, we have to recognise that such a campaign would, first, follow a general election campaign in which the public would be invited to make a choice, among other things, between prospective Governments who were offering the British people a clear choice on whether to remain a member of the EU, and prospective Governments who were not prepared to offer such a choice. Secondly, people would know that a process of reform and renegotiation was taking place, which would itself be subject to questions and statements in this House and in the media. Thirdly, during the campaign itself we would have a vigorous debate led by the umbrella organisations designated by the Electoral Commission. There could therefore be no doubt about the decision that people were being asked to take. The words proposed by my hon. Friend meet the demands of the House and of the Electoral Commission entirely properly and fairly.
European Union (Referendum) Bill
David Lidington Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Gapes
No, I am afraid I want to conclude my remarks, because other Members wish to speak.
The Crown dependencies, including their very important financial institutions, would also be affected, so should be allowed to vote. We have discussed British overseas territories, so I will not spend any longer on that point, and we have also talked about Gibraltar at length. The important point is this: my amendments expose the Bill’s inadequacy and need for proper consideration and scrutiny. I hope the House will provide that and support at least some of my amendments.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
In response to the point from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), I wish to make it clear that, in respect of this Bill, as has been the case with at least one or two other Bills since the 2010 general election, the two governing parties have agreed to differ in their approaches to a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU.
I want to address the various points made about Gibraltar.
Martin Horwood
Given the point of order raised by the sage and right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar), will the Minister clarify in what capacity he is now speaking?
Mr Lidington
I am speaking as a Minister at the Foreign Office and, as always, as a member of the Conservative party to make clear my view of the amendments and, in particular, to respond to the points made in Committee by Members representing different political parties about extending the franchise to the people of Gibraltar.
Mr Lidington
I have taken advice on this matter, including legal advice, so that I can be confident of giving the House an accurate commentary on the effects of the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton).
Mr Lidington
In Committee, I undertook to review this question, in response to points made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who I do not think is in his place any longer, and by other Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members who argued that Gibraltarians should receive the franchise, in view of the fact that Gibraltar was perhaps uniquely affected among our overseas territories by the question of Britain’s membership, or otherwise, of the EU.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Mr Jones, you know full well that that is not a point of order. It is entirely up to the Minister or the Member who has the Floor to decide to whom they give way, but perhaps the Minister could indicate to the House whether he wishes to make some progress.
Mr Lidington
Members from all three main parties have made some serious points about Gibraltar.
Mr Lidington
I intend to continue with my remarks and respond to the points made about new clause 1 and then to respond briefly to the points made by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), so I do not intend to give way to those who are seeking to intervene at the moment.
Under the 2006 constitution of Gibraltar, the United Kingdom is responsible for Gibraltar’s external relations, including its membership of international organisations. For example, the United Kingdom would be at risk of infraction proceedings if the Government of Gibraltar failed to implement EU legislation. Gibraltar’s association with the EU is itself founded on the UK’s membership and the terms of Gibraltar’s association are set out in declaration 55 attached to the treaties of the European Union. To those hon. Members who have asked, “What would happen if in 2017 the UK voted to leave the EU?”, the answer is that in subsequent negotiations about the UK’s future relationship with the EU, the future relationship of Gibraltar with the EU and the acquis would have to form one aspect of those considerations.
Mr Thomas
I am following very clearly the Minister’s attempted explanation for why subsections (2) and (3) should be written into the Bill. Essentially, I am struggling to understand why he thinks there might be some problem with Gibraltan law preventing the smooth running of a referendum in Gibraltar. Is not the reference to the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 a bit of overkill?
Mr Lidington
No, it is not overkill. This is a sensible piece of legislative drafting designed to put it beyond the risk of any misunderstanding or misinterpretation that the underlying constitutional relationship would remain undisturbed, despite the specific and exceptional provisions of the Bill. I would say gently to the hon. Gentleman that if he looks back at the Committee proceedings, he will find that his predecessor as shadow Europe Minister, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), was among those arguing and tabling amendments to extend the franchise to people in Gibraltar through the vehicle of this Bill.
Mr Lidington
I am trying to respond to the hon. Gentleman. As I have said, I have reflected carefully on the points made in Committee by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Mr Lidington
No. I have consulted the Chief Minister and have concluded that I should give my support and endorsement to the new clause tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton South and for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). It ill behoves Opposition Front Benchers to try to retreat from a new clause that seeks to give effect to something that they themselves were proposing in an amendment, which was extremely technically deficient, in a debate in Committee.
Mr Lidington
No, I will not.
The hon. Member for Ilford South has tabled many different amendments. He acknowledged that they cover a wide range of issues, which are perfectly legitimate, about the extent of the franchise in the UK. He proposed in one amendment that the UK franchise should be extended to prisoners and in another that the franchise—
Mr Lidington
I am replying to the hon. Member for Ilford South. He proposed amendments that seek to—
Huw Irranca-Davies
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. From the start of the debate, I have listened intently to every word. I believe that perhaps inadvertently the Government Front-Bench spokesman has misrepresented the position of our Front-Bench team. However, he is refusing to give way. Is there any recourse for our Front-Bench team to clarify a point not only of debate but of accuracy?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I get the gist. It is not a point of order. The Minister has the Floor and is responsible for what he says to the House. Opposition Front Benchers will get their opportunity to speak in the debate. If the Minister does not wish to give way, that is a matter for him. The normal courtesies are that Members give way at some point, but they do not have to do so repeatedly.
Mr Lidington
I am responding to the hon. Member for Ilford South. I am sure that the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) will have a chance to catch Madam Deputy Speaker’s eye in a few minutes if he wishes to go over again the points that were made in Committee.
The hon. Member for Ilford South raised the question of extending the franchise for UK expatriates beyond the 50-year maximum, which would be the effect of at least one of his amendments. He also proposed altering the general election franchise, in effect, to include European citizens as well as UK and Commonwealth citizens. All those are legitimate questions for debate but the purpose of the Bill is to apply the UK’s general election franchise terms to the proposed referendum.
Mike Gapes
Given that we are apparently going to use the UK’s general election criteria, why would there be a major anomaly? The citizens of three EU states would be able to vote in the referendum but others would not. Is that not a strange situation? Citizens of Cyprus, Malta and Ireland would be able to vote but French people living in London could not.
Mr Lidington
It is no more or less anomalous than the situation that applies already at our general elections, where citizens of those European Commonwealth countries who are legally resident here and registered as voters are entitled to participate, whereas nationals of other EU member states who are also lawfully resident are not so entitled to vote in a UK general election. In respect of the hon. Gentleman’s amendments, it would be legitimate for him to use the vehicle of a representation of the people Bill at some stage to seek to alter the terms of the UK’s general election franchise in the way he proposes, but it is not appropriate to use the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South to make such a change when my hon. Friend’s purpose, as I understand it, is to apply the UK’s general election franchise to his proposed referendum. For that reason, I disagree with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Ilford South and support the general election franchise as set out by my hon. Friend in his Bill.
Mr Hain
I was planning to do precisely that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I regret having taken so many interventions, otherwise I would have concluded already.
On the argument about sovereignty, under sub-paragraph (j) of new schedule 2 we would consult organisations such as the Royal United Services Institute in respect of our membership of NATO. We have given up sovereignty to be members of NATO, but we have gained extra power and influence. We have given up sovereignty—yes, of course we have—to be members of the European Union, but we have gained extra economic, political and diplomatic influence. If we consulted Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace about the environmental benefits that we have gained by having a say in the policies of the countries right on our border on the continent of Europe, it would be clear that we are a key force in determining those decisions.
All the evidence points to the fact that systematic consultation with all the different parts of our society, all the groups in our society specified in new schedule 2, would give us a great opportunity to go into the debate and decide, if we are to have a referendum at all, when it should be. That would be the great advantage which the Bill, unamended, denies us. More importantly, it denies an obligation on Government to consult and, having consulted over a lengthy period, an obligation to come back to Parliament, and for Parliament to have a considered debate rather than to be stampeded into a referendum next year. For all the reasons given by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and others, that would be the wrong choice, in my view.
Without my amendment being accepted, setting an arbitrary date some time in 2017 could conceivably mean that the referendum would be held right in the middle of the United Kingdom presidency. Imagine the nonsense of doing that and leaving us in an entirely invidious position—indeed, a laughing stock if a referendum took place during that six months.
I hope the promoter of the Bill will reconsider accepting the amendments, and I hope that when the Europe Minister contributes to the debate, he will back them. If either of them does not do so, I have to ask what they are frightened of. Are they frightened of the facts and the arguments being revealed, and the British people deciding either that they do not want a referendum at all on the proposed timetable or, if they do want a referendum at some stage in the future, that staying in the European Union is the right thing to do?
Mr Lidington
The amendments in this group fall into three categories: the significant amendment about consultation spoken to by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), the amendments that seek to require the Government to avoid clashes between the referendum and religious holidays or other elections, and the important amendments of various kinds to do with the date in question.
First, I will deal with consultation. I enjoyed the right hon. Gentleman’s speech—his paean to the merits of the European Union and Britain’s membership of it. I find myself in agreement with some elements, such as the successes of the single market, enlargement and Franco-German reconciliation, although he may have underplayed some of the downsides of how the EU currently operates. However, the point is that the Bill does not seek to prescribe whether the United Kingdom should remain in or leave the European Union but to give the British people the final decision on that question, on which there are perfectly honourable, long-standing differences of view within all the main political parties in this House.
The right hon. Gentleman overlooked the fact that a massive consultation exercise, which the Government are leading, is already under way on the current balance of competences in the European Union, and it goes far wider than the organisations specified in the Opposition’s proposals. Moreover, the Opposition underplay the fact that in a real referendum campaign there will be the widest of debates involving all the organisations listed in new schedule 2 and many more.
Mr Lidington
The serious work on the reform of the European Union is already under way. I know that my hon. Friend will be delighted by the successful reform of the common fisheries policy, the ban on discarding, the push towards local regional management of fisheries, the cut in the EU budget, and the moves on deregulation that this Government have already achieved, even in coalition.
Mr Thomas
The Minister is just talking about the past. What powers and competences does he think the Prime Minister wants to bring back? The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) asked a perfectly reasonable question. Will the Minister answer it? What has he got to hide?
Mr Lidington
What I would like to know from the hon. Gentleman and his party is whether they want to give the British people a say in our future in Europe or they are determined to deny them that say.
Given the reality of the debate that will take place, and given that the Electoral Commission would appoint umbrella organisations for yes and no campaigns, this well-intentioned new schedule is unnecessary because there is no need to specify organisations in that way.
The same is true of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) about religious holidays and potential clashes with other elections. These matters already have to be considered.
Mike Gapes
The Minister should be aware that I have not yet had a chance to speak to those amendments, so he is referring to them in the absence of my having done so. I hope that I may get that chance on 22 November.
Mr Lidington
The amendments touch on matters that every Government already have to consider in looking at election dates. Successive Governments have taken a pragmatic approach to those matters, and it would be disproportionate to include them in the Bill.
Mr Thomas
Surely the Minister thinks that the British people are entitled to know what plan B would be if a referendum that the Prime Minister calls leads to a British exit. Why not, then, consult the CBI about the Switzerland option or the Norway option? Why will he not concede that possibility and the need for that consultation?
Mr Lidington
It is already open to the CBI and to any other such organisations to express their views fully and vigorously, and that is what they do at all times, in conversations with Ministers, in publications, and in debates and forums. I know that the hon. Gentleman has only just been appointed to this role, but he ought to wake up and see the debate that is actually going on rather than trying to invoke some kind of Aunt Sally.
Mr Sheerman
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We can wake up to the fact that still we have not heard from the promoter of a private Member’s Bill on a private Member’s day. What is going on in this Chamber?
Chris Williamson
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Earlier in the debate, he said that the stakeholders referred to in new schedule 2 would be able to make their views known during the course of a referendum campaign. Does he not believe that they have an interest in the referendum date? That is what the consultation is about. Will the Minister deal with that point?
British Gibraltar Territorial Waters
David Lidington Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
On Wednesday 30 October an incident occurred in British Gibraltar territorial waters (BGTW) involving dangerous manoeuvring by a Spanish guardia civil boat. Following media reporting of the incident, this statement sets out the facts and the Government’s response.
During a routine transfer of personnel between Royal Navy vessels in BGTW, a guardia civil vessel was observed approaching at speed. As the Spanish vessel approached, the Royal Navy and defence police vessels at the scene followed operational procedures, including forming a protective barrier. On arriving in the vicinity, the guardia civil vessel conducted several dangerous manoeuvres near the British vessels. At one point a minor collision occurred between the guardia civil vessel and one of the defence police boats. There was no damage to either vessel, no shots were fired and there were no injuries.
The UK’s defence attaché in Madrid raised our concerns about the incident with the Spanish Navy on Thursday 31 October. We have also raised this at a high level with the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, making it clear that the actions of the guardia civil were unacceptable and dangerous, with the potential to cause serious injury or damage. Once the full facts of the incident had been established, a formal written protest was also issued to the Spanish Government in Madrid.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Lidington Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
2. What representations he has made to the Russian authorities regarding the recent detention of six British nationals in that country.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the matter with the Russian Foreign Affairs Minister on 25 September and again on 6 October. Our ambassador in Moscow did the same with Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Titov of Russia on 22 October.
Mr Cunningham
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, but there are reports that some British nationals in Murmansk prison have not had access to medical attention, and that some are in solitary confinement. What representations have the Government made regarding the conditions of their pre-trial detention and their access to medical treatment? What response have the Government received?
Mr Lidington
Since the detentions were announced by the Russian authorities, we have sent a team of British officials each week to Murmansk to ensure that the detainees’ consular needs are being properly looked after. We have taken up with the prison authorities, or with other Russian authorities as appropriate, all the concerns that the detainees themselves have expressed to us about the conditions in which they are being held. At the moment, they are telling us that their conditions are “broadly acceptable”, but we stand ready to take up any further concerns that they may have.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
Given the unjustifiable detention of British citizens, will Ministers follow the example of Councillor Wendy Flynn, mayor of Cheltenham, which is Sochi’s twin town, and refuse any offers of hospitality or visits in connection with Sochi’s winter Olympics in 2014?
Mr Lidington
I am afraid that the Government rules on accepting hospitality are already strict and limit what Ministers can do. The key point is that the Sochi winter Olympics will provide an opportunity for people from this country, including journalists and editors, to meet and engage with Russians of all backgrounds and to stand up for the values in which we believe.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
As these exchanges have reinforced, there is concern on both sides of the House about the continuing detention of the British Greenpeace activists and journalists. Given the growing fears about the conditions in which they are being held—conditions condemned by the European Court of Human Rights last year, I understand—and the length of time they are likely to be incarcerated, can I ask the Minister gently what exactly it will take for the Foreign Secretary to persuade the Prime Minister to intervene on their behalf?
Mr Lidington
First, may I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities? Of course this is a return to European activity from the days when Tony Blair appointed him as one of his champions of the single currency in the Labour party. Having served his time in quarantine, he is now being allowed out again.
The hon. Gentleman may not have been here yesterday, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear at the Dispatch Box that he stood ready to speak to President Putin whenever that would best help the welfare of those who are being detained and lead to a satisfactory outcome for them. The search for a satisfactory outcome to this case remains at the top of the Government’s priorities, and it determines how we handle individual representations.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
3. What recent assessment he has made of the human rights situation in Sri Lanka.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
11. What recent discussions he has had with the Russian Government regarding violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in Russia.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary discussed our concern about those attacks when they met their Russian opposite numbers last month.
Jenny Chapman
As the Minister knows, there is significant and growing concern in this country about violence in particular but also about the banning of certain publications, and about threats to remove children from LGBT couples. Will he consider raising the issue with the Council of Europe?
Mr Lidington
We will certainly consider raising, at every possible opportunity, our concern both about Russian legislation on the matter and about what is, inevitably, anecdotal evidence of appalling attacks on individual LGBT Russian citizens and civil society organisations.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that, while these attacks are quite outrageous—as is the fact that the Russian Government seem to be legislating towards such behaviour—it is better to engage with Russia than to boycott events if we are to bring about change?
Mr Lidington
I agree with my hon. Friend both about the importance of making our views clear and about the importance of engagement. Our diplomats who are stationed in Russia make a point of attending meetings of civil society organisations, including LGBT organisations, to demonstrate that we are standing up for the values in which we believe.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
T2. Which competences will the Government seek to repatriate from the European Union?
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
What the Government have already shown in their three and a half years in office is that they have been able to bring powers back to this country: through the reform of the fisheries policy, which has abolished the practice of discarding that the hon. Gentleman’s Government tried and failed to reform in their 13 years in office; in getting a cut on the budget for the European Union; and in getting us out of the bail-out mechanism to which his Government committed us. That is a fine track record on which to look forward with high hopes for the future.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
T5. The UN envoy, Mr Brahimi, is in Syria today and he has said that President Assad can play a constructive role in the transition in Syria. The Friends of Syria group has said that President Assad can play no role in the transition, so what is the UK’s position on whether he can play any such role?
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
T6. Much of the instability in various parts of the world is caused by volatile and high food prices, a driver of which is the conversion of agricultural land into biodiesel, a practice described by the United Nations last year as a crime against humanity. What discussions have the Government had with the EU to encourage it to drop its 6% target on sources which could and should be food?
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend is right to identify this as an important issue. Our colleagues in the Department of Energy and Climate Change have the lead on it, and I will make sure that their attention is drawn to his comments. I assure him that they take the issue particularly seriously.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
T8. What discussions is the Foreign Secretary having with European Governments, particularly the Italian Government, about the tragedy unfolding in the Mediterranean as a result of refugees drowning?
Mr Speaker
Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman should seek an Adjournment debate—but it might take him some weeks to get it.
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that the deployment of the yellow card as regards the European public prosecutor’s office is the second time that the number of national Parliaments submitting reasoned opinions has passed the threshold set by the treaty that forces the Commission to reconsider its original proposal. I wish all strength to the arm of national Parliaments in continuing to use those powers to the full.
Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I am sure that this House has every confidence in the Foreign Secretary to represent the Government at CHOGM and the Prime Minister should clearly make a gesture and stay away. When he is making representations, will the Foreign Secretary seek the signature of the Sri Lankan Government to the declaration of commitment to end sexual violence in conflict?
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Have Ministers considered using the large number of influential Russians who live in London in their efforts to persuade the Russian Government to take a more liberal line on human rights?
Mr Lidington
We are prepared to consider all appropriate opportunities to ensure that we influence the Russian authorities for the better on human rights. I would not rule out the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion, although it depends a little on which individual we are talking about.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
Democratic elections in the Maldives were suspended nearly two months ago. What are the Government doing to make sure that these elections take place?
Foreign Affairs and General Affairs Councils (21-22 October)
David Lidington Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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 (FAC) on 21 October and I attended the General Affairs Council (GAC) on 22 October. 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 by the Lithuanian Presidency. The meetings were held in Luxembourg.
Commissioners Füle (Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy) and Piebalgs (Development) were in attendance for some of the discussions at the 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/139093.pdf
Introduction- Iran
Baroness Ashton updated Ministers on the E3+3/Iran talks in Geneva, and the issuing of the first joint statement. The next meeting would be on 7-8 November in Geneva with experts discussions in advance.
Introduction- Serbia/Kosovo
Baroness Ashton briefed on the 17th round of the Serbia/Kosovo facilitated dialogue, the elections preparations, and noted that the EU's Election Observation Mission had begun its work.
Introduction- Bosnia and Herzegovina
Baroness Ashton highlighted the Conclusions agreed on Bosnia and Herzegovina, which emphasise the importance of implementing the European Court of Human Rights ruling on the Sejdic-Finci constitutional issue, and commit to a broader discussion on Bosnia and Herzegovina at the November Foreign Affairs Council. They also signal the EU's readiness to renew the executive mandate of Operation EUFOR Althea for another year.
Introduction- Maldives
Baroness Ashton expressed her concern that the Presidential election in the Maldives had again not proceeded, and stated that the EU needed to monitor the situation closely.
Eastern Partnership
Baroness Ashton looked forward to a successful Summit at Vilnius in November, noting the backdrop of increased Russian activism. Ministers exchanged views on Ukraine's progress in implementing the conditions for the possible signature of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement. The Foreign Secretary stated that the EU needed to keep the focus on Ukraine's reform progress, until the Vilnius Summit and beyond. The Foreign Secretary also underlined that closer economic ties between the EU and Eastern Partners would have significant economic benefits for the wider region including Russia.
Southern Neighbourhood
On Egypt, Baroness Ashton briefed Ministers following her most recent visit to Cairo. Ministers expressed strong support for her efforts. The Foreign Secretary argued that the EU should address the issue of political detainees, and supported electoral observation by the EU of the constitutional referendum.
On Syria, Ministers emphasised that progress towards Geneva II and a political solution remained the priority; underlined the importance of the UN Security Council Resolution 2118 (2013) on Syrian chemical weapons; and stressed that the humanitarian situation remained dire. Ministers agreed Conclusions which, in particular, reiterated that the objective of Geneva II would be swift establishment, by mutual consent, of a transitional governing body with full executive powers and control of all governmental and all security institutions, and underlined that there should be no impunity for human rights abuses, including those committed with conventional weapons.
On Libya, Ministers agreed that EU support would be important in helping Libya to address the migratory situation. The Foreign Secretary emphasised the need to focus on practical support following recent tragic events, with the UK offering support to the Libyan security sector. He stated that the EU should focus on ensuring that the EU Border Assistance Mission in Libya delivered training as quickly as possible.
Burma
Before lunch with Aung San Suu Kyi, Baroness Ashton gave an overview of Burma's continuing reform process, highlighting progress made and the remaining challenges. In November she will lead a taskforce to Burma, the first outside Europe's neighbourhood, aimed at bringing EU representatives and businesses to Burma to offer comprehensive EU support for the transition to democracy.
Over lunch, Aung San Suu Kyi highlighted the central importance of amending the Burmese constitution in order to allow for credible presidential elections. The Foreign Secretary underlined his support for constitutional change, and the role the EU could play, including in supporting and monitoring the 2015 elections. He also raised the plight of the Rohingya and other ethnic and religious tensions.
AOB- Central African Republic
The Foreign Minister of France, Laurent Fabius, debriefed on his recent joint visit with Commissioner Georgieva (International Co-operation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response), outlining three central concerns: the security situation; the humanitarian crisis; and the political process. Conclusions were agreed.
Other business
Ministers agreed without discussion a number of other measures:
The Council adopted the EU position for the EU-Serbia Stabilisation and Association Council.
The Council adopted conclusions on Yemen.
The Council adopted conclusions on the special report No 4/2013 of the Court of Auditors concerning EU cooperation with Egypt in the field of governance.
The Council extended the EU restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea, consisting of restrictions on admission to the EU and asset freezes, until 27 October 2014.
The Council allocated €8.05 million from the EU budget to support the activities of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on nuclear security and verification.
The Council adopted conclusions on the new challenges presented by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their delivery systems.
The Council adopted the second part (country reports) of the EU annual report on human rights and democracy. The first part (thematic reports) was adopted on 6 June 2013.
General Affairs Council
The 22 October GAC focused on: the preparation for the October European Council, which the Prime Minister attended on 24-25 October; the next stage of the European semester; macro-regional strategies; and enlargement.
A provisional report of the meeting and Conclusions adopted can be found at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/genaff/139118.pdf
Preparation of the 24-25 October European Council
The GAC discussed the 24-25 October European Council, both in the plenary session of the General Affairs Council and over lunch with the President of the European Council, Herman van Rompuy. This European Council had an extensive agenda covering: the digital economy, innovation and services; growth, competitiveness and jobs; Economic and Monetary Union; the Eastern Partnership summit; and migration issues, following the tragedy in Lampedusa.
I signalled our strong support for the digital agenda, emphasising the importance of the Digital Single Market in promoting growth but reminding my counterparts of the need to avoid setting unrealistic timelines, including on data protection. I also stressed the need for further progress in the services agenda and reducing regulation.
The Commission had recently produced a welcome report on reducing regulation titled REFIT. This looked at how to improve regulation across the board. The Prime Minister has consistently championed this work and has separately challenged businesses to identify the most burdensome regulations. The Business Taskforce which responded to this challenge, presented its report drawn from the views of over 100 businesses from across Europe. The Taskforce report put forward 30 clear recommendations to remove or improve the EU rules that are the most burdensome to businesses.
European Semester
The Lithuanian Presidency presented their 'synthesis report' on lessons learned in this year's European Semester. The European Semester gives macro-economic and fiscal guidance to Member States, assessing the implementation of the Compact for Growth and Jobs agreed by the June 2012 European Council. The discussion that followed the presentation raised the importance of ensuring that the timing of recommendations is right.
Enlargement (Turkey)
The Council agreed to confirm the EU common position for the opening of chapter 22 dialogue on regional policy and co-ordination of structural instruments with Turkey, and to convene an Accession Conference at Ministerial level on 5 November in Brussels to do so. This will be the first chapter opened with Turkey for three years. There will be a more general debate on enlargement at the GAC on 17 December.
Macro-Regional Strategies
Following a presentation by the Commission, the GAC endorsed conclusions on macro-regional strategies and exchanged views on the added value of the existing strategies. The draft conclusions on macro-regional strategies reiterated that they should require no new money (though structural and cohesion funds already allocated to those regions could be channelled towards projects complementing the macro-regional strategies); no new institutions and no new legislation. The conclusions set out preconditions that would help make any new strategies effective. France also presented its plans for a new macro-regional strategy; the Alpine Region Strategy.
Greenpeace Activists in the Russian Federation
David Lidington Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on securing this debate. The attendance this morning and the passion with which right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have spoken indicate clearly to anyone studying our proceedings, in this country or Russia, that there are extremely strong feelings in Parliament and among the wider British public about what has happened offshore and in Murmansk.
In the 11 or 12 minutes remaining, I will focus on the British nationals who have been detained. That is not to dismiss the importance of wider issues of Arctic policy that the hon. Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), raised. The Government published a new policy framework document on the Arctic last week, and there may be opportunities for a wider debate on those matters in the House.
The arrest of the six British nationals who were on board the Greenpeace vessel Arctic Sunrise was, and remains, of great concern to the British Government. We hope that there will be a resolution to the incident that is acceptable to all parties. The priorities that govern our approach at the moment are, first, to try to do everything we can to ensure the proper welfare of the British citizens and the two New Zealanders detained—the New Zealand Government have asked us to take responsibility for providing consular support—and, secondly, to find an outcome to the affair that is acceptable to all parties concerned.
We learned of the arrest of those aboard the Greenpeace vessel on 19 September, and on the same day we decided to deploy a consular team to Murmansk before the vessel got into port. We contacted the Russian authorities to secure access rights, and on 24 September, consular officials were able to meet the British nationals when they arrived in Murmansk to check their welfare and collect messages to pass back to their families.
Murmansk is some 1,000 miles from Moscow, and we do not have a permanent British consulate there, but because of the seriousness of the incident and the number of people involved, each week we have dispatched a team of officials to Murmansk from our missions in Moscow and St Petersburg. Our consular officials attended the preliminary court hearings for all British nationals between 26 and 29 September. As the House knows, all 30 detainees were remanded for up to two months and transferred to pre-trial detention facilities while the authorities investigated further. Both before and after the hearings, our consular officials were allowed to talk to the British citizens and take messages from them to pass to concerned relatives in the United Kingdom.
Our officials carried out further consular visits to all six British detainees on 3 and 4 October. We were able to check on their welfare and address any concerns; this included helping to ensure that one British national who had earlier collapsed in court received appropriate support. We have since continued to visit the British nationals regularly, and our officials were present during the appeal hearings that concluded this week. As the House knows, the court dismissed all the appeals and upheld detention. Due to our lobbying efforts, at present all the British nationals are being held in the same detention facility, and have had regular access to Greenpeace lawyers.
Briefly, on the points raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda, our understanding is that all the detainees have access to lawyers, who were provided by Greenpeace in the first instance. We have also provided lists of local lawyers who we understand are able to do business in English—clearly, the FCO cannot vouch for the quality of any particular legal representative. We take up with the Russian authorities any concerns about prison conditions and access to appropriate medical treatment, as well as other concerns that detainees may have. Our latest information is that some of the detainees are sharing cells and others are in a cell on their own. We have raised any concerns expressed to us by the detainees with the prison authorities. The detainees are telling us at the moment that the conditions are what they term “broadly acceptable.” I am not saying that the conditions are comfortable in the remotest, but the detainees themselves describe the conditions as “broadly acceptable.”
Our priority is to ensure that we continue to provide consular assistance to the British nationals in Murmansk and to maintain contact with their families here in the UK. I have made it clear to my officials that when it comes to prison conditions and access to visits of any kind, I want to ensure that we hold the Russians to the letter of what they offer under their own prison rules, law and constitution.
On 2 October, the Russian investigative authority charged all 30 detainees with acts of piracy. Bearing in mind the clearly stated view of President Putin, many hon. Members will have been surprised that piracy charges were brought. The UN definition of piracy in the convention on the law of the sea does not appear to uphold the charges. The charges, however, are being brought under a particular provision of the Russian criminal code. I agree with those who have said during this debate that the key issue is the proportionality of the charges. We are in regular touch with Greenpeace lawyers on that issue, but the legal picture is complicated by the Russians arguing that the action comes under their domestic law.
As some hon. Members have commented, the Dutch have taken the ship’s detention to international arbitration. That is a legal matter for the Dutch as flag nation, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) said, but we remain in close contact with the Dutch authorities on that aspect of the case.
Mr Lidington
With respect to my hon. and learned Friend, I am not here to comment on the Russian legal case. I am certainly not saying that we agree with the case, but the Russian argument is that the Russian domestic criminal code applies to the rig, and that the small boats from the main vessel that approached close to the rig were in breach of that criminal code. That is the Russian argument, and it may be something to take up in more detail with the Russian ambassador when hon. Members meet him.
It is not only in Murmansk that we have taken action. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the issue with the Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in New York on 25 September, and he followed that with a letter to him on 6 October. Senior FCO officials raised the case with the Russian ambassador to the United Kingdom on 26 September. Our ambassador in Moscow raised the case with deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov on 2 October and met deputy Foreign Minister Titov yesterday to discuss the case further. We will maintain that senior-level engagement. We continue to use working-level contacts with the Russian Government, and to explore other options to raise the issue with senior Russian interlocutors.
Mr Bradshaw
Is the Minister saying that the Prime Minister has not picked up the phone to President Putin, as Chancellor Merkel has? That is outrageous.
Mr Lidington
We continue to keep under review at what level and with what sort of approach it is right to make approaches to the Russian Government. Our priority is to try to get the best possible outcome for the British nationals who have been detained. The Prime Minister is taking the very close interest that the House would expect, both as Head of Government and as a constituency Member of Parliament. As the Foreign Office Minister dealing with the case, I can testify that the Prime Minister’s involvement and interest are continuous and intense. He has also been in personal touch with other European Heads of Government—in particular, he has been in touch with Prime Minister Rutte of the Netherlands—and he will continue to be so.
Chris Bryant
It would be a good idea if the Prime Minister were to get in touch directly with Putin. Specifically, the Prime Minister should be saying that using piracy charges undermines the law of piracy across the rest of the world. That is why those charges are like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Mr Lidington
The hon. Gentleman makes his point with the courtesy with which he has addressed the subject throughout the debate. We have been in touch with the Governments whose citizens are being detained, and we have taken a lead at local level in Russia on co-ordinating the efforts of other nations with detained nationals.
I will look further into the question that the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) raised about his letter, because I am concerned to hear him say that he has been waiting for more than a month. We will get back to him as quickly as possible.
We have not forgotten the families here in the United Kingdom and what they are obviously going through. On 10 October, I met parliamentarians representing the detained nationals and representatives from the constituency offices of MPs. My officials met the families themselves on 16 October, and I hope to agree a date next month when I can meet the families and hon. Members representing them, so that I can hear directly from the families any concerns that they have, and so that I can talk to them about the work being done on the case by the FCO and the British Government generally. One issue raised by the families is the chance to talk to their relatives by telephone.
I am conscious that time is running out, so I propose to address the issues that I have been unable to address today in writing to the hon. Member for Rhondda, and I will place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House so that it may be circulated to the families concerned.
EU-Ukraine Association Agreement
David Lidington Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I wish to inform the House that the Government have opted in to the following measures:
(i) the Council decision on the signing, on behalf of the EU, and provisional application of an association agreement between the EU and its member states, and Ukraine.
(ii) the Council decision on the conclusion of the association agreement between the EU and its member states, and Ukraine.
The EU-Ukraine association agreement, including a deep and comprehensive free trade area, will deepen and broaden the political and economic relationship between the EU, its member states, and Ukraine. The agreement process supports and encourages reform in Ukraine to bring it closer to EU norms, as well giving Ukraine gradual access to parts of the EU internal market.
UK Government policy is to support a closer relationship between the EU and Ukraine, while continuing to make clear to Ukraine that they need to deliver demonstrable improvements. We have not yet taken a decision on whether to recommend signature of the agreement which is dependent on sufficient progress on reform by Ukraine. I underlined all of these points during my September visit to Ukraine.
The Council decisions relate to an agreement which contains provisions relating to the temporary movement of natural persons for business purposes—known as “mode 4” trade in services—and the readmission of third country nationals, thus triggering the UK Justice and Home Affairs opt-in. I believe it is in the UK’s interest to opt in to these measures, which are an integral part of our wider approach on trade and support our other commitments in services and investment liberalisation.
Foreign Affairs and General Affairs Councils
David Lidington Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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 21 October, and I will attend the General Affairs Council (GAC) on 22 October. 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 Lithuanian presidency. The meetings will be held in Luxembourg.
Introduction—middle east peace process
Baroness Ashton will outline progress on the middle east peace process, including on the EU settlement guidelines. We do not expect discussion, but if it ensues we will reaffirm our support for the negotiation process, our continued support for the economic track and our position on the EU settlement guidelines, as necessary.
Introduction—Iran
Baroness Ashton is expected to report back to the Foreign Affairs Council on the E3+3 talks with Iran taking place 15-16 October in Geneva. No discussion is expected.
Introduction—Serbia-Kosovo
Baroness Ashton is likely to update Ministers on the EU-facilitated Serbia/Kosovo dialogue. We welcome Baroness Ashton’s leadership on this and welcome the progress made, including on agreements on energy and telecoms. Implementation of dialogue agreements by both sides needs to continue and there is more to do more on integration of police and justice structures in north Kosovo. The smooth passage of municipal elections in Kosovo in November will be important.
Introduction—Africa
We expect Baroness Ashton to raise Africa during her introductory remarks, focusing on: Kenya, including the recent terrorist attack at the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi; Somalia, highlighting the importance of maintaining the support to AMISOM in the fight against al-Shabaab; and the Central African Republic where Ministers will agree Council conclusions that highlight the continuing poor security and humanitarian situation.
Introduction—EU-China summit
Baroness Ashton will provide an update on preparations for upcoming high-level meetings, including the EU-China summit, which is scheduled for 21-22 November. “Green growth in a safer world” is the overall headline, with prosperity, security and sustainable development as supporting themes. We do not expect a discussion.
Eastern Partnership
The Eastern Partnership discussion will focus on the preparations for the Vilnius summit and Ukraine’s progress against the December 2012 FAC conclusions. The UK is a firm supporter of Ukraine’s EU aspirations, and has made clear that progress towards a closer relationship with the EU requires Ukraine to demonstrate its commitment to EU principles including the rule of law. Ukraine is an important EU neighbour and a closer relationship between Ukraine and the EU will benefit both parties economically and in terms of European security. Ministers may also discuss how the EU should respond to recent Russian pressure on eastern partners in advance of the Vilnius summit. The UK is clear that a closer relationship with the EU will bring clear benefits to eastern partners, through improved trade opportunities, business environment, and rule of law, and that this is in Russia’s long-term interests as well as the EU’s.
Southern neighbourhood
On Syria, we will continue to encourage convening of the Geneva II talks for a political settlement in Syria by mid-November, including by supporting the moderate opposition. We will encourage the EU to contribute additional funding for humanitarian aid and the mission of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons programme. We will encourage member states to do all they can to support September’s UN Security Council resolution on destroying Syria’s chemical weapons programme and presidential statement on increased humanitarian access in Syria.
On Egypt, Baroness Ashton will brief Ministers on her visit to Cairo in early October where she met with a wide range of interlocutors. Ministers will also discuss the EU’s internal review of assistance to Egypt. The UK remains committed to supporting Egypt in its political transition, and to supporting the strengthening of democratic institutions. There will be conclusions on Egypt.
Burma
There will be a short discussion of Burma at the FAC, before Foreign Ministers join Aung San Suu Kyi for lunch, who is visiting Luxembourg and the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
The lunch with Aung San Suu Kyi will be an opportunity to hear her views on the reform process in Burma and discuss her priorities as we move closer to national elections in 2015.
General Affairs Council
The 22 October GAC will focus on the preparation for the 24-25 October European Council, the next stage of the European semester, macro-regional strategies and possibly enlargement.
Preparation of the 24-25 October European Council
The GAC will prepare the 24-25 October European Council. This European Council has an extensive agenda covering: the digital economy, innovation and services; growth, competitiveness and jobs; economic and monetary union; the Eastern Partnership summit; and migration issues, following the tragedy in Lampedusa.
It is very positive that the October European Council has such a strong focus on areas that have the potential to promote growth. We have consistently pressed for action to deliver on many of the areas that will be discussed at this European Council.
I will be arguing for the need for the European Council to prioritise areas where it could go further, such as on the services sector where we would like to see more ambition in the proposals; completing the digital single market by 2015; and continuing the Prime Minister’s drive for the EU to reduce burdensome regulation for business. However I will also be arguing the need to get the details right on issues such as telecoms, where there are complex proposals.
European semester
The GAC will also discuss the European semester, which gives macro-economic and fiscal guidance to member states, assessing implementation of the compact for growth and jobs agreed by the June 2012 European Council. This particular discussion will focus on the lessons learned in 2013 in preparation for the European semester in 2014.
Enlargement—Turkey
Though not yet finally confirmed the GAC may discuss Turkish accession, particularly regarding the formal opening of “Chapter 22—Regional policy and coordination of structural instruments” at an inter- governmental conference this autumn.
Macro-regional strategies
There are two main macro-regional strategies currently in existence, the Baltic sea strategy and the Danube strategy. There are proposals for other strategies including for the Adriatic-Ionian region. These macro-regional strategies are comprehensive frameworks for member state co-operation that have covered a wide range of policy areas from maritime issues to the cross-border delivery of structural and cohesion funded projects and are generally endorsed by the European Council.
The draft conclusions on macro-regional strategies reiterate that they should require no new money (though structural and cohesion funds already allocated to those regions can be channelled towards projects complementing the macro-regional strategies); no new institutions and no new legislation. The conclusions do not propose establishing any new macro-regional strategies but set out preconditions that would help make such strategies effective.
The discussion at the GAC will look at how the existing macro-regional strategies are adding value and lessons learnt from them and the alpine strategy has been added to the agenda as an “AOB” item.
Foreign Affairs Council/General Affairs Council
David Lidington Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
The 30 September General Affairs Council (GAC) focused on cohesion policy and the preparation for the 24-25 October European Council. I also provided the Ministers of the GAC with an update on the work we are doing on our balance of competences exercise.
Cohesion Policy
The GAC discussed a key issues paper that was prepared by the presidency. This paper focused on outstanding areas of disagreement with the European Parliament on the cohesion policy legislative package for 2014-20. This paper raised four main issues: macro-economic conditionality; the performance reserve; co-financing; and pre-financing.
On macro-economic conditionality I restated that the UK’s opt-out from sanctions for macro-economic conditionality agreed in the February European Council must be preserved. I also highlighted that the European Parliament should not have a role in decisions linked to economic governance beyond the economic dialogue that has already been established, even where as with macro-economic conditionality these decisions do not apply to the UK.
The performance reserve is intended to reward good performance when using cohesion funding and ensure that these funds are spent as effectively as possible. The focus of discussion was over the percentage of the funds allocated to the performance reserve. I maintained that any agreement must respect the ceilings agreed at the February European Council and emphasised the importance of agreeing rules that improved the efficiency and transparency of EU spending.
Likewise, co-financing rates underpin the effective use of structural funds. I argued that this purpose should not be diluted unnecessarily and that any changes to the co-financing rates should not alter the ceilings of expenditure agreed in February.
Initial pre-financing addresses cash-flow issues by providing a proportion of spending at the start of programmes. Here I raised our concern that the proposals could increase the levels of reste á liquider (build up of unspent commitments), which create uncertainty in the future levels of spending.
Preparation of the October European Council
The GAC discussed the draft annotated European Council agenda in preparation for the 24 and 25 October Heads of State and Government meeting. The agenda covers the digital single market; better regulation, including an update from the European Commission on regulatory fitness (REFIT); services liberalisation; innovation; an update on latest developments on economic and monetary union; and an open item for discussion on the current foreign policy at the time of the European Council.
I strongly supported the pro-growth agenda set for the October European Council. I highlighted that e-commerce, copyright, e-payment and big data, building on the G8 open data charter, are areas where particular priority should be given to achieve the greatest impact.
I also highlighted the need to continue the work to reduce the regulatory burdens on businesses. A number of UK businesses were conducting a review on the top 10 most burdensome EU regulations. I underlined that it would be important to listen to what business had to say.
Balance of Competences
I briefed the GAC on the six first semester reports of the balance of competences review. The intention of this review is to provide a mechanism for objective analysis based on evidence from a wide range of sources, rather than to recommend policy outcomes. The first six reports show there were clearly areas where the EU plays a positive role, but that there are also areas where changes could be made to make the EU work better.
Russia: Arrest of British Nationals (Greenpeace)
David Lidington Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I wish to inform the House of developments concerning the arrest of 30 people, including six British nationals who were onboard the Arctic Sunrise in the Arctic circle. All have all been charged with “committing acts of piracy”, and the investigation continues.
Since we were made aware of the detention of the ship on 19 September, our priority has been to provide full consular assistance to the six British nationals, and to their families and friends in the UK. This has included ensuring their welfare and that they have access to lawyers. We have also provided consular support to two New Zealand nationals.
Murmansk is around 1,500 km from Moscow. We deployed a consular team prior to the vessel’s arrival in port and arranged for access to the detained. On 24 September consular officials met the British nationals on their arrival in Murmansk.
Subsequently, our consular officials were in attendance for the preliminary court hearings for the British nationals between 26 and 29 September. All 30 detainees were placed on remand for up to two months and transferred to pre-trial detention facilities while the authorities carried out further investigation. Before and after the hearings, consular officials were permitted to talk with the British nationals and take messages from them to pass to concerned relatives in the UK.
On 2 October the Russian Investigative Authority charged all 30 detainees with acts of piracy. Consular officials carried out further consular visits on 3 and 4 October to all six British nationals, and one of the New Zealand nationals. We were able to check on their welfare and address any concerns. We are working closely with the Russian authorities and we remain grateful for their continued co-operation. Going forward, we will remain in regular contact with the British detainees and continue to provide all appropriate consular assistance. We are working closely with Greenpeace to address any concerns they may have about due process and welfare.
On 3 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met John Sauven, Greenpeace executive director and Ruth Davis, Greenpeace political director, to discuss their concerns. He made it clear that he was following the case closely and that he had spoken with Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov in New York on 25 September. The Foreign Secretary said we would remain in close contact with all other nations whose citizens were involved, and make representations to the Russian authorities if necessary.
Senior Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials have also raised the case with Russia’s ambassador to the UK on 26 September and our ambassador in Moscow raised the case with Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov on 2 October.