EU Foreign Ministers Meeting

David Lidington Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attended the informal Foreign Ministers meeting on 6 and 7 September in Vilnius, Lithuania.

The informal format of the Gymnich allows EU Foreign Ministers to engage in a free-ranging discussion on a number of issues. In contrast to arrangements in the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC), Ministers do not agree any formal written conclusions. The next FAC is due to be held on 21 October.

The Gymnich was chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland. Her remarks following the meeting, and the statement issued reflecting the position agreed by all member states on Syria, can be found at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/138691.pdf.

The meeting was structured around three themes: common security and defence policy (CSDP) and the December 2013 European Council discussion on defence; eastern partnership; and the southern neighbourhood.

Commissioners Füle (enlargement and european neighbourhood policy) and Georgieva (international co-operation, humanitarian aid and crisis response) were in attendance for some of the discussions, as were US Secretary of State John Kerry, and Elmar Brok MEP, chairman of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs.

CSDP/December European Council discussion on Defence

Ministers welcomed Baroness Ashton’s draft interim report on proposals for the December Council. There was broad support for improved CSDP co-ordination with international actors, especially NATO, the US and the UN, with some Ministers calling for greater engagement with eastern partners, and Turkey. Ministers also considered how the EU could develop its role in response to new challenges, including cyber security, energy security, and maritime security.

The Foreign Secretary said that the December European Council was a real opportunity to signal how the EU can contribute to global security, to agree practical improvements to CSDP and to ensure that European partners had the capabilities both civilian and military to act, whether through the EU or NATO. The EU’s comparative strength was the ability to deploy a spectrum of political, military and civilian tools as part of a comprehensive approach to conflict prevention, crisis management and stabilisation. Baroness Ashton concluded by saying that her final report would aim to build a consensual approach.

Eastern Partnership

Baroness Ashton argued that the Vilnius summit should show partners the real value in their relationship with the EU. Foreign Ministers discussed latest developments in the region, including progress of reforms and eastern partners’ relationships with Russia.

The Foreign Secretary emphasised the importance of keeping a focus on judicial reform and tackling corruption in Ukraine. Baroness Ashton concluded by encouraging member states to keep up their strong support for reform.

Southern Neighbourhood: MEPP

Secretary Kerry briefed EU Foreign Ministers on the middle east peace process (MEPP) and emphasised that the US could not succeed without EU support. He noted that, while the cost of failure would be great, success would open up political and economic benefits in the wider region. Ministers reiterated their strong backing for Secretary Kerry’s efforts. Secretary Kerry also raised implementation of recent guidelines on the eligibility of Israeli entities for EU funding.

Southern Neighbourhood: Syria

Ministers considered the issue of Syria, including possible military action. The Foreign Secretary stated that the evidence on regime culpability was clear, and that the EU should support an early response which deterred further use, avoid being prescriptive on the UN process, push the political track, and step up support for the humanitarian effort in line with the Prime Minister’s initiative launched at the G20.

Ministers agreed a statement to be issued by Baroness Ashton (see above link) which: condemns in the strongest terms the 21 August attack as a war crime and a crime against humanity; notes “strong evidence” of regime responsibility; calls for a “clear and strong response”; underscores the need to address the Syrian crisis through the UN process, welcomes Hollande’s decision to await the inspectors' report, and calls on the UN Security Council to fulfil its responsibilities; notes the individual responsibility of perpetrators before the International Criminal Court; calls for the swift convening of the Geneva II peace conference; and restates the EU’s support for humanitarian assistance. At his press conference afterwards Secretary Kerry said he was very grateful for this “strong statement”.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lidington Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I very much welcome the considerable progress that Serbia and Kosovo have already made, including their historic agreement on 19 April this year. There is still more to do, but I am confident that if both sides remain committed, full normalisation will be achieved.

[Wayne David]

I am sure that the Minister for Europe will join me in congratulating both the United Nations and the EU High Representative on their efforts to bring a better relationship between Kosovo and Serbia, but what does he identify as the next crucial step in normalising the relationship between Pristina and Belgrade?

[Mr Lidington]

I endorse what the hon. Gentleman says about congratulating both the United Nations and the EU High Representative on their work to achieve progress. The next steps are the full implementation of what has been agreed under the dialogue and urgent efforts to take forward some of the key outstanding issues, such as telecommunications, energy and agreement on arrangements for municipal elections later this year. Of course, we have to ensure that conditionality on normalisation is hard-wired into the framework for Serbia’s accession negotiations.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Kosovo would not exist if we and other members of the international community had not intervened in the mayhem and disintegration of the former Republic of Yugoslavia? Is there not a choice for this country about whether we want to continue to be a country of influence or one of isolation and whether we want our children to continue to write history or simply to read it?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I would simply add that the decision that the then Government took and Parliament supported in respect of Kosovo showed that the UK saw that its national interests were served by stability in south-east Europe and were not confined to the immediate vicinity of our territory.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Serbia is a candidate country to join the EU, but Kosovo is only a potential candidate. Is there a way to ensure that the timetables coincide, so that both countries can be treated equally and join the EU at the same time?

[Mr Lidington]

We have consistently taken a policy towards EU enlargement that says that there should not be artificial timetables, but that each country’s progress should be determined by its success in meeting specific accession criteria. That is the right approach to take. What is important is that we make it clear that the normalisation of relations with Kosovo is integral to the entire Serbian accession process. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the Commission is about to launch negotiations for a stabilisation and association agreement with Kosovo. That is a very clear signal of its European perspective, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

16. What plans he has to increase the role of national Parliaments in the EU.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

National Parliaments are the fundamental source of democratic legitimacy in the European Union. We are developing ideas to increase the powers of national Parliaments to hold EU decision makers to account, including more effective scrutiny and better checks on the proportionality and subsidiarity of EU legislation.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He has raised the question of introducing a red card that would enable national Parliaments to resist future legislation. Would he consider also applying that to existing legislation to enable Governments to get rid of some of the more onerous legislation put out by the EU?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend puts her finger on a point that is a cause of frustration not just to us, but to the Governments of a number of European Union member states, namely that there are pieces of legislation on the European statute book that burden industry and that Governments wish to revisit. The retrospective red card that my hon. Friend advocates would, indeed, be a smart way to resolve this problem.

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

It is also important, of course, that EU Governments and member states comply with the decisions of the European Court. Will the Government now consider taking to the European Council the question of the British and other European citizens who have failed to get justice and equal pension rights from the Italian Government for more than 20 years, in spite of numerous decisions by the Italian courts?

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman has been a consistent champion of the rights of the lettori in Italy, and I pay tribute to his work on that. We will certainly explore every possible avenue to ensure that the Italian Government deliver on their clear legal and moral responsibilities to ensure that those lecturers are paid the money to which they are entitled.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

T3. The report about the balance of competences review came out in the summer. Does my right hon. Friend agree, like me, with the recommendation that we should seek to curtail the initiative of the Commission to propose over-regulative directives?

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

As my hon. Friend says, we certainly need to look for every opportunity to curtail over-burdensome regulation. Indeed, last year we led a successful initiative to exempt micro-businesses from future EU regulations as a default position. That shows that the Government not only make promises, but deliver results in Europe.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

T2. Further to the Foreign Secretary’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love), may I press the Government to be more explicit about what progress they are seeking ahead of the meeting in November, given the very worrying reports about human rights violations in Sri Lanka?

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

T4. This morning the Azerbaijan all-party group, which I chair, met Azerbaijan’s Foreign Minister. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the recently announced BP-led trans-Adriatic pipeline further augments our relations with that country, and say what further steps the FCO can take to cement our relations with that important player in the south Caucasus?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Yesterday I talked to our ambassador-designate to Azerbaijan, who will go out to Baku within a matter of days. We warmly welcome the work of the BP consortium on the pipeline, and it is a further development of what is already a substantial British economic relationship with Azerbaijan. The Government will do everything they can to foster that relationship, while at the same time having open conversations with our Azerbaijani counterparts about other issues that matter to us both, including security and human rights.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

T5. Last week the Foreign Secretary tweeted that he had spoken to John Kerry after last Thursday’s vote. Has he also spoken to his Russian counterpart since the vote? If not, why not, and, if he has, what was said?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)]

T8. Over the summer, we have seen a significant increase in homophobic attacks in Russia since the introduction of new anti-gay and anti-lesbian laws there. What representations has the Minister made to the Russian Government on that issue, and will he commit to raising it at the G20?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are very concerned not only about the attacks he mentions, but about the new legislation that the Russian Duma has placed on the statute book. Those concerns have been raised directly with the Russians by the Prime Minister, by the Foreign Secretary and by me. It is the Prime Minister’s intention to talk to President Putin about the matter in the context of other human rights conversations this week.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

In seven days’ time, the people of Gibraltar will celebrate their national day. I hope they can do so in a spirit of peace and stability. I welcome the statements that the Secretary of State has made from the Dispatch Box today, but may I make it abundantly clear to the Spanish that, if they continue their hostility towards the British people of Gibraltar, he will tell the Spanish ambassador in London to pack his sombrero, straw donkey and sangria, and go?

Charitable Support Work Romanian Orphanages)

David Lidington Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I thank the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) for raising the important issue of conditions in Romanian orphanages. You will know, Mr Speaker, that the promotion and protection of human rights are at the heart of UK Government foreign policy objectives. All hon. Members would agree that orphaned children have a right to be cared for appropriately and with compassion, and that we in government should do what we can to support work to that end. I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said about the efforts made by the British embassy and the team under Ambassador Martin Harris. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman’s comments are relayed to the team.

The hon. Gentleman remarked on the fact that we first became aware of the unspeakable conditions that prevailed in Romanian orphanages in 1989, when the regime of President Ceausescu was overthrown. Thousands of children lived in appalling conditions in state institutions. It is good to be able to say that, since that time, a large number of substandard institutions have been closed, and that many of the remaining institutions have improved both their services and their standards. As the hon. Gentleman has said, there is work to be done, but we should acknowledge the progress that has been made and the part played in that by British charities, which have actively worked towards such improvements in Romania ever since the revolution.

Charities from this country have provided support and facilities to Romanian orphanages, and have helped to raise awareness, both nationally and internationally, of the poor conditions still encountered there. I shall refer to the list of such charities. The Hope and Homes charity for children has its largest programme in Romania, and has worked with national and local authorities there to improve services in certain orphanages, and to close substandard ones where appropriate. It has worked with the Romanian Government and its partners, Absolute Return for Kids. Hope and Homes has pledged to end institutionalised care for children in Romania by 2020.

Other British charities operating in the field include SOS Children’s Villages, the Foundation for the Relief of Disabled Orphans—FRODO—Children in Distress and Muzika. FARA has worked in Romania since 1991. I was delighted to see that FARA’s chairwoman, Jane Nicholson, was awarded an MBE earlier this year for her work in Romania.

Other charities operate to help not only orphaned children but children more widely within Romania. Those charities include The Little People, which helps children with cancer; Hospices with Hope, which has been building palliative care facilities; Light into Europe, which works with the blind; and Nightingale’s, which works with orphaned children and young adults who have HIV. That is just a snapshot; it is not an exhaustive list of what the British charity sector does in Romania. Like the hon. Gentleman, I pay tribute to Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne for her energy and dedication in championing at the highest level the fight to improve conditions for children in Romania.

The UK Government, too, are active. We have supported and worked with the Government of Romania to improve conditions in their state-run facilities for both vulnerable children and adults. To give a few examples, our embassy in Bucharest, with Romania’s National Authority for the Protection of Children’s Rights, has facilitated workshops for 90 practitioners from all over Romania on handling disabled children in their care. We have also helped to foster links between Romanian and British non-governmental organisations through a networking event held at the Romanian Prime Minister’s office. The fact that the Prime Minister of Romania was willing to host such an event indicates that the Romanian Government, at the highest levels, recognise that there have been and continue to be problems with the conditions for children in at least some Romanian orphanages, and that the Romanians are determined to continue to drive through further improvements.

Earlier this summer, the Romanian Ministry of Labour, through its national agency for social inspection, carried out an inspection of 51 neuropsychiatric recovery and rehabilitation centres throughout Romania. As part of that exercise, it visited the two facilities with which the RAP Foundation has had such difficulties, including the Gheorghe Serban centre. Gheorghe Serban received 19 specific recommendations for improvement from the Romanian inspectorate, including the need to provide more space for patients and more nutritious food. The inspector’s report says that the centre is currently undergoing maintenance to improve living conditions. I understand, too, that the state secretary from the Romanian Ministry of Labour visited the centre in June this year and was made fully aware of the situation.

Let me turn to the work of the RAP Foundation and start by paying tribute to the dedication and leadership that Linda Barr has shown over so many years. If the hon. Gentleman would like to bring a delegation from the RAP Foundation to see me, he would be welcome to do so. RAP works to reduce social exclusion, to support higher standards of care and to increase the skills and opportunities for disadvantaged children and young adults in Romania, particularly in the capital city, Bucharest. The Government appreciate enormously the RAP Foundation’s work in two care facilities in Bucharest sector 2.

For many years, the RAP Foundation, together with its Romanian partner, the Romanian Angels Association, has been taking disadvantaged children and young adults on much needed and very well received summer breaks to the Romanian Black sea coast. I was concerned when I heard earlier this year of the possibility that the local authorities might refuse permission for this year’s holiday to take place. I subsequently instructed the British ambassador to meet the local mayor as a matter of urgency. That meeting took place on 24 July, and on the following day the mayor granted permission for the holiday to go ahead. I was very pleased to hear that Linda Barr wrote to the British Embassy on 26 August to say that their party was at the Black sea enjoying the holiday, and was in high spirits.

I know too, as the hon. Gentleman has told the House, that the RAP Foundation has had difficulties with Social Services—the DGASPC—in Bucharest sector 2, in gaining access to two facilities, especially the Gheorghe Serban centre. Under Romanian law, services within state institutions can be provided only by a registered provider of social care. That means that RAP has no legal right to insist on access to these institutions. As the hon. Gentleman said, it has traditionally worked through its Romanian partner, the Romanian Angels Association. It is also the case that while the central Government in Romania have responsibility for overall policy regarding state institutions, including orphanages, individual institutions fall under the responsibility of local government within Romania. For that reason our judgment is that difficulties are usually best tackled, at least in the first instance, by direct contact between our embassy team in Bucharest and the local mayor and others at local authority level, because they are the people who have direct responsibility for the surveillance and management of those Romanian state institutions.

I have asked the British Embassy to continue to support the work of RAP and to try to mediate dialogue between the foundation and the social services in Bucharest Sector 2. I very much hope that, following the successful holiday this year, the relationship will be put back on the right footing and developed further in an effective manner, and above all in a way that provides the greatest possible opportunities to the children, whose interests should lie at the heart of all our considerations.

In conclusion, I am aware that the scale and complexity of the problem of Romanian orphanages have been reduced significantly since the 1989 revolution, but there is still cause for concern about the standards of care in some Romanian facilities and a lot still to be done. The efforts of the Romanian Government—combined with the contribution and support of British and international charities, and with the encouragement of the international community to improve the situation—remain necessary to ensure that the work to drive up standards continues.

I would like once again to thank the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway for raising this important issue and to reassure him plainly not only that we will continue to monitor the situation closely, but that we stand ready to take action where it is needed, at whatever level in Romania is most appropriate.

Question put and agreed to.

Foreign Affairs Council

David Lidington Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) on 22 July in Brussels. The FAC will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland.

Introduction—Water Security

Baroness Ashton will update the FAC on the EU’s work on water security in her introductory remarks. We do not expect a discussion. Conclusions that acknowledge the importance of water security and endorse the EU water diplomacy strategy paper are under negotiation.

Introduction—Western Balkans

Baroness Ashton will then briefly outline progress on the Serbia/Kosovo dialogue. The UK remains a strong supporter of the EU-facilitated dialogue. It is important that the momentum for normalising relations between Kosovo and Serbia is maintained. We expect conclusions on Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) that focus on support for the EU special representative and for early resolution of the Sejdic-Finci constitutional issue that is preventing BiH’s stabilisation and association agreement from coming into force. These conclusions should mirror the strong messages Commissioner Füle and Baroness Ashton have been passing to BiH’s leaders this month.

Human Rights

Ministers will discuss the EU’s external human rights policy, one year on from the adoption of the EU strategic framework and action plan on human rights and democracy, and the appointment of Mr Stavros Lambrinidis as EU Special Representative for Human Rights. We expect conclusions to be adopted that reaffirm the Council’s determination to promote and protect human rights and democracy around the world.

Southern Neighbourhood

On Syria, we expect Baroness Ashton to update Ministers on progress made in preparing for the Geneva II talks. This will be an oral presentation. The UK will continue to encourage increased humanitarian assistance from EU member states and institutions; to ensure the EU continues to focus on a political solution to the Syria crisis; and to encourage the EU to engage in concrete planning for a post-Assad transition in Syria.

Following the intervention by the armed forces in Egypt, Ministers will discuss the situation in Egypt and consider the EU’s response. The UK remains committed to supporting Egypt in its transition to democracy. We will press for conclusions which make it clear that the Egyptian authorities should make good their promises for a swift return to democratic processes; that political leaders and journalists who have been detained are charged with recognised crimes or released; and that a free media is guaranteed.

Africa

Ministers will discuss a number of issues under the Africa item on the agenda, such as the Great Lakes region, Somalia, Sudan and South Sudan, and Mali.

On the Great Lakes region, Ministers will discuss what an EU strategy in support of the peace, security and co-operation framework for the Great Lakes region should contain. We expect to agree conclusions that focus EU efforts on such work.

Ministers will discuss Somalia, looking ahead to the EU-Somalia conference in Brussels on 16 September, and will agree conclusions that take stock of recent progress and agree priority issues for the coming months. We expect the conference to focus on bringing together Somali and international partners to agree a new deal compact; securing the required financing to implement the Government’s priorities; and providing a platform for the Federal Government of Somalia to set out a clear political vision and process for building an appropriate federal system. The UK will push for ambitious conclusions that set out the EU’s long-term commitment to providing support and assistance to Somalia.

Ministers will also discuss the current setback in implementation of oil and security agreements between Sudan and south Sudan, as well as the conflicts in the Sudanese states of southern Kordofan, Blue Nile and Darfur and the south Sudanese state of Jonglei. The discussion will be an opportunity to agree priorities for EU activity in the coming months. Ministers are expected to agree conclusions.

On Mali, conclusions are being prepared that will record the latest developments in the run-up to presidential elections which begin on 28 July, and will take note of an European External Action Service (EEAS) options paper on possible civilian CSDP activity in Mali in the future. We are urging further discussions with both the UN and the Malians in order to identify clearly how the EU might add value. We expect any discussion at the FAC to focus on these issues.

Eastern Partnership

Baroness Ashton will brief Ministers on her and Commissioner Füle’s recent visits to Moldova, Armenia and Georgia. Ministers will then discuss the proposed outcomes for November’s eastern partnership summit in Vilnius, ahead of a ministerial meeting of the eastern partnership that will take place after the FAC. The ministerial meeting will focus on progress made over the last year and expectations for the summit. The UK supports the efforts of eastern partners in seeking a closer relationship with the EU through association agreements and deep and comprehensive free trade areas on the basis of continued and irreversible political and economic reform.

Middle East Peace Process

The FAC will revert to the middle east peace process as agreed at the June FAC. Ministers will take stock of recent developments, including ongoing US efforts, led by Secretary of State John Kerry, to make progress toward the resumption of direct and substantial negotiations and further consider how the EU can support these efforts.

Lebanon

The evidence that Hizballah’s military wing is a terrorist organisation and that they have engaged in terrorism on EU soil is compelling. That is why we believe that their formal listing by the EU as a terrorist organisation is fully justified. We are working closely with EU partners on this issue and want to reach a robust, collective EU position.

European Union (Referendum) Bill (Money)

David Lidington Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I beg to move,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the European Union (Referendum) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(1) any expenditure of the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act, and

(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.

It is standard Government procedure to introduce a money resolution for any private Member’s Bill to which the House has given a Second Reading to enable the Bill to be fully debated in Committee. It is inevitable that costs would be incurred in holding a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union, and a money resolution is required to enable those costs to be paid.

Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the chair of the Electoral Commission is the chief counting officer, responsible for the conduct of referendums. So far, no detailed estimate has been made of the cost of this national referendum. We do, however, have the precedent of the referendum on the parliamentary voting system in May 2011. We would expect the cost of running a UK-wide referendum to be similar to the cost of that referendum on the alternative vote system, which was just over £75.3 million. Of course, that would depend in part on whether a referendum on EU membership were held alongside local or other elections, as the alternative vote referendum was. I commend the motion to the House.

National Parliaments and the EU

David Lidington Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Westminster Hall

[Ms Stuart]

That is not my recollection. The biggest thing that happened during the convention was the Iraq war, which meant that people’s attention was rightly drawn to other things. However, as I was representing national Parliaments and not the British Government, I had access to the Departments across Whitehall in a way that even a Cabinet Minister probably never has. I had a snapshot of what was happening in various Departments at any given time, and then I saw how people negotiated and traded things.

There is nothing wrong with that, but if we do not know what deals are being struck, we can neither approve nor disapprove. What happens is not uniquely British: every Government comes back with a success that they regard as an ultimate success for their own negotiating position, and think that they have shown all the others how they have failed. Anything that they do not like, they blame on the European Union. We will never be at ease with the decision-making process unless we actually know what is going on. We take notice only of the things that we do not like; there is no cognizance of the things that we do like.

This is about the Europe Minister and the accountability of UKRep. This place needs to get its head around how we can break open that decision-making process and make it accountable here. I think that I am right in saying that we still do not even know whether one of our Ministers was at the Council meeting or whether he or she was represented by a civil servant. Is that information available?

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

Parliament is usually told in advance by a Minister from the appropriate Department who will be in the UK chair for a meeting of the Council. Certainly, for the Foreign Affairs Council and General Affairs Council, I routinely table a written ministerial statement to Parliament that says whether the Foreign Secretary or I will be in the chair. In the subsequent report to Parliament about what happened at Council meetings, we have sometimes said that for a certain item on the agenda, the permanent representative was in the chair.

[Ms Stuart]

That is helpful. I hope that it applies not just to the Foreign Affairs Council but to all meetings that are open, so that we can know afterwards whether the Minister or a civil servant was there.

To give one example, I was on a committee considering defence procurement across Europe. Countries have a veto and can say that it is in their national interest for a particular piece of defence procurement not to come within the single market rules. There was a reference to how often the UK had used that veto, and I wanted to find out through written answers how often that veto was used by other countries, because without comparison with other countries a single figure is utterly meaningless; one cannot tell whether it is excessive or very low.

I think that the UK used its veto about nine times. If France had used its veto 315 times, there would have been something wrong. If France had never used it, I would want to ask a few more questions about why we had. The answer came back that the information was not available. The Foreign Office felt that it was not its job to answer for the European Union, but as an MP, I had no means at that stage to go further and find that information. Similarly, the Dutch had not fully signed up to that agreement. When I tried to find out why, I was told that that was an issue for the Dutch Government. That is a legitimate answer, but it does not allow us to understand how we are represented and how other countries are working on that.

Even if the Prime Minister does not wish to create a new role for a Europe Minister with responsibility across Whitehall—I can see why he might not want to do so, because it takes power away—let us consider the notion of the red card, yellow card or whatever colour it is. The card is meant to be a mechanism by which national Parliaments can say to the Commission, “Thus far, and no further. Step back again.”

When the red card system was first mooted, the Commission was up in arms, because it felt that it was insulting to suggest that it would ever bring anything forward that would breach the principles and could be objected to by two thirds of national Parliaments, or whatever. It subsequently got off its high horse and accepted the principle—but no more than the principle, that we can wave a card, because there is no duty on the Commission to withdraw its proposals or to come back with better proposals. Following the speech of the Foreign Secretary in Berlin, I gather that we now have ideas for an improved version of the red and yellow cards, and I look forward to hearing more about that.

Instead of the card system, however, perhaps the British Government will consider discussing with the Commission the idea of a delete button for legislative proposals. When we have a general election and the Government go, so do their manifesto commitments and legislative proposals; the slate is wiped clean. At the European level, there is no such delete button. Proposals that are not agreed in one parliamentary session, simply refuse to die. A classic example of that is the hallmarking directive, which comes up again every so often, because some countries have a particular interest. We can either negotiate something to death, so that it is almost meaningless, or we end up introducing something that, 10 years ago, when first introduced, was a good idea, but now no longer is.

One example was the effect of the working time directive on junior doctors. Negotiations on the working time directive started in the ’90s, with legitimate concerns about lorry drivers driving for too long, and so on. It was not until 1999 that I ended up trying to negotiate on opt-out for junior doctors, because we could tell that the working hours requirements would mean that the increase in doctors, which the Labour Government was bringing in, would be totally consumed in the first few years. We wanted the directive to be phased, but we then had court judgments that extended it even further. The political impact of that decision did not become apparent until almost 20 years after the original directive.

If democratic accountability means getting rid of decision makers when we think that they have made bad decisions, by the time a European Union decision on some things kicks in, it really is the Schleswig-Holstein question and only three people know the answer: one is mad, another is forgotten and the third is dead. If we had a process of completion that gave us some parliamentary input, we would know where the start and end points were, so we would know where we could use our influence and get the Government to take a stance.

I hope that the Minister will tell us more about the red card, but I also hope that he will say more about whether he envisages Parliament having a role in affecting the decisions of the Government before they go into negotiations. Unless we know beforehand, not only in the European Scrutiny Committee but through a mechanism by which what is about to happen is discussed on the Floor of the House, we cannot influence it. By the time the Minister goes to Brussels, the deals have been struck. Any Ministers who have attended European Council meetings know that they go on the plane, they read their papers, they arrive in Brussels and UKRep gives them a brief with the lines to take. Anyone who tries to unravel anything is told, “That’s the deal; that’s it.” At that stage, anyone short of the Prime Minister cannot unravel the deal.

I want to leave the Minister with a final, incredibly radical thought—a radical retrograde step to some perhaps. At the recent Königswinter conference, I chaired one of the groups and, by way of introduction, I asked everyone to say, going around the table, one thing that they really loved about the European Union and one that they would get rid of tomorrow if we could. The group was half Germans and half Brits, and to my absolute astonishment there was a consensus around the table that the one thing that we should get rid of was the European Parliament. Then I realised the real difference between the Germans and the Brits. We talked about the connection never being made and how a double mandate was the way to link things, but for the Germans the double mandate was to use some MEPs as national MPs, while for the Brits it was to use some nationally elected parliamentarians at the Brussels level.

We must look at the workings of the European Parliament. It will simply not do that our contact with it is getting less and less. With the closed list system, fewer and fewer people know who their MEPs are. The relationship is not only fractured, but virtually non-existent. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say even about some basic things. He may want to correct me, but we do not automatically issue passes for the House of Commons to Members of the European Parliament, so they have to queue up with everyone else. If we want a proper a dialogue, they ought to be here. I remember that we would not let MEPs have dining rights or book a room, because we thought that they would invade this place in order to enjoy the cuisine. [Interruption.] I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer).

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on securing the debate, and on the presentation of her arguments. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) that I have never had any intention of seeking to appear before his Committee via a video link. I have always much preferred that he and I look each other straight in the eye, person to person.

[Mr Cash]

It was not a video link—it was a video.

[Mr Lidington]

Well, that is something best avoided in any meeting with parliamentarians, if humanly possibly.

I will try to respond to the various points that were made, in particular by the hon. Lady. She posed a number of questions and challenges, some of which focused on how we do European business here in Westminster, and others that centred on what might be done in the broader European Union context, and how national Parliaments should fit into the legislative process and decisions taken at European level.

I shall start with the hon. Lady’s points about how we deal with European business here at Westminster. Her most important point was that it was vital to find a way to engage and involve a rather larger number of Members in European business. I have to confess that when I go in to the Chamber for a debate on Europe, or in to a Committee, I feel at times like a cut-price version of Henry V before Agincourt. It is a matter of:

“We few, we happy few”

that are gathered together, and it is very familiar faces, from both sides of the House, that tend to feature. It is, however, not a Government matter, but a problem for Parliament. Parliament must take more seriously its collective responsibility as an institution to see, rightly or wrongly—individual hon. Members will have their own views on this—that we live in a world in which European Union business should be treated as mainstream political business, and not as something that can be quietly shoved off to some annexe next door and left to specialists to get on with in peace and quiet. The decisions that British Ministers of any party take in the Council of Ministers have an impact on the lives of the constituents of every Member of this House and I agree, therefore, with the thrust of what the hon. Lady said.

I disagree with the hon. Lady, however, in that I feel that the focus should not be just on the Chamber. The Chamber is clearly important, but we need to consider the role of Committees, including departmental Select Committees. In various evidence sessions with the European Scrutiny Committee over the past couple of years, I have tried to emphasise my growing belief that part of the answer lies in persuading the departmental Select Committees to give greater priority to that aspect of their work that covers European Union business. That is a matter for Select Committees, and it would be wrong for the Government to get into the business of seeking to give them instructions—the powers are already there within the terms of resolutions. It is primarily for those Committees to take ownership of those agendas and drive them forward. They can by all means invite European Commissioners to give evidence and by all means go to Brussels every now and then to take evidence and meet informally with people in the European institutions who are involved in legislation.

I look forward to the forthcoming report from the European Scrutiny Committee on the scrutiny process. I am sure that many of the matters that have been touched on this morning, such as whether we should move towards a mandate model of scrutiny along the lines of what the Scandinavian countries have, will be addressed in that report, and I obviously do not want to pre-empt the Government’s response to it. I say to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) that one of the characteristics of that mandate system—she rightly drew attention to some of its virtues—is that the sessions between the Minister and the committee to discuss a negotiating mandate take place in closed session. The public and press are not admitted and the report is not public, at least until after the negotiations are concluded.

[Ms Gisela Stuart]

Each of these systems has advantages and disadvantages, but could the Minister address where he would assume the collective memory of Parliament on these debates resides? The decision-making process in Brussels is so long, even with one term. Where would he focus that collective memory?

[Mr Lidington]

That is a very good point. To my mind, it means that one needs to focus the collective memory of elected Members through the members of the Liaison Committee, which is composed of relatively senior Members of Parliament, and through the system of the Committee Clerks. If we look at our Parliament’s representation in Brussels, we have some very talented people representing the two Houses, but that amounts to three staff. The Bundestag and the Bundesrat have 18 or 19 people between them, and that is on top of the German federal representation and the representative offices from each of the German Länder that are present in Brussels. Again, Parliament should consider the question of whether our level of representation and the number of people we have on the ground in Brussels are sufficient, but the Government cannot, or should not, issue instructions on that.

The hon. Lady asked whether COSAC could be improved, and my answer is definitely yes. It is an imperfect organisation, and it could be strengthened through reforms to the secretariat or through a formal power to summon commissioners, rather than expecting commissioners by convention to come and give evidence. It is not just about the formal meetings of COSAC, because if any system of red or yellow cards is to be effective, there has to be a culture of talking and working together that means that different parliamentary representatives, and in particular the chairs of the relevant committees, are used to having contact with each other in networking and co-ordinating an approach to a particular Commission draft measure.

The hon. Lady asked about the role of the Europe Minister, and she was very fair in how she put it. There is a perfectly legitimate debate to be had in this country about where that office sits. Some argue that it should sit in the Foreign Office. Others argue that it should sit in the Cabinet Office and so be directly accountable to the Prime Minister. Some argue that it should be a self-standing Department or be located in Brussels, in effect performing the political office of the permanent representative. In France, Germany, Poland and Spain my counterparts sit in their respective Foreign Ministries. In Sweden, however, the Europe Minister sits in the Prime Minister’s office and reports directly to the Prime Minister, although she represents a different political party from the Prime Minister in the current coalition.

The key thing is not where the Europe Minister sits, but how the right level of co-ordination and accountability is achieved across Government. The Europe Minister could be put in the Cabinet Office, but that raises the question of how the work at Brussels, which is certainly cross-departmental in Whitehall terms, is co-ordinated with the bilateral diplomatic work that has to be done with 27 other member states, because European business cannot be done in Brussels alone. I would be worried about a gap opening between a Minister dealing with Brussels business and a Minister dealing with our diplomatic efforts on, for example, Germany. We try to co-ordinate our conversations with German Ministers across all relevant political dossiers. When I see German counterparts, I do not talk strictly about Foreign Office business; I talk about financial services, the European budget and whichever European issues are high on the agenda at that moment.

The key is to have effective co-ordination through a Cabinet system, which we do through the European Affairs Committee of the Cabinet. I repeat the point I have made elsewhere: the permanent representative, who is a professional civil servant, follows the mandate set by the Cabinet. If he wishes to move from the mandate he has already been granted, he has to go back to Ministers and seek their agreement and authority to go beyond it.

On the question of yellow and red cards, under the current system national Parliaments or chambers of national Parliaments can submit a reasoned opinion that a draft directive or regulation fails to comply with the principle of subsidiarity. They have to submit that within eight weeks of the formal communication from the Commission about a draft measure. One third of the voting weight of national Parliaments needs to be signed up for the Commission to be compelled to carry out a formal review, and the reasoned opinion may only be submitted on the grounds of subsidiarity. We could make more use of reasoned opinions than we do. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone is meticulous in looking at the legal grounds of a directive and whether it meets the subsidiarity test.

The Westminster Parliament has so far submitted fewer reasoned opinions than some Parliaments in other member states, but we could look to reform the system. Is eight weeks long enough? Should we not give national Parliaments longer to consider their response? There is an obvious problem with recesses. Should we reduce the threshold below a third? Should we widen the grounds for challenge? If we have subsidiarity, why not have proportionality as well? Why not have some sort of test on excessive burdens on business, or on whether there is evidence that a draft measure would have a harmful impact on European growth? Why not make provision for the yellow card to become a red card under certain circumstances, with an outright veto that national Parliaments could impose? Could we give national Parliaments the power to impose an emergency brake in certain circumstances?

[Mr Cash]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Lidington]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I have very little time left. Could we give national Parliaments an emergency brake to throw an issue to consideration by the European Council? Should we provide powers for a yellow or red card retrospectively, so that national Parliaments could, as a group, insist that the institutions consider repealing or amending a directive that was part of the acquis? Should we give national Parliaments the power to bring forward an own-initiative report? In the hands of the European Parliament, that instrument has been significant in helping to shape policy development.

I liked the idea from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston of some act of oblivion at the end of a Commission’s term. Under that idea, a measure that had not completed all stages would be deemed automatically to fall and would be reconsidered in the next Commission and the next European Parliament.

Ideas about a conference of national parliamentarians or a second chamber for the European Parliament are part of the discussion, although there are some serious practical issues to be considered. How would such an institution fit into the legislative process? How could it be made to work in practice, given the other parliamentary and constituency duties that Members of this House have to carry out?

I am conscious of the fact that giving a stronger voice to national Parliaments is only one aspect, though a significant one, of the reform that is necessary to make the European Union more accountable and more democratic than it is currently. It is in all our interests that a way is found to overcome the profound public disaffection that we see throughout the continent on European decisions. There is no European demos, and strengthening the voice of national Parliaments is the right way forward to restore greater democratic accountability to the EU.

Foreign Affairs Council/General Affairs Councils

David Lidington Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I attended the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) on 24 June and the General Affairs Council (GAC) on 25 June. 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 Irish presidency. The meetings were held in Luxembourg.

Commissioners Hedegaard (Climate Action), Ftile (Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy) and Piebalgs (Development) were in attendance for some of the discussions at the FAC.

Commissioners Šefcovic (Inter-Institutional Relations and Administration), Lewandowski (Financial Programming and Budget), and Füle were 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/137593.pdf.

Introduction

Baroness Ashton raised the outcome of the elections in Iran and assured Ministers that she would seize any opportunity for greater engagement on the nuclear issue.

Baroness Ashton updated the Council on the situation regarding Turkey, expressing concern about the Government’s and police’s handling of the recent protests while stressing the importance of the EU remaining engaged.

Eastern Partnership

Baroness Ashton noted the good progress made in the association agreement (AA) negotiations with Armenia, Georgia and Moldova, and the real prospect that they would be initialled at the eastern partnership summit in Vilnius in November. The European External Action Service (EEAS) and Commission maintained regular and intense dialogue with Ukraine, underlining the need for the December 2012 FAC conclusion benchmarks to be met.

I underlined that the UK wanted a successful summit and hoped that some of the AAs could be signed/initialled at Vilnius, assuming the documents were technically ready and remaining conditions met. The UK wanted to move forward with Ukraine, but significant concerns remained. In this climate signature at Vilnius could not be guaranteed, so the EU would need to consider alternative measures of success.

Climate Diplomacy

Baroness Ashton and Commissioner Hedegaard introduced the second FAC discussion of climate diplomacy following the previous discussion in July 2011. Climate change was a core foreign policy issue given its security, economic and physical impacts. The EU had played a key role in the agreement at the UN climate change conference in Durban in 2011 thanks to our ability to speak with one voice and build the right alliances with over 100 progressive developing countries.

Member states strongly supported the EEAS and Commission work, reflection paper and proposed way ahead. I emphasised that the commitments from Durban were only achievable with political support at the highest levels so, with a critical two years ahead, we needed to raise the issue of climate change at the strategic level, across the EEAS, Commission and member states. Conclusions were agreed and it was decided that the FAC should return to this next year.

Middle East Peace Process (MEPP)

Member states agreed on the importance of US Secretary of State John Kerry’s current efforts and discussed the best ways for the EU to support these. Member states’ views varied as to the most effective use of conclusions this month, which were not agreed. Following the debate, the high representative reaffirmed the EU’s commitment to a two-state solution and stressed that the EU fully supports the current efforts of the US in support of the resumption of direct and substantial negotiations. The FAC will revert to the issue in July.

Afghanistan

Over lunch, NATO Secretary-General Rasmussen shared views about Afghanistan’s development post-2014, and how the international community should continue to support the country after military draw-down. Ministers were cautiously optimistic about the recent opening of a political office in Qatar for peace negotiations with the Taliban, and pressed for all stakeholders to participate constructively in the process. The Council agreed that, in co-ordination with other international players such as NATO and the UN, the EU should agree a comprehensive strategy for its engagement with Afghanistan post-2014. This would complement the EU-Afghanistan co-operation agreement on partnership and development, which would hopefully be finalised soon.

I underlined the importance of the EU continuing to send a strong signal of support to Afghanistan beyond 2014 and of prioritising funding for it. EUPOL should be a key part of this, following a strategic review in the autumn. Conclusions were agreed which focused particularly on urging progress on fulfilment of Afghanistan’s commitments under the Tokyo mutual accountability framework and on preparations for the elections in 2014. They also re-stated the EU’s commitment to strengthening civilian policing in Afghanistan, including beyond the transition period.

Southern Neighbourhood

In Baroness Ashton’s view, overall, the EU had responded to the Arab spring in a comprehensive way that underlined the strategic importance of the region, including through taskforces, enhanced financial support and close contact with civil society. I emphasised the need to continue to evaluate the effectiveness of our engagement, including via a rigorous country-by-country analysis. This would guide decisions on how to calibrate EU support. I welcomed the EEAS and Commission’s focus in their recent letter to the European Council on effective public messaging and enhanced co-ordination. The Commission’s sectoral DGs in particular should adhere more closely to the overall European neighbourhood policy framework.

Baroness Ashton also reported on her recent visit to countries in the region, including Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon. This had left her particularly concerned at the prospect of major protests in Egypt on 30 June. She had urged President Morsi to reach out to the opposition.

Syria

On Syria, there was broad agreement on the need for the EU to focus on support to the Geneva II process. I set out how the G8 had agreed a strong statement in support of a political settlement, and welcomed the EEAS/Commission communication on the EU approach to Syria. The EU had stepped up by pledging €400 million as part of the overall G8 pledge of $1.5 billion for the UN appeal. But there was still a huge shortfall. Given the unprecedented scale of the humanitarian crisis, I urged the EU to raise that amount to $l billion, and for member states to match that with a further $l billion.

AOB

On Somalia, I raised last week’s terrorist attack on the UN compound in Mogadishu under AOB. The Somali National Security Forces and the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) had been a central part of the response, demonstrating the importance of continued EU support to AMISOM. I emphasised that the technical issues on funding needed to be resolved.

Also under AOB, Sweden raised the recent Arctic Council meeting and the EU’s efforts to become an observer.

Other business

Ministers agreed without discussion a number of others measures, including:

The Council adopted the agenda for the EU-Gulf Co-operation Council joint council and ministerial meeting, to be held on 30 June in Bahrain.

The Council adopted guidelines on the promotion and protection of all human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons, on the basis of existing international legal standards in this area.

The Council adopted EU guidelines on the promotion and protection of freedom of religion or belief.

The Council allocated EUR 5 million from the EU budget in support of physical security and stockpile management activities to reduce the risk of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons and their ammunition in Libya and its region.

The Council decided to suspend the application of the EU travel ban on Vladimir Makey, Belarusian Minister of Foreign Affairs, with a view to facilitating diplomatic contacts between Belarus and the EU and its member states. This does not imply any change in the EU’s policy of critical engagement with Belarus.

The Council amended regulation 881/2002 imposing specific restrictive measures directed against persons and entities associated with the al-Qaeda network. Changes were made to implement decisions taken at the UN.

The Council prolonged the mandate of Mrs Patricia Flor, EU Special Representative for central Asia, until 31 October 2014.

The Council extended the mandate of the EU Special Representative for the southern Mediterranean, Mr Bernardino Leon, until 30 June 2014.

The Council took note of the sixth implementation report of the EU action plan for Afghanistan, covering the period from March 2012 until March 2013.

The Council adopted the EU priorities for the 68th session of the General Assembly of the United Nations that will convene from 17 September 2013.

General 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/genaff/137614.pdf.

The 25 June GAC focused on EU enlargement and preparation for the 27-28 June European Council. There was also a discussion on a rule of law initiative.

In addition, there was a meeting with the President of the European Council, Herman van Rompuy, which also focused on the June European Council.

Enlargement

The FAC and GAC both discussed the good progress that Serbia and Kosovo had made in recent months, including in reaching and starting to implement the historic April 2013 agreement between the two sides. On the basis of this progress in meeting the conditions set out in December, the GAC recommended that the June European Council: agree to open accession negotiations with Serbia in January 2014 at the latest; agree a negotiating framework should be drawn up, which will also address the normalisation of relations between Belgrade and Pristina; and agree that pre-screening work on the acquis is started, particularly focused on justice and home affairs reform issues. The GAC also asked the Commission and HR/VP to report further on implementation of the April agreement by December to inform final decisions on the adoption of the negotiating framework and the start of accession negotiations. The GAC started procedures for member states to adopt the necessary texts to open negotiations on a stabilisation and association agreement with Kosovo.

Turkey

The GAC agreed in principle the EU’s common negotiating position on chapter 22, which looks at regional policy, but delayed the inter-governmental conference (at which the chapter will be formally opened) until the autumn. The presidency agreed to write to the Turkish Government to clarify the situation. They did so on 25 June.

Proposal for an initiative on Democracy, Fundamental Values and the Rule of Law

Denmark, Finland, Germany and the Netherlands sent a letter to the President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, asking for a discussion on their initiative for a new mechanism to safeguard fundamental values of the Union in member states and a greater role for the European Commission in safeguarding these. At the GAC on 22 April further discussion was scheduled for this meeting.

Consequently in this meeting the signatories of the letter to President Barroso called again for the Commission to propose options for a specific mechanism.

I highlighted that this issue is already being discussed in the Justice and Home Affairs Council and there is a danger of confusion if the issue is pursued in separate Councils formations. There was also a risk of duplication with the work of the Council of Europe in relation to human rights so we should guard against setting up new initiatives that could be duplicative or otherwise unnecessary.

Preparation of the 27-28 June European Council

The GAC discussed the 27-28 June European Council with the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy. Discussion focused on how to promote growth and tackle youth unemployment. There was also a discussion on strengthening economic and monetary union (EMU) which largely focused on the timetable for progress on this issue. I stressed that action on youth unemployment or otherwise should not prejudge the unresolved multi-annual financial framework (MFF) negotiations. We need to establish what resources will be available before committing to programmes that could be undeliverable. On EMU, I also emphasised that the rights of all 27 member states needed to be respected as work in this area progressed.

The GAC also approved the reports on the European semester and recommendations on national reform programmes.

The Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)

The GAC discussed the MFF with the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, following a presentation on the progress of the trilogue negotiations between Ireland (as President of the Council), the European Parliament and the European Commission.

I highlighted again that there was little room for further manoeuvre within the mandate agreed at the February European Council which any deal must respect.

Lithuania Presidency

David Lidington Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I am keen to keep Members fully informed on developments in the European Union and their implications for the United Kingdom and our priorities. I would, therefore, like to draw Members’ attention to a paper on the priorities of the Lithuanian presidency of the Council of the European Union, which has been placed in the Library of the House. I have also deposited a copy of the calendar of ministerial meetings for the duration of their presidency.

European Elections 2014

David Lidington Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 7648/13, a Commission Communication on preparing for the 2014 European elections and enhancing their democratic and efficient conduct, and No. 7650/13, a Commission Recommendation on enhancing the democratic and efficient conduct of the elections to the European Parliament; notes that whilst European political parties are free to support candidates for Commission President, this does not limit the European Council’s selection of a candidate; agrees with the Government that the suggestion for a common voting day across the EU is unhelpful and would achieve the opposite of the stated intention of increasing voter turnout; and further notes that there is currently no indication that these documents are going to be followed up by formal legislative proposals.

I welcome this opportunity to discuss these European Commission recommendations in the House. It is now less than 12 months until the 2014 European parliamentary elections due to be held from Thursday 22 May to Sunday 25 May. This debate is therefore timely. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am sorry Minister. Members who wish to have private conversations would be well advised to leave the Chamber. There are those who wish to debate the European recommendations, and it is not very courteous to the Minister either.

[Mr Lidington]

On 12 March, the European Commission published a set of recommendations and a communication concerning the 2014 European parliamentary elections whose contents also touched on other areas of European political life. The proposals do not carry legal weight; they are non-binding suggestions to member states and national and European political parties. The Government always welcome contributions to the ongoing debate about democracy in the EU, but I believe that these specific proposals mistakenly assume that there is a single European political identity—a single European demos—and ignore the fact that the fundamental source of democratic legitimacy within the EU is derived from national Parliaments accountable to their national electorates. I believe that we need to work to strengthen the links between national democracies, their Parliaments and EU institutions.

We consider it unlikely that these recommendations will become formal legislative proposals from the Commission, but if they were to take that form, they would need to be decided by unanimity. The relevant treaty articles are articles 22(2) and 223(1) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. As you will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, under the European Union Act 2011, any measure introduced by the Commission and agreed by the Council and Parliament under article 223(1) would also require an Act of Parliament for the United Kingdom to give it assent. The consequence of that is that the UK would have a veto over any such proposed change.

I want briefly to set out the recommendations in more detail, addressing those that concern the conduct of European elections, before turning to the Commission recommendation that European political parties make known their candidate for the post of Commission President. The first and second recommendations put forward by the Commission are intended to promote connections between European political parties and national political parties. The proposals suggest that national political parties should explain their connection with European political parties and make clear that connection in their electoral documents. Political parties in this country are perfectly free to advertise their European affiliation if they so choose. Ballot papers in the United Kingdom will continue to be produced in accordance with UK law, as will party political literature. If a United Kingdom party wishes prominently to display its European political affiliation, it is free to do so, but there should be no question of compulsion.

Recommendation 4—the suggestion that member states ought to agree a common voting day for elections to the European Parliament—has attracted some attention in the media. At the moment, elections to the European Parliament take place over a four-day period, which in 2014 is set to fall between 22 and 25 May, as I mentioned earlier. I fear that a number of right hon. and hon. Members might have read reports that the EU intends to force the UK to hold elections on a Sunday. It is my happy duty to inform the House that this is not the case. The UK will continue to hold elections on a Thursday, as is our tradition, and I am sure that other member states will rest equally assured that they will be able to continue to hold elections on their day of choice. To mandate that a member state change its election day would achieve the very opposite of the declared aim of the proposals—namely, an increase in voter turnout—and would be detrimental to electoral diversity across the EU.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I have much sympathy with what the Minister is saying, but he seems to be eliding two things: the choice of election day being a national matter, not a European Union matter, and whether it should be a Thursday or a Sunday, which is the other component. They are two different questions. Whatever day it is, does he agree that we should choose it? That is the important point.

[Mr Lidington]

I have no quarrel or disagreement with the hon. Gentleman on that count.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Much as I think it would be quite wrong for anything to be mandated—the decision should be made locally—the so-called tradition of Thursday elections in the UK goes back only about 100 years. Perhaps it would be more sensible to consider a weekend election, for all the convenience factors that would come with that, but also because, in the case of these elections, it might allow us to hold elections on two weekend days some three or four weeks apart, rather than having to change our day for local elections, as we have, from the traditional first Thursday in May to 22 May, which is what is now envisaged for those elections and the European elections next year.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is right that it used to be the case that general elections in this country took place over a number of days. Indeed, it was not completely uncommon for candidates to put themselves forward for election in more than one constituency. If the House were to consider a change of the sort that he and the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) suggest, it ought to be debated in the context not solely of European parliamentary elections, but of our electoral practice more generally, covering general and local elections, as well as European elections. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be interested to hear any proposals that Members wish to make.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

What consideration have the Government and the Minister given to the opinion of faith groups in relation to holding elections on any day other than a Thursday, and certainly not on a Sunday?

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on one of the key problems with shifting away from our practice of voting on a Thursday—namely, that to pick any day over the weekend from Friday to Sunday would inevitably begin to trespass on the religious practices of faith groups in various parts of the United Kingdom. We would need to look at how the timing of a polling day might have an impact on people from such groups, and not just in respect of the voting day because a large number of constituencies and local authorities still count votes the day following polling day, so that has to be taken into consideration, too.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I am reassured by what the Minister says. I can tell him that, whether it be held on a Sunday, a Thursday or any other day, the people of Brigg and Goole will be equally uninterested in the European parliamentary election. I agree with my right hon. Friend on what he says about maintaining our Thursday elections. Has he assessed how much the ridiculous situation of paying for security and the guarding of ballot boxes from Thursday to Sunday costs us? Plenty of other countries around the world, such as Canada, have results coming in for elections held on the same day, but the results from eastern Canada are known before the people in western Canada have finished voting. Why can we not just go back to counting on a Thursday and save the taxpayer some money?

[Mr Lidington]

That is an interesting view. I do not know whether the Cabinet Office has the figures for which my hon. Friend asks. I think that the agreement reached some years ago within the EU—that voting should take place over a number of days—was designed to accommodate both the fact that different countries had the habit of voting on different days of the week and the wish not to declare votes early in case the votes in one country affected how votes were cast in another country. I have to say that I rather agree with my hon. Friend, as the prospect of that happening is, in practice, pretty slim. I doubt whether he will be influenced in his campaigning by the outcome of elections in Greece or Malta. The arrangements we now have were incorporated into European law, and it is not likely to change in the foreseeable future.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I shall give way briefly, but then I want to make some progress.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

We are proposing the alternatives of Sunday and Thursday, but there is also the alternative of Saturday, which would be convenient for many industrial workers. Saturday is a day of rest for many, perhaps not all, but this day would avoid the religious complications that the Minister mentions.

[Mr Lidington]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but the problem with Saturday is, first, that a number of Jewish communities would find it difficult and, further, that we would still be left with the problem of asking people to count votes and declare results on the Sunday, which would present a difficulty for a number of Christian denominations. This is not a straightforward issue, but as I say it goes beyond the scope of the European Commission recommendations and it is probably best addressed in the context of a wider debate about the timing of elections in the UK.

The four technical recommendations from the Commission—recommendations 5 to 8—are directed at improving the conduct of European elections through EU directive 93/109/EC on information exchange. These four recommendations are not new proposals, but rather suggestions to member states on how to enhance their implementation of the existing requirements of the directive.

The Government are committed to fulfilling their obligations under this directive and we currently implement the legal requirements in full. We do, however, remain concerned about the practical demands of this process and about the burden of implementation being much greater than the prevalence of the problem it is designed to address—namely, double voting. The Government have noted the Commission’s recommendations in this area and we will take them into account in our preparations for the 2014 European parliamentary elections.

I should add, to reassure the House, that any move that the Commission might hypothetically make in the future to incorporate those four recommendations in a revised version of the directive would require unanimity under article 22(2) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union.

The Commission’s third recommendation states that European and national political parties should make known their nominations for the post of President of the European Commission. Some European political parties are very likely to nominate particular individuals as their candidates for the post. They are free to do so if they wish, and I am sure that that will result in a lively debate among political parties. Indeed, I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) whether she and her party intend to campaign ardently in favour of Mr Martin Schulz, the President of the European Parliament, who is currently the only declared candidate on behalf of the Party of European Socialists as the proposed successor to President Barroso.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would it be relevant to our business if my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East accepted the Minister’s invitation to discuss who might or might not be a candidate? Where does that feature on the Order Paper?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I think that the Minister is stretching a point, as he has done several times already. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. Perhaps we could return to the specifics of the debate, and any political jousting could take place outside the Chamber afterwards.

[Mr Lidington]

I am sure that, if the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) wishes to put himself forward as a rival to Mr Schulz, he will find some support on the Opposition Benches.

It is being suggested in some quarters, and was hinted at in the Commission’s communication, that only one of the candidates named by European political parties can become President of the European Commission. I have read—as, I am sure, have other Members—a fair bit of confused reporting on the process for selecting the next President, and it may help the House if I briefly explain the system as it is described in the treaties.

As is stated in article 17(7) of the treaty on European union, the European Council, acting by qualified majority,

“Taking into account the elections to the European Parliament and after having held the appropriate consultations… shall propose to the European Parliament a candidate for President of the Commission.”

The candidate shall then be elected by a majority of the European Parliament’s Members. If the candidate cannot attain a majority, the European Council will propose a new candidate.

The House will note that there is no mention in the treaty of European political party candidates for the post of Commission President. In our opinion, such candidates were not envisaged by the requirement for the European Council to take account of the European Parliament elections. While there is nothing in the treaty to prevent European political parties from running candidates, there is also nothing to mandate the European Council to limit its selection of a Commission President to those in that particular pool, and any proposal to impose such a mandate would require amendment of the treaty.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

This is mind-bogglingly irrelevant to the problems of my constituents. Would it not be better for the Minister to focus on abolishing six of the seven Presidents of the European Union?

[Mr Lidington]

I am speaking about this because it is very relevant to the communication which the European Scrutiny Committee has referred to the Floor of the House—indeed, it relates to one of the integral parts of that communication. While I am the first to argue that the European Union ought to slim down its bureaucracy, and I would probably agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are some European institutions whose absence we would not mourn because they do not contribute much to the well-being of European citizens, I believe that the arrangements for the election of a successor to President Barroso are quite important, because the holder of that office will be in a position to exercise a significant influence on policies that affect this country. It is therefore important that we are clear about the rules under which his successor will be selected. It is also important that the UK Government make it clear that we will resist any attempt to interpret the treaties as limiting the choice available to the European Council in a way that is not justified by the text of the treaties, but which some in other parts of Europe are keen to see.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

On that point, how does my right hon. Friend interpret the start of article 17(7) of the treaty on European union:

“Taking into account the elections to the European Parliament and after having held the appropriate consultations”?

Surely the only way to take into account the elections to the European Parliament is to consider the results by political party. If the Commission brought forward specific proposals in this regard, what legal response would the Government have, or how might the European Court of Justice interpret it?

[Mr Lidington]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Minister, you are stretching the debate very widely, as the document is not legally binding and therefore that is not to do with why this matter has been referred to the Floor of the House. This is not a blue-sky thinking exercise. Of course refer to the article to which the hon. Gentleman refers, which lays out the process, but please stick to what is on the Order Paper and what is before us now, not in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With respect, Mr Horwood, if you had listened to what I said, you would have heard me say article 17(7) is relevant. I was just suggesting to the Minister that, given that the whole document is not legally binding, while it is important that he explains the current arrangements, I hope he will not continue to stretch the debate rather wider than the document in question provides for. So you can of course discuss article 17(7).

[Mr Lidington]

In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), let me explain our view on article 17(7). The European Council retains complete freedom to nominate whom it wishes. It is required to take into account the elections to the European Parliament, but there is nothing in article 17(7) or elsewhere in the treaty on European union that suggests the European Council is in any way mandated to limit its election to a particular pool of candidates. Indeed, it may be that no one political family commands a majority in the European Parliament, or it may be that different combinations of European political parties within the European Parliament prefer one candidate rather than another, and it may not be possible, simply by looking at which of the larger European groupings ends up in the lead after the elections next year, to determine what the preference even of the Parliament itself might be as to the preferred candidate.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

On page 14 of the package before us of the Commission’s communications, it specifically quotes article 17(7) in support of its point about political parties and the European presidency. I therefore wonder if it is reading more into article 17(7) than the Minister believes is there.

[Mr Lidington]

I believe it is, and I think it is fair to say that there are plenty of people in and around the European Commission, and indeed the European Parliament, who believe—perfectly honourably—that the way forward is to move towards a system in which it is the European Parliament, rather than the Heads of Government assembled in the European Council, that has the key role in nominating the President of the Commission and thereafter holding the Commission to account. These are people who believe that it is right and possible to create a European demos, and see that step as a way so to do. What I am saying to my hon. Friend is that I see, and the Government see, nothing in the treaty that requires the European Council to limit its freedom of action in the way that some are suggesting.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

This point is not on article 17(7) per se. The motion uses the words

“notes that whilst European political parties are free to support candidates”.

The Minister will know that European political parties have huge amounts of money, which they are not allowed to spend on political campaigning in the course of elections. Surely this document has the potential to ride a coach and horses through that law, internal though it may be to the Parliament, because there are political parties across Europe, including some in the United Kingdom, that do use European political party funding to fund their whole party hierarchy.

[Mr Lidington]

It is important to distinguish a couple of points. First, nothing in these Commission documents is a legally binding proposal. I repeat: these have the status of recommendations, nothing more. The recommendation we are now debating is addressed to European political parties and national political parties, and it deals with how the Commission thinks they might better arrange their affairs. It is entirely up to both the European and the national political parties to decide whether they pay any attention to the Commission’s recommendations or not.

Secondly, there are provisions in the treaty on the functioning of the European Union to govern the conduct of European parliamentary elections. Those are embodied in a statute based on the relevant articles of the TFEU. For that statute to be amended, or for other changes to be brought forward, unanimity would be required under article 223, as I said earlier. The question of party political spending, including by candidates within the United Kingdom, is governed by the relevant United Kingdom statutes, including, most obviously, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. At the moment, there is a clear legal distinction between certain measures that are set at European level and require the unanimous agreement of every member state, and the rules on party fundraising, party financing and election expenditure, which remain a matter for member states and are not touched in any way, even by these Commission recommendations.

I wish to conclude on the following point. I said at the start of my remarks that the Government believed there is a genuine problem of lack of democratic legitimacy within the European Union, but that these proposals suggested by the Commission do not provide the answer to that crisis. The Government’s preference would be to see a greater role for national Parliaments in holding European decisions to account. Although I will not expatiate on the detail, the ideas that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have proposed in recent weeks on the greater use of the yellow card mechanism or creating a red card mechanism, giving national Parliaments the right to block legislation that need not be agreed at European level, are intended as a contribution to a vigorous debate, which we have now launched, within Europe, not just within the UK. The absence of democratic legitimacy and adequate democratic accountability within the EU is a major political question that needs serious debate and consideration right across the European Union, but it is not answered by the proposals before us this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful to all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. I do not want to detain the House long, so I will try to reply briefly to the various questions raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) asked how funding from European political parties and other EU sources might influence domestic election campaigns in the United Kingdom. I want to place on the record that participation in elections in this country, including European elections, is regulated by UK electoral law, and that includes the use of funding in campaigns. United Kingdom law prohibits the use of funding from sources outside the UK, including European political party funding. A prohibition on the use of EU funding by national political parties is included in the draft new European political party proposals—those are other EU documents that the House considered in Committee a few days ago.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) asked whether the Commission is aware of the Government’s concerns about its communication, and the answer is a definite yes. Our—I was going to say reservation, but I think it is rather stronger than that— belief that the initiatives are simply misplaced and will not contribute to resolving the acknowledged democratic deficit of the European Union is well known, and United Kingdom officials and Ministers will continue to express their views on that in any future debates.

The hon. Lady asked about the position of the European Parliament, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) said, the AFCO committee of the European Parliament has produced a report that covers much the same area of policy as that addressed by the Commission’s communication and recommendations. Like the Commission documents, that report points towards a greater role for European political parties and the European Parliament in determining the successor to President Barroso in the Commission. The plenary Session of the European Parliament is due to debate and vote on the report next month, and I cannot predict how it will vote on that occasion.

The hon. Lady’s final question concerned what future Commission initiatives we expect to follow up the proposals. At the moment, there is no sign that the Commission plans to go further than its published recommendations, and the Government’s view is that the longer that remains the case, the better. We do not think that the recommendations add anything to the democratic problems that Europe faces.

I can give some reassurance to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) about articles 10(4) and 17(7) of the treaty on the European union. The full text of those articles contains a number of statements about how the European Union should organise its business, but there is no provision for the Commission to bring forward legislation and put it to the Council or Parliament. I would contrast that with the provisions in article 223(1) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, to which I referred earlier. That provides for changes to the law to be initiated by the Commission, and to be subject to the unanimous agreement of all member states. The enabling power for new legislation is not included in the text of articles 10 and 17, and that is why I said that the only way it would be possible to impose a mandate on the European Council to limit its nominations for President of the European Commission to lead candidates nominated by European political parties, or even to the lead candidate of the leading party after a European election, would be through the mechanism of treaty change. As my hon. Friend probably knows as well as anyone else in the House, that would require a process and certainly the unanimous agreement of every member state, and have national ratifications.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My question might be too hypothetical, but if the Council puts forward somebody who has never been associated with a political party, would that be challengeable in the European Court of Justice?

[Mr Lidington]

In theory, anything is challengeable, in the same way that almost any Executive decision in this country is challengeable under judicial review. Our view is that the duty on the European Council is no more and no less than that provided in article 17(7), which is to have regard to the outcome of the European Parliament elections and engage in the appropriate consultations. If the intention of the authors of the TEU had been a mandate, it would be spelled out in the wording of the treaty. My hon. Friend is right that there is an ambition on the part of a number of people in the Commission and the European Parliament not to seek treaty change—not at the moment, at least—but to bring about a working assumption that national Governments assembled in the European Council should limit themselves in the way they wish. As I have said, we strongly resist that assumption.

I conclude on this point. We have a set of recommendations that are not legally binding, and there is currently no suggestion of legislative proposals from the Commission to give effect to its recommendations. Any such legislative proposals would need the unanimous agreement of every member state, under whichever treaty article they are brought forward. I believe—this was the view on both sides of the House—that the recommendations are fundamentally misplaced. There is a serious problem across the EU, with public disaffection with the EU and how its decisions are taken rising to record levels. We have seen that reflected in part in the rise of populist parties—some democratic, some undemocratic and neo-fascist—in many different EU countries. For that real problem to be addressed, the EU needs to show in its priorities that it is focused on those things that really matter to the prosperity and security of the peoples of Europe. The arrangements by which the EU takes decisions needs to be reformed in a way that gives greater influence and authority to national Parliaments, to which Heads of Government and Ministers in the Council are ultimately accountable.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 7648/13, a Commission Communication on preparing for the 2014 European elections and enhancing their democratic and efficient conduct, and No. 7650/13, a Commission Recommendation on enhancing the democratic and efficient conduct of the elections to the European Parliament; notes that whilst European political parties are free to support candidates for Commission President, this does not limit the European Council’s selection of a candidate; agrees with the Government that the suggestion for a common voting day across the EU is unhelpful and would achieve the opposite of the stated intention of increasing voter turnout; and further notes that there is currently no indication that these documents are going to be followed up by formal legislative proposals.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lidington Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

10. What reports he has received on the Turkish authorities’ response to the recent demonstrations in Taksim square.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

We are following events in Turkey closely and the Foreign Secretary and I have spoken in the past few days to our Turkish counterparts. We very much hope that matters can be resolved peacefully. A stable, democratic and prosperous Turkey is important for regional stability. Turkey remains an important foreign policy partner and NATO ally, and we shall continue to support its continuing reform agenda and encourage Turkey to respect its obligations as defined in the European convention on human rights.

[John Healey]

The Minister’s words were subdued. Is he not shocked to see this increasingly modern, secular and economically successful country arresting young people for using Twitter, blocking trade union demonstrations with riot police and now threatening to use the army on the streets against its own citizens? Will he and the Foreign Secretary now publicly urge the Turkish Government to respect people’s basic rights and freedoms of assembly and expression?

[Mr Lidington]

It is important that all human rights, as set out in the European convention to which Turkey, like us, is a party, are fully respected. Some of the images from Istanbul and Ankara are certainly disturbing. As friends of Turkey, we hope to see those problems resolved peacefully. We noted the statements last week by the Deputy Prime Minister of Turkey that the police had overreacted in some instances and an investigation into those actions was needed. We support all efforts to address the protesters’ genuine concerns through dialogue and consultation.

[Caroline Lucas]

Over the weekend, more than 100 civilians, including doctors and nurses treating the injured, were arrested and held in incommunicado detention. There have also been reports of beatings. In the light of that appalling situation, will the Minister not only state his hope, but call on the Turkish authorities to disclose the location of everyone who has been arrested and to release immediately medical professionals who are identified by the Turkish Medical Association? Will he also make a public statement condemning incommunicado detention, because we have not heard enough of the public outrage and it needs to be heard today?

[Mr Lidington]

We are obviously concerned about the reports of the arrest of lawyers and doctors who were treating injured protesters at the scene of the demonstrations. The freedoms of assembly, association and expression are important rights. It is fair to recognise that Turkey has carried through substantial judicial and political reforms in the past 20 years. It is a very different country from when the military ruled and the army were deployed on the streets at the first sign of a demonstration, but that does not detract from the fact that the basic freedoms and human rights that Turkey has signed up to need to be respected.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

Although any response to protest must be proportionate, does the Minister agree that this is not the Arab uprising? The Turkish Government have been elected three times, and on the last occasion with more than 50% of the vote. If the protesters do not like the Government, the answer lies in the ballot box, not in violence.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is right that the Government of Turkey have been elected three times with a decisive majority of votes from the people of Turkey. The electoral remedy is, indeed, available. It is also right to expect any democratic Government to abide by the national constitutional rules and international standards on human rights to which the country adheres.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Many people will be concerned about the generality of the Minister’s answers. Will he comment specifically on the recent reports that 38 young protesters in one city alone in Turkey have allegedly been arrested for comments made on Twitter? What representations has he made to the Turkish Government about upholding freedom of expression and the freedom to demonstrate? In particular, has he voiced concerns about the recent comments of the Turkish Interior Minister, who said that arrests would be initiated on the basis of protesters’ use of social media?

[Mr Lidington]

It is important that the Turkish Government, like any other democratic Government, abide by the rule of law and follow due process in respect of any action involving the police and the criminal-legal process. When talking to our Turkish counterparts, the Foreign Secretary and I certainly make clear the extent of the public concern in the United Kingdom. Those of us who have long been firm friends of Turkey and who want to see its European ambitions fulfilled see the process of judicial and political reform as an integral part of fulfilling those ambitions.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

3. What recent developments there have been in Government policy towards the Chagos islands; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

12. What plans he has to negotiate an increase in the role of national Parliaments within the EU.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

We believe that national Parliaments are the fundamental source of democratic legitimacy in the European Union, and we are working with EU partners and parliamentarians to find ways of strengthening Parliaments’ powers to hold to account those who make decisions in the EU.

[Andrea Leadsom]

A couple of weeks ago, at the Königswinter conference, the Foreign Secretary mentioned the concept of a red card that could stop future EU legislation that a group of member states found unattractive. Does he agree that the red card system, if implemented, should also apply to existing legislation, so that the European Union can be properly reformed?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend flagged up that proposal recently during her thought-provoking speech to the Hansard Society. It is an important, far-reaching and constructive idea which deserves serious consideration.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Can the Minister confirm that the Parliaments of countries that are applying the rules of the European Union in order to gain access to the single market, such as Norway and Switzerland, have absolutely no influence on decisions in the EU?

[Mr Lidington]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Certainly, Norwegian and Swiss leaders have consistently told me that they think the UK is in a better position to gets its own way in EU negotiations than they are.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

13. What steps the UK is taking with its international partners to prevent discrimination and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Will Ministers tell us how the balance of EU competences review is going and confirm that it has received strong representations urging the importance of Europol and the European arrest warrant in tackling cross-border crime, terrorism and human trafficking?

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

The balance of competences review is going well and I believe that we are on course to publish the first six reports arising from it before the summer recess. As my hon. Friend knows, the new calls for evidence include calls for evidence on various aspects of justice and home affairs and I am sure that his submissions, along with many others, will be warmly welcomed.

[Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)]

Erdem Gunduz, the standing man of Taksim square, stood for eight hours in peaceful protest yesterday. Will the Foreign Secretary ensure that he and others like him will be able to demonstrate peacefully without interference from Turkish authorities?

[Mr Lidington]

We certainly make it clear in all our conversations with the Government of Turkey that we look to Turkey to continue its progress in democratic and judicial reform and to respect all the human rights obligations into which it has entered.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

It is now more than a year since Leading Seaman Timmy MacColl went missing in Dubai, leaving a young family behind in my Gosport constituency. I know that the Minister has taken a personal interest in the case, but will he assure me that he will continue to put pressure on the Dubai police to keep giving this matter the attention and resources it deserves?

--- Later in debate ---

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Many people who have seen the appalling scenes in Turkey on their television screens will have been dismayed by the rather meek response from the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) earlier. Will he give us a little bit more of a sense of the outrage that people are feeling around the world and confirm that he is putting real pressure on the Turkish Government to respect the right to peaceful protest?

[Mr Lidington]

In our dealings with the Turkish Government, we have to respect the fact that they are a democratically elected Government—they are not the kind of military regime that used to rule Turkey. At the same time, however, we have to say to our Turkish friends that they have entered into commitments to democratic reform, judicial reform and human rights, and that all their friends elsewhere in the world look forward to their continuing to deliver on that agenda.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

Last week four men were convicted by the Turkish courts of the reckless killing of Cerys Potter. This is a landmark judgment. Does the Minister accept that it will have an impact only if the Turkish authorities insist on basic health and safety standards in such exercises as white water rafting?

[Mr Lidington]

I pay tribute to the tireless work that my hon. Friend has put into campaigning on behalf of his constituents. I spoke to the Turkish tourism Minister following my meeting earlier this year with my hon. Friend and his constituents, and I plan to be in contact with the Turkish Minister again in the wake of the court judgment so that we can offer the support and assistance that the Turks may wish to have from us in respect of learning some of the lessons from this tragic case.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—