Sergei Magnitsky Case: Visa Restrictions

David Lidington Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) on securing a debate on this important subject. The fact that Members from a range of political parties are present—some of whom have contributed by way of intervention—is a very clear message, not just to people who follow these affairs in the United Kingdom, but, I hope, to those in Russia who pay attention to our proceedings and those who do so on behalf of the Russian Government, that the case of Sergei Magnitsky has not been and will not be forgotten and that the fact that the causes of his death are not being properly investigated and no one is being held to account for his treatment while in prison in Russia cannot but do serious and growing damage to Russia’s reputation, not just in the United Kingdom, but in many other countries in Europe and around the world.

I want to begin by expressing my sympathy on behalf of the Government to the family and friends of Sergei Magnitsky. The tragic circumstances of his death have been outlined eloquently by my hon. Friend today and by many hon. Members in previous parliamentary debates on this subject. Every element of this case is of concern to the Government. The circumstances of Mr Magnitsky’s arrest, detention and eventual death, and the subsequent handling of the case by the Russian authorities are deeply troubling. I fully appreciate the strength of feeling about this case from many Members of the House.

As I have made clear in the past, the Government agree entirely with the sentiment that lay behind the resolution of this House of 7 March 2012, namely that we should defend human rights, condemn those who abuse such rights and tackle a culture of impunity for abusers, wherever the abuse takes place and whoever is responsible. In particular, the clear wish of the House in the resolution was to secure justice for Mr Magnitsky.

During the debate last year, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), made it clear that the Government would continue to handle the case within the long-established practices of this Government and previous Governments. He undertook to re-examine the situation after the passage of the American Act to ascertain whether there were lessons that we might draw for our own policy.

In recent weeks, the Russian authorities have formally closed the investigation into Mr Magnitsky’s death without any results. That happened despite the fact that it was not some outside body—not some non-governmental organisation or foreign Government—that concluded in 2011 that Mr Magnitsky’s death was probably the result of having been severely beaten and denied medical treatment, but the Russian presidential committee on human rights. It is therefore all the more dismaying that the Russian authorities should have closed the investigation into Mr Magnitsky’s death without results.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Would it be possible and diplomatically appropriate for this debate to be passed, with respect, to His Excellency the Russian ambassador in London, with an invitation to have a meeting, on or off the record, with Members of Parliament who are interested in hearing what he has to say, at which he could also, if he would be prepared to, hear what we have to say?

[Mr Lidington]

From my knowledge of the Russian ambassador in London, I am sure that he will be paying close attention to what is being said in the House this evening and that no prompting will be necessary. I am sure that he and his team in the embassy will take the words of my hon. Friend as an invitation for such a conversation to take place.

Perhaps even more worrying than their closing of the investigation is that the Russian authorities have launched a posthumous prosecution of Mr Magnitsky on charges of fraud. I confess that there is something macabre about such a spectacle. My understanding is that such a procedure is within the ambit of the Russian constitution and Russian law, but that it has been used on only exceptional occasions in the past. Trying a dead man and a man seen by many internationally as a whistleblower, to put it mildly, undermines efforts to tackle the perception of widespread corruption within Russia.

I am afraid that we have to conclude from what has happened in recent weeks in Russia that there is no evidence that the passage of the Act in the United States has brought or is likely to bring closer the outcome that all of us wish to see, which is justice for Mr Magnitsky’s family and a thorough, above-board investigation into his death. Altering our own fair and long-established practice of entry requirements for foreign nationals seeking to come to the UK would be unlikely to contribute to achieving justice for Mr Magnitsky either.

The duty of confidentiality means that the details of individual cases are not routinely discussed. As the House knows, the United Kingdom does not prejudge evidence against individuals speculatively.

When visa applications are made, they are considered on their individual merits, taking into account all circumstances and information available to us at that time. As the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and I have regularly made clear in this House and outside, where credible evidence exists, immigration rules empower us to deny entry to those who abuse human rights. It is a declared policy of the present Government that people against whom there is credible evidence of complicity in the abuse of human rights, should not normally expect to be granted admission to the United Kingdom.

We continue to raise the Magnitsky case with the Russian Government, making it clear that in our view a lack of progress in the case is at odds with the efforts they are making to demonstrate the independence of their judiciary, and to portray Russia as an attractive place for foreign investors. Most recently, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the Magnitsky case with Foreign Minister Lavrov during talks in London last month, and I did the same when I met Deputy Foreign Minister Titov in Moscow in February. Recent developments in the Magnitsky case will also be discussed, as a matter of serious concern, by senior officials at the next bilateral human rights dialogue between the United Kingdom and Russia. I remind the House that the United Kingdom is unique among all EU member states in holding annual bilateral meetings to allow formal discussions about human rights. That gives us the opportunity to hold Russia to account on the human rights obligations into which it has entered through its participation in various United Nations conventions, and in the European convention on human rights.

Let me try to respond to the specific questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon. He asked about allegations that members of the so-called “untouchables” have been complicit in criminal offences committed in the United Kingdom. In relation to that, however, and to a couple of his other questions, he will understand that we have independent investigating and prosecuting agencies in this country, and it is not for Ministers to judge the credibility or strength of particular pieces of evidence. On the first question, we have a Serious Organised Crime Agency whose job it is to prevent, detect and contribute to the reduction of serious and organised crime, to gather, store and analyse information about such crime, and to deliver the statutory requirement set out in legislation and international treaties.

For reasons the House will understand, SOCA’s policy is to neither confirm nor deny any details of its activity, files it may have received, or specific requests concerning named subjects. However, that agency is always on the look out for and ready to investigate credible allegations of crimes of a serious international character that may have been committed.

My hon. Friend also asked about the death in Surrey of Mr Perepilichnyy. At present his death is still being investigated by the Surrey police, which they are treating as unexplained, and I therefore do not think I can comment or speculate on a live police investigation. Our understanding is that Surrey police believe they have access to all the assistance they currently require to carry out their investigation into the cause of death. My hon. Friend asked whether the Government would take into consideration the list of 280 people allegedly involved in the Magnitsky case that Congressman Jim McGovern submitted to the state department. As apparent from my earlier remarks, the Home Office would not consider documents provided speculatively in the absence of an actual visa application from an individual. Having said that, when a visa application is made, it is considered on its merits, and all circumstances and information available to us at that time are taken into account. When credible evidence exists that a person has been involved in human rights abuses, they should not expect to be allowed entry to the UK.

My hon. Friend asked about EU visa and banking privileges. We would be willing to looking at any proposals at EU level and to discuss them with our EU partners. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the question of asset freezes. For the reasons I gave earlier, we do not believe that introducing asset freezes along the lines that the United States has introduced them would contribute to the objective we seek. Asset freezes would also need to meet legal tests. When assets are frozen by the UK or another democracy, they can find that such decisions are challenged in the courts. There are ongoing cases in which even UN and EU asset freezes against individuals are being challenged through the courts. There would have to be credible evidence that could, if necessary, be tested in a court to justify asset freezes in any individual case.

The promotion and protection of human rights continues to be a key priority in our bilateral relationship with Russia. In recent months, we have seen a worsening of the human rights situation in that country, whether in relation to the Magnitsky case, the restrictive legislative changes on freedom of assembly, the moves against the opposition, the inspections of non-governmental organisations, or the draft legislation to curtail freedom of assembly for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Those concerns are set out in the Foreign Office’s “Human Rights and Democracy” report, which the Foreign Secretary launched yesterday.

We will continue to press Russia to take the initiative to ensure that the Magnitsky case and other cases are brought to thorough and transparent conclusions. That would send a positive signal on the protection of human rights and democracy in Russia.

Question put and agreed to.

Persecution of Christians

David Lidington Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) on securing the debate. The large attendance by Members from all parts of the House for a half-hour Adjournment debate shows that her subject not only is objectively important and significant in how we conduct our international policy in this country, but arouses powerful and continuing concern in all the political parties represented in the House. I am grateful to her for the way in which she presented her case and in particular for her generous comments about the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s recently published human rights report.

As the hon. Lady said, an increase in persecution is threatening the existence of Christianity in the very region of its birth, with many people feeling that they have no choice but to flee to safe havens elsewhere. As the excellent report from Open Doors made clear, violence, discrimination and systematic persecution threaten Christian communities in Africa, the middle east and certain other countries around the world. The Government share many of the concerns expressed by the hon. Lady and in the Open Doors report. We condemn all instances of violence and discrimination against individuals or groups on the grounds of their religion, regardless of the country or faith concerned. As the report rightly emphasised, our condemnation should extend not solely to the more extreme forms of suffering inflicted upon people because of their religion or belief, but to any and all forms of such discrimination.

I assure hon. Members that we are fully committed to promoting and protecting freedom of religion or belief in its broadest sense, as defined in article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, which was alluded to by the hon. Lady. It is worth reminding ourselves of that central passage:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

I assure the hon. Lady and the House that we take those words seriously.

I want to respond directly and clearly to two of the central points in the hon. Lady’s speech. The Government’s position is to condemn laws against so-called apostasy and any Government policies anywhere in the world that punish people for changing their religion or belief voluntarily and freely, because that is at odds with the words of the universal declaration. Also, we accept completely that, when we talk about religious persecution and the human right to the free expression of religion and belief, we are talking about not only the private or domestic sphere but, in our understanding, the freedom to practice that religion openly and to make manifest one’s religious or other belief in the way that one conducts one’s life.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s commitment. He and the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) rightly referred to the universal declaration, but encouraging co-operation and respect for religious rights is also right there as a purpose of the United Nations in article 1 of its charter. Can he tell us what specific steps the Government will be taking at the UN to raise the issue up the international agenda in the way that needs to happen?

[Mr Lidington]

We raise the subject repeatedly in the UN, at the Human Rights Council and in opportunities that we get in the General Assembly and from time to time in the Security Council. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have resisted occasional attempts in the UN to return to language about defamation of religions, which used to characterise some of the debate. With the agreement of the March 2011 resolution of the Human Rights Council, we have been able to move on to more productive discussions of the issue; resolution 16/18 is not perfect, because it was a compromise to achieve consensus in the UN council, but it included not only a focus on combating religious intolerance, but key statements about protecting the human rights of minorities and promoting pluralism in society. We also continue to support strongly the work of the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, and we attach great importance to seeing his mandate renewed during the year.

[Rehman Chishti]

I thank the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) for securing this important debate. The Minister talked about the Government looking to the UN and the Human Rights Council to take certain measures, but the United States has set up the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, which looks to set policy by having research done around the world. Will the United Kingdom be setting up a similar body?

[Mr Lidington]

When the Government came to office, we set up a committee on human rights to advise the Foreign Secretary. It brings together experts, including people who are committed to various religious faiths. It provides a coherent and not unwieldy system for giving such advice. It has had an impact on the thinking of the Foreign Secretary and of my ministerial colleagues in the FCO, so we are seeking to attain the same goal as the United States but have chosen a slightly different means to go about it.

[Jim Shannon]

In my intervention on the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), I referred to the specific case of the 300,000 Christians in Syria. Will the Minister consider contacting the UN refugee agency to put forward our case that those Christians are not receiving the aid that they should receive through the UN or the Red Cross because they are Christians? They want to be neutral in the Syrian conflict and are persecuted as a result.

[Mr Lidington]

If I understand the hon. Gentleman rightly, he is saying that the non-governmental organisations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, are not providing aid as they ought to be on account of the Christian faith of some of the refugees. He is certainly levelling a serious charge. I will look into it and write to him—with copies to the hon. Member for Belfast East and the Library—because I do not want to talk off the top of my head.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) on securing the debate. We have discussed the charter of the United Nations, but will the Minister join me in celebrating the fact that the Commonwealth charter published last year enshrined religious tolerance in articles II and IV? Given the number of Commonwealth countries mentioned by the hon. Lady where issues with religious persecution continue, however, does he agree that there is more to do to ensure that the Commonwealth respects the spirit and the letter of the charter?

[Mr Lidington]

I agree completely that there is more to do. As I hope to have time to explain, we seek to do things multilaterally and in our bilateral relationships with various countries.

The hon. Member for Belfast East asked what the FCO was doing in practical terms and how we monitor the trends in religious discrimination. We require our embassies and high commissions around the world to monitor violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief. We are clear that that freedom involves not only the right to hold personal thoughts, but to manifest them individually and collectively. We provide our missions overseas with what in the jargon we call a toolkit—a set of detailed monitoring criteria—to help staff at our embassies and high commissions to analyse in detail the many potential manifestations of discrimination on the grounds of freedom of religion or belief, including discrimination in access to education and employment, or other administrative or legal restrictions on groups, buildings or individuals.

I shall move on from that general point to some of the countries to which the hon. Lady alluded. I apologise to hon. Members that I will not have time to go through them all, but I will write to her about the other countries that she mentioned and will place a copy of the letter in the Library.

The hon. Lady spoke particularly about Egypt for much of her speech. We have been clear that we need to speak up in public comments and private conversations with the Egyptian Government about the importance of religious toleration and mutual respect. When my noble Friend Baroness Warsi visited Cairo in February, she met both Pope Tawadros II, leader of the Coptic Church, and the Sheikh Al-Azhar, Dr Ahmed el-Tayeb, to discuss minorities in Egypt.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), spoke out strongly condemning the violent clashes that took place outside St Mark’s Coptic cathedral on 7 April. He also commented that freedom of religion and belief is a vital component of a democratic society and that the security forces should act effectively to uphold those freedoms to express and practise religious belief. My hon. Friend went to Egypt in January and discussed our concerns about the protection of minorities, including Christians and women, when he met the Muslim Brotherhood’s political party, the Freedom and Justice party. When he went to Egypt again in March, he met the Anglican bishop and representatives of both local and international human rights groups there to hear their concerns and to ask what more the UK could do to support their activities.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Is there any link between aid and this problem?

[Mr Lidington]

Most of our aid is directed not Government to Government, but through non-governmental organisations and charities. The Department for International Development, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, has published a set of principles about the partnership that exists between DFID and faith groups both in the United Kingdom and worldwide. That sets out a number of principles for co-operation in delivering aid, sometimes through faith groups that are really close to the people in greatest need in developing countries, and to ensure that aid is distributed in a way that takes no account of religious belief and is not affected by discrimination of the sort the House would condemn.

The hon. Member for Belfast East mentioned Kenya. We recognise that there has been an increase in attacks against churches, but I caution the House that although the conflict in Somalia has of course a religious dimension, it might be argued that what we saw in Kenya was an attack prompted by political concern at the intervention of Kenyan troops in Somalia rather than purely sectarian terrorist attacks. It is not only churches that have been attacked, but many secular locations from bus stations to bars. There has been a spate of grenade and armed attacks in Nairobi suburbs, Mombasa and the north-east province of Garissa. We are working with the Kenyan authorities to respond effectively to those security challenges and the threat of terrorism from extremist groups in Somalia.

In Syria, we are increasing our support to the Syrian National Coalition and other opposition groups that are opposed to extremism. We want to support moderate opposition groups to boost their appeal and effectiveness over extremists. We have encouraged opposition groups, especially the National Coalition, to ensure that their policies for a future Syria are genuinely inclusive and cover the interests of all Syrian minorities, including Christians. John Wilkes, the UK special representative to the Syrian opposition, is in regular touch with the Syrian Churches and the Archbishop of Canterbury’s office here.

Foreign Affairs and General Affairs Councils

David Lidington Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 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 Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) and I attended the General Affairs Council (GAC) in Brussels on 11 March. The FAC was chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland. Commissioners Piebalgs (development), Georgieva (international co-operation, humanitarian aid and crisis response) and Fule (enlargement) were in attendance for some of the discussions. The United Nations and the League of Arab States Joint Special Representative for Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, attended lunch with the Foreign Ministers.

The GAC was chaired by the Irish presidency, namely the Foreign Minister for Ireland, Eamon Gilmore.

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/136004.pdf.

Introduction

Baroness Ashton began the FAC by briefing on her activities on a range of issues. She started with an update on the Serbia-Kosovo dialogue and her clear message to the parties on the need for timely progress. Baroness Ashton then outlined the state of discussions with Iran following the February E3+3 (UK, France, Germany, China, Russia, US) talks with Iran in Almaty, Kazakhstan. Baroness Ashton updated on the situation on Mali, emphasising the importance of the political road map and elections as well as development assistance, on which the EU would host a donors’ conference in May. The Foreign Secretary briefed his colleagues on his visit to Mali earlier this month. Baroness Ashton briefly mentioned the elections in Kenya, stating that the process had been largely peaceful so far. She had noted Kenyatta’s statement in which he promised to work with international institutions.

Russia

Ministers discussed the EU-Russia relationship. While Russia was an important trading partner for the EU, and co-operated well with the EU on a number of international issues, there were worrying trends regarding human rights and democratic standards. The Foreign Secretary underlined the importance of the EU’s strategic relationship with Russia and the importance of Russia fulfilling WTO commitments and addressing human rights concerns. There was agreement that the EU position was stronger when it acted in unison.

Japan

Ministers discussed priorities for the EU-Japan summit on 25 March in Tokyo. Negotiations on the free trade agreement would be launched at the summit, which would help develop stronger economic and trade relations. Ministers also argued for broader political dialogue and collaboration on security and other international issues.

Iraq

Ministers expressed their concern about the impact of the conflict in Syria upon Iraq. Ministers discussed the importance of the EU increasing its engagement, in close collaboration with the UN, US and other partners, and developing greater longer-term co-operation, including through the partnership and co-operation agreement currently being ratified.

Southern neighbourhood

Ministers discussed the EU response to the Arab spring, and the importance of the EU continuing to engage with countries in transition. The Foreign Secretary argued that EU support must remain consistent with its policy on conditionality, based on a credible assessment of partners’ progress on reforms. Baroness Ashton outlined EU efforts in Egypt, including recent visits by EU Special Representative for the Southern Mediterranean Bernardino Leon and the EEAS Deputy Secretary-General Helga Schmid. Ministers agreed on the importance of continuing to engage with Egypt, including on inclusive political dialogue, human rights and economic reform.

Ministers welcomed the recent formation of a new Tunisian Government, and noted ongoing socio-economic challenges facing the country. Baroness Ashton emphasised that the EU had committed significant programme funding in Libya and was progressing deployment of a civilian common security and defence policy (CSDP) mission on integrated border management. Commissioner Fule reported on how his recent visit to Lebanon had highlighted the difficulties posed by the continuing influx of Syrian refugees.

Syria

The UN/Arab League Joint Special Representative Brahimi attended lunch with Ministers. In the course of an extensive review of the situation, encompassing security, diplomatic, humanitarian and regional dimensions of the crisis. Ministers were reminded of the seriousness of the situation, and the need to bring the conflict to an end. Brahimi stressed that consistent and cohesive efforts by the international community were needed in support of conflict resolution.

Any other business

Moldova

Romania briefed Ministers on the “Friends of Moldova” meeting held earlier that morning, which Moldovan Foreign Minister Iurie Leanca attended. The meeting had emphasised the importance of a swift return to political stability.

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

Germany raised the DPRK, urging the EU to implement the UN Security Council sanctions as rapidly as possible and to explore further autonomous EU measures, given the recent extremely worrying developments, including the increased rhetoric. Baroness Ashton agreed on the importance of addressing this issue, and said that the EEAS was already looking at further options.

Other business

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

The Council authorised the Commission to negotiate the arms trade treaty in the framework of the United Nations on those matters coming under the exclusive competence of the Union;

The Council adopted the annual update of the EU’s common military list, which defines the items subject to EU common rules on the control of exports of military technology and equipment;

The Council extended and reinforced the EU sanctions against Iran that were imposed in view of serious human rights violations;

The Council adopted conclusions on Pakistan;

The Council took note of the first common civilian-military annual CSDP lessons learned and best practices report for 2011 as well as of the lessons of CSDP support to security sector reform.

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/136013.pdf.

The GAC focused on preparation for the 14-15 March European Council, which was due to cover economic policy and relations with Russia within the context of the ongoing discussion on the EU’s strategic partners.

The plenary session of the GAC was followed by a meeting with President of the European Council, Herman van Rompuy, which continued the discussion on preparing the European Council.

14-15 March European Council Preparation

The Irish presidency presented the latest version of the draft conclusions. This text focused on competitiveness, jobs and growth, and highlighted the need for smart fiscal consolidation. Much of this was positive in encouraging member states to implement the necessary measures to put Europe on a path to recovery. However, I argued for more emphasis to be placed on the two areas with the greatest potential to unlock growth: trade and reducing unnecessary regulation.

The draft conclusions include language related to a discussion planned for the European Council on the European semester, the annual cycle of economic policy co-ordination in the EU. The March European Council will set growth and structural reform priorities for the EU and the member states for the year ahead. It will also take stock of member states’ progress in implementing reform commitments under the 2012 country-specific recommendations and will provide broad guidance to member states on the 2013 stability and convergence programmes and national reform programmes. Despite the weight given to the European semester in the European Council conclusions, most of the discussion at the GAC focused on more forward-looking elements of economic policy.

I argued that Europe faced a debt crisis and a crisis of competitiveness and that we needed to focus on these challenges. Reducing the burden of regulation could, for instance, realise immediate benefits to businesses promoting growth, but these benefits could also improve the long-term competitiveness of the EU.

The European Commission published its small and medium-sized enterprises scoreboard on 7 March. We discussed this useful publication and I argued for more concrete measures to follow up on this work. Specifically, I pressed for clear deadlines and progress on the work identifying the “Top 10” most burdensome pieces of EU legislation and tackling these burdens.

I argued that trade was also an area where EU collective action brought real value through our combined negotiating power, but we needed to realise these benefits by pursuing trade agreements with greater energy and determination. I underlined the significance of the US President’s State of the Union address, which gave momentum to the proposed EU-US transatlantic trade and investment partnership. I also emphasised that we needed to give impetus to an EU-India trade agreement.

European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages

David Lidington Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I have today arranged for copies of the UK’s fourth periodical report on the implementation of the European charter for regional or minority languages, to be placed in the Library of the House.

The report is also available on the website of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at: www.gov.uk/ government/publications.

Foreign Affairs and General Affairs Councils

David Lidington Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 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) and I will attend the General Affairs Council (GAC), both on 11 March in Brussels. The Foreign Affairs Council will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, and the General Affairs Council will be chaired by the Irish presidency.

Russia

Ministers will have a broad discussion on the EU-Russia relationship. Conclusions are not expected. This discussion will provide an opportunity to exchange views on the importance of the EU’s trade relationship with Russia, as well as underlining member states’ concerns on human rights and democratic standards. This discussion will serve as preparation for consideration of the EU’s strategic relationship with Russia at the European Council on 15 March. The FAC discussion will take place ahead of the visit of the Russian Foreign and Defence Ministers to London on 13 March.

Southern Neighbourhood

Ministers will discuss events in Egypt and Tunisia. We believe that the EU should encourage inclusive political transition and protection of human rights. The UK will argue that EU support to these countries needs to be ambitious and well communicated, with clear progress on agreed political and economic reforms matched with further support. We will support an EU observer mission for the Egyptian parliamentary elections.

Ministers will also discuss the current situation in Syria and will be joined over lunch by the United Nations and the Arab League Joint Special Representative for Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi.

Japan

The EU-Japan summit will take place on 25 March in Tokyo and Ministers will discuss the EU’s priorities for that summit. Negotiations on the EU-Japan free trade agreement (FTA) and framework agreement, which the UK strongly supports, will be launched at that summit. The EU and Japan will also agree to work together more closely on issues such as the growth agenda, climate change, energy policy and international issues of the day, such as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), Iran and Syria.

Iran

This discussion will focus on the recent E3+3 (UK, France, Germany, China, Russia, US) nuclear talks with Iran in Almaty, where a confidence-building measure was put to Iran. We will make it clear that while Iran’s agreement to further meetings is welcome, there is no sign yet of a significant shift in the Iranian position. If Iran makes no progress on addressing our most immediate concerns about its nuclear programme, we will need to tighten existing measures to increase the pressure it faces.

Kenya

Ministers will discuss the conduct and outcome of the elections held on 4 March in Kenya.

General Affairs Council

The 11 March GAC will focus on preparation for the 14-15 March European Council. The European Council agenda has two items that the GAC will consider: Economic policy and external relations (in conjunction with the FAC).

After the plenary session there will be a meeting with the President of the European Council, Herman van Rompuy. We expect this to focus on political directions for the European semester and European monetary union.

14-15 March European Council preparation

The economic policy agenda item covers the European semester, the annual cycle of economic policy co-ordination in the EU, which begins each year with the publication of the Commission’s annual growth survey. The European Council will set growth and structural reform priorities for the EU and the member states for the year ahead. The March Council will also take stock of member states’ progress in implementing reform commitments under the 2012 country-specific recommendations and will provide broad guidance to member states on the 2013 stability and convergence programmes and national reform programmes. Ministers will also discuss progress on formulating next steps in deepening European monetary union, as a staging post towards the June European Council meeting at which this will be a central focus.

On external relations, the European Council will discuss strategic partners focusing on EU-Russia relations. We expect that the preparation for this part of the European Council agenda, and any discussion on foreign policy, will primarily be covered in the Foreign Affairs Council, but GAC Ministers may also want to use this opportunity to guide discussions at the European Council. They may also raise issues that have read-across to the broader work of the GAC such as the European neighbourhood policy or Heading 4 funding.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lidington Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

8. What recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts on the possibility of an intergovernmental conference on EU treaty change.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I am in regular contact with my European opposite numbers on a range of issues, including on the reforms being discussed to bring stability to the eurozone and wider changes to the European Union.

[Seema Malhotra]

Given that the Minister is unable to give any indication of a time scale for any potential intergovernmental conference on EU treaty change, what does he say to businesses in my constituency that have raised their concerns that uncertainty over the relationship with the EU could harm trade with the continent and threaten their viability?

[Mr Lidington]

I would say to businesses in the hon. Lady’s constituency that I hope that they will warmly welcome the efforts the Government are making to strengthen the single market in Europe, to promote free trade with the rest of the world and to cut the cost of European regulation on businesses of all sizes.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Will the Minister embrace collaboration rather than confrontation in Europe and welcome last week’s call for smarter regulation, more cost-efficiency, more free trade agreements and many other European reforms that are possible with or without a treaty issued by the Deputy Prime Minister and Liberals in government in the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Estonia, Romania and the UK?

[Mr Lidington]

There was indeed a great deal in that statement with which I, coming from a different political family, would find myself in disagreement—[Interruption.] I mean in complete agreement—although perhaps I disagreed with a few points. It is striking that when I talk to my European counterparts, from whatever political family they come, there is a common sense of the urgency of Europe’s collectively getting to grips with the challenges of global competition and taking the steps on deregulation and the promotion of free markets and free trade that will bring more jobs and prosperity to everyone in this continent.

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

Treaty change requires the agreement of all member states. However, the European Council President said last week in London that there was

“not much appetite . . . around the leaders table”

for opening the treaties. The Dutch Foreign Minister said:

“We will do everything to avoid treaty change”.

The French are not keen. The Germans are not keen. Which allies has the Minister found for treaty change?

[Mr Lidington]

I am sorry if the hon. Lady feels that the treaty of Lisbon is so perfect that it needs no reform at all. In respect of the President of the European Council’s comment, he has said before that he does not think that any treaty change is likely for the next couple of years, and I do not disagree with that opinion, but if the hon. Lady looks again at the report of the four Presidents, if she looks again at President Barroso’s blueprint for European reform, she will find there a proposal for substantial changes to the way the EU operates that would not be possible without changes to the treaties.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

We are seeing some positive results and progress in areas such as the EU budget, fisheries and the extension of the working time directive. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the ongoing process of negotiation and alliance building is a vital part of realising the reforms needed in the EU and Britain’s relationship with its European partners?

[Mr Lidington]

I completely agree with what my hon. Friend says. The achievement of the first-ever reduction in a European financial framework, coupled with the agreement on the ban on the obscene practice of discarding fish—something for which this country has fought for many years—is clear evidence not only that this Government are committed to working with our partners in Europe to achieve common objectives, but that we are succeeding in delivering outcomes that should be welcomed right across the House and by everybody in this country.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

9. What recent discussions he has had with the Government of Israel on illegal settlements in the occupied west bank.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

15. What progress he has made in developing proposals to repatriate powers from the EU.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

The Government have already made progress on securing reforms to the EU, by ending Britain’s obligation to bail out eurozone members, by ensuring that the smallest businesses are exempted from EU regulations, by securing protections on banking union and by achieving a shift in fisheries policy towards local and regional management.

[Mr Bain]

But did President Van Rompuy not have a good point last week when he said that, rather than prioritising treaty change, the Government should be leading the charge for growth in Europe? With our economy having grown by a dismal 0.2% last year, should the Minister not take that advice rather than trying to weaken the rights of work for millions of employees across Britain?

[Mr Lidington]

It is this Government’s commitment to growth, jobs and prosperity in Europe that lay behind the achievement of the EU’s free trade agreements with the Republic of Korea and with Singapore, attained during the lifetime of this coalition Government, and it is the firm alliance between our Prime Minister and the German Chancellor that is driving forward, with the Commission, moves in Europe towards an historic transatlantic trade deal. I wish that the Opposition were sometimes a little less grudging.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Does the Minister agree that seeking to repatriate powers in the areas of employment and social affairs would not be about regaining powers from Europe, but rather about taking away the rights of working people here at home?

[Mr Lidington]

I sincerely hope that the hon. Lady is not seeking, by means of that question, to suggest that she supports an end to our opt-out from the 48-hour working week under the working time directive. I hope that she is not being complacent about the European Court of Justice judgments that have caused such difficulties for the national health service and for the social care sector, problems that are not unique to the United Kingdom and concerns about which are shared by many other member states.

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

Has the Minister drawn any conclusion from the fact that at last Thursday’s Eastleigh by-election a majority of voters voted for candidates who want to see the United Kingdom repatriate all powers from the European Union?

[Mr Lidington]

I think that what the voters in every constituency in the country will be looking for is a Government who actually deliver results for the people of the United Kingdom, at both the economic and political level, in Europe and globally.

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

Does the regionalisation of fisheries waters not show that we can repatriate powers under the present treaty and that that augurs well for the future repatriation of powers to the United Kingdom?

[Mr Lidington]

I believe that there are many reforms that can be achieved within the current treaty framework and further reforms that, in due course, would be best settled within the framework of treaty amendments.

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, Mark Hendrick.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

T3. My constituent Mr Percival is one of many who have been robbed by property fraud in Cyprus following the default of the Alpha bank. Will a Minister meet me to discuss with the Greek and Cypriot authorities what might be done to rectify this disgrace?

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

Ministers at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and our high commissioner in Cyprus regularly raise property issues with the Cypriot authorities. I have made a commitment to meet members of the all-party group on the defence of the interests of British property owners in Cyprus to discuss the particular case to which my right hon. Friend has referred and the broader issues. I would be very happy to talk to him in that context.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

T4. The Foreign Secretary advised the House in a written ministerial statement that the Government would consult European Union partners on strengthening EU sanctions. Will he update us on those discussions and on what impact further sanctions would have on the North Korean leadership and the North Korean people?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

No, we have not had discussions with the European Commission, but we have made it clear in published documents that the great weight of international legal advice and precedent is that an independent Scotland would have to negotiate its membership of the European Union and other international organisations. In the case of the EU, that would, of course, require the unanimous consent of all member states for every term of that membership.

[Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)]

T6. I recently visited Gaza as part of a cross-party delegation with Interpal. While there I was alarmed to witness, on three different occasions, the shooting at and intimidation of Palestinian fishing boats that appeared to be clearly inside the six-mile limit agreed by the ceasefire. Earlier, the Secretary of State roundly condemned, as is right and proper, the firing of rockets into Israel, but does he agree that peace depends on both sides sticking to the terms of the ceasefire, including Israeli naval ships?

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

I hope that the Minister sees a continuing important role for the nation state in Europe. Will he do all in his power to protect very small states such as Luxembourg, which has a successful economy, so that they can continue to do things their separate way, without any further loss of sovereign powers in any possible EU treaty change?

[Mr Lidington]

In my experience, Luxembourg’s Ministers are extremely vigorous and effective in protecting the interests of Luxembourg. However, I would add that the United Kingdom, as one of the biggest member states of the European Union, is usually able to exercise rather greater influence and to mobilise coalitions more effectively than a small country on its own, particularly one that might just have joined the EU.

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

T8. May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the Fresh Start manifesto and, in particular, to the section on the budget? Will he confirm that we will insist that MEPs vote on the multi-annual financial framework in public, rather than in private as has been proposed by the European Parliament?

[Mr Lidington]

Elected representatives, whether in the European Parliament or this place, should be accountable to the people who elect them in the first place. A secret vote is a denial of that democratic accountability. I hope that Labour Members will exercise the maximum possible public pressure on the socialist group in the European Parliament to stand by that principle of political accountability, to which the Conservative party is committed.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether the Government have set out a clear list of powers that the Government desire to repatriate from the EU? In the light of that, are negotiations going on with our EU colleagues about the process that would be necessary to achieve that end?

[Mr Lidington]

As a coalition Government, we are committed to a programme of significant reform of the European Union, as has been set out in many speeches and public statements by Ministers throughout the Government. The question of a treaty renegotiation will be put to the electorate in the Conservative party’s 2015 manifesto.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

Following the arrest this morning of former President Nasheed in the Maldives, will the Minister update the House on the situation in that country?

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

Given earlier references to the regionalisation of fisheries policy, is the Minister hopeful that we will achieve the objective whereby regional advisory councils can make decisions on fish quota allocations and fisheries management?

[Mr Lidington]

In the light of the vote in the European Parliament the other week and the more recent decision at the Council of Ministers, the Government are confident but not complacent—I think that is how I would put it. I assure the hon. Lady that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), working in close consultation with all three devolved Administrations in the United Kingdom, is determined to do his utmost to deliver the kind of deal that she and I wish to see.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Foreign Affairs Council

David Lidington Excerpts

Monday 25th February 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 Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) on 18 February. The Foreign Affairs Council was chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland. Commissioners Piebalgs (Development), and Füle (Enlargement) were in attendance for some of the discussions.

Foreign Affairs Council (FAC)

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

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/135544.pdf.

Mali

Ministers formally launched the EU training mission to Mali, and discussed the adoption of the road map. There was general support for ensuring that elections were held in line with the road map, and that they took into account the legitimate needs of the north. Ministers also stressed the need to ensure that the Malian Government were engaged on the political track, as well as the security one. There was widespread support for the role of France in this crisis and the leadership they had demonstrated. The discussion also included a focus on what development opportunities could be reinstated in the light of the improving security situation. Conclusions were agreed, which described ongoing efforts in Mali to achieve security and stability.

Eastern Partnership

There was a wide-ranging discussion, with a view to establishing the EU’s priorities ahead of the eastern partnership summit, scheduled to take place in Vilnius in November. Conclusions were agreed outlining this. Ministers discussed how to engage partner countries in the debate, how to encourage them to continue economic and political reforms, and on the need for a differentiated approach to for each country. Several member states stressed the need for the EU to offer a clear European perspective for the eastern partners.

Iraq

The current political tensions in Iraq were touched on briefly, with a more substantial discussion planned for a later date.

Syria

The FAC agreed conclusions which outlined the EU’s strong concern on the ongoing situation in Syria especially the humanitarian crisis, and highlighted its support for the al-Khatib initiative, the opposition, civil society and planning for transition. There was broad agreement that further assistance to people in Syria, particularly the protection of civilians, could be enhanced. The Council conclusions also set out the EU’s decision to amend the EU’s arms embargo to allow the provision of non-lethal support and technical assistance to the opposition, and to renew the restrictive measures for a further three months.

Middle East Peace Process

Ministers agreed that 2013 was a crucial year for the middle east peace process. They welcomed President Obama’s planned trip to the region and agreed that it was important to engage with the US on the increasingly urgent need to make progress on the two-state solution. There was broad agreement that the EU had an important role to play in supporting US efforts.

Zimbabwe

Council conclusions were adopted that repeated the EU’s readiness to suspend the majority of the restrictive measures following a peaceful and credible constitutional referendum. Ministers agreed an amendment to the existing measures that delisted 21 individuals and suspended the travel ban on six Ministers. The restrictive measures were extended for a further 12 months. The EU position supports the reforms that have been achieved so far and encourages further progress.

Other business

Northern Dimension

After the FAC, there was also a meeting of the Northern Dimension, where Iceland, Norway and Russia joined member states in a discussion on practical co-operation in the region, highlighting the opportunities in the High North and the challenge of developing those opportunities in a sustainable manner.

Bourgas

Under any other business, Bulgaria outlined the findings of its investigation into the Bourgas terrorist attack which took place in July 2012.

Other business

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

EU assistance to Kosovo related to the rule of law.

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK); The measures that had been agreed previously at the January FAC were strengthened in light of the recent nuclear test on 12 February. The package will implement UN Security Council Resolution 2087, which imposed new criteria allowing the EU to sanction individuals involved in the supply of conventional arms and dual-use goods and banned the export to DPRK of certain materials for ballistic missiles. In addition, a limited range of financial restrictions were agreed in response to the nuclear test, including bans on the sale or purchase of gold, diamonds, precious metals and Government bonds. The EU reiterated its call on the Government of DPRK to urgently improve the human rights situation in their country. Together with Japan, the EU will propose, at the Human Rights Council, the creation of an independent inquiry mechanism in support of the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the DPRK.

EU priorities in UN human rights forum: Council conclusions were agreed on the EU’s approach to UN human rights forum in 2013. Among the priorities for strong action at UN-level are the human rights situations in Syria, DPRK, Burma, Belarus, Sri Lanka, Mali and Iran, and the right to freedom of religion or belief.

Foreign Affairs Council

David Lidington Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 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 18 February 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.

Southern Neighbourhood

Ministers will discuss the continuing crisis in Syria and the EU’s response, including the EU arms embargo, in advance of the roll over of the EU sanctions package, due on 1 March. We are urging EU partners to look at all options to protect civilians and to assist the National Coalition and opposition groups opposed to extremism, including amendment of the EU sanctions regime.

Middle East Peace Process

The discussion will build on January’s FAC, which agreed that it was important to engage with the US Administration on the middle east peace process. Ministers will also discuss the EU’s approach to settlements; Gaza; Palestinian recognition; and Palestinian Authority finances. The UK will emphasise the need for the FAC to agree concrete steps the EU could take to help support a renewed US-led initiative on the peace process. The UK will welcome discussion of settlements and Palestinian financing, and will reiterate the importance of EU action that supports the Egyptian-brokered ceasefire efforts, and addresses the underlying causes of the conflict in Gaza.

Iraq

Ministers will discuss the current political crisis in Iraq and what actions the EU might take in response. The UK will encourage greater engagement with a broad range of Iraqi political actors to promote dialogue and restraint. We will also emphasise the need for the EU to consider its long-term engagement with Iraq to help prevent similar crises arising in future, including focusing on the development of the rule of law.

Mali

Ministers will take stock of the latest developments in Mali since the last FAC on 31 January. Discussions will focus on progress on the political track, including the Friends of Mali meeting which took place in Brussels on 5 February, and the EU’s response to the situation, including the establishment of an EU training mission to support Malian forces.

Eastern Partnership

Ministers will have a discussion on the eastern partnership, looking ahead to November’s eastern partnership summit in Vilnius. I expect conclusions to be issued. The UK will reiterate its support for the eastern partnership process, which we see as an important driver for promoting economic and political reform in the region.

European Union (Approvals) Bill

David Lidington Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

All I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that that is a fluid situation, so it would be unfair to both new and existing member states. For example, the Polish economy is the only economy that I can name, certainly in Europe, that did not go into recession after the global financial crisis hit, and so its trajectory is healthy. We would do well to remember that the success of the Polish economy might mean, sooner than the hon. Gentleman might think, that it will become a net contributor rather than a net recipient.

On Amendment 4, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch, last autumn he and I were in the same Division Lobby calling on the Government to seek a cut in the EU budget, and we strengthened their hand in the negotiations. To an extent I agree with the spirit of his amendment and see some merit in it.

It would be better, however, if the hon. Member for Christchurch called on the Government to prevent an increase in the administration ceiling in the EU budget. According to the comparative table we received following last Friday’s negotiations, however, that ceiling will increase by 8% over the MFF period. I do not think that such a big victory. We heard a lot of cheers earlier during the EU Council statement, but very little attention was paid to that point, and it is a point worth considering. That would be a more powerful demand for him to make of the Government than their writing into this fairly minor Bill the conditions he has set out. For that reason, I am not in favour of the amendment, although, as I said, I agree with its spirit.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

The amendment aims to freeze the number of staff and resources available to Commissioners at the level provided for 27 Commissioners, no matter how many such Commissioners there are. It seeks, therefore, to make the UK’s approval of the draft decision to revert to the system by which every EU member state has its own Commissioner dependent on that condition being implemented. I have to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) as I cannot recommend that the Committee accept his amendment. There are three reasons for that that I hope will provide him with a measure of reassurance.

First, there are technical reasons concerning the consequences of my hon. Friend’s amendment. Secondly, there are certain safeguards within the current structure of the EU budget that mean that some of the dangers about which he is concerned ought not to arise. Thirdly, I hope to give him clear reassurances both about the Government’s robust commitment to seeking every opportunity to secure greater economies and efficiencies in EU expenditure and about some of the negotiations and instruments where those objectives that he and I share might be achieved.

I completely share my hon. Friend’s concern about the need to improve efficiency in all EU institutions, including the European Commission, but we need to be clear about what the consequences would be were this amendment to be carried. The Bill provides simply for the approval of the draft EU Council decision on the number of EU Commissioners. The draft decision provides neither the scope to change the allocation of resources within the Commission nor the power or opportunity to influence the overall EU budgetary ceilings, the individual budget headings, either on a multi-annual or annual basis, or the allocation of resources within each of those budgetary headings. Were it to be carried, therefore, the amendment would leave the UK unable to agree to the change proposed to the number of Commissioners, but would not provide the means by which to alter EU expenditure in the way that he is seeking.

[Mr Chope]

Surely if the Government were to accept this amendment all that would happen is that my right hon. Friend or the Prime Minister would go along and say to their counterparts in other European countries, “I’m afraid we can’t agree to this unless you agree that you won’t increase expenditure as a result of having additional commissioners.” They would accept that, would they not?

[Mr Lidington]

That brings me to my second point, which is that if British Ministers were to open that kind of conversation with our partners, their immediate response would be to say that such is already provided for in the European Union’s budgetary set-up. Even if the number of Commissioners increases to 28 or beyond, that cannot result in any increase in the ceiling set by the multi-annual financial framework, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister negotiated last week at the European Council; nor can an increase in the number of Commissioners lead to an increase in annual spending limits. To paraphrase what I think my hon. Friend said in moving his amendment, if there has to be additional expenditure to provide for a new Commissioner and his or her team, it would need to be found from elsewhere in the European Union budget, subject to the ceilings set unanimously by the European Council in respect of the multi-annual framework and, subsequently, each annual budget negotiated and agreed by qualified majority vote on a 12-monthly basis, so there is a measure of safeguards already.

Let me also make this point to my hon. Friend. I am the first to agree that when we look for efficiencies and economies, we should not be shy about looking for savings in small matters as well as large. However, we also need to be clear about what an extra Commissioner would entail. It is true that it would mean providing somewhere in the budget for a salary for that Commissioner and their immediate cabinet. That money would have to be found, within the ceilings, by sacrificing spending opportunities elsewhere, but the process would not mean the creation of entirely new directorates-general. Indeed, I can tell the House that the discussions already under way about provision for a probable new Croatian Commissioner involve the splitting up of existing directorates-general and parcelling them in a slightly different way, not adding to the overall number of new people working for the Commission. We are talking about a redistribution of responsibilities among a larger number of Commissioners.

[Philip Davies]

I am enjoying my right hon. Friend’s gymnastics in trying to resist the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). Am I right in thinking that my right hon. Friend is saying that we should not worry because the overall EU budget is capped and, therefore, that if the EU wastes more money on a European Commissioner, that will just mean it has less to waste on something else? Is that really the thrust of his argument?

[Mr Lidington]

What I am saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is that the objective that is explicitly sought in the amendment—to ensure that the budget does not increase as a consequence of the appointment of additional Commissioners—is a principle that is already embodied in the European Union’s budgetary arrangements, both multi-annual and annual.

My third point is about what is perhaps the most important area. It should remain a key priority for the Government of the United Kingdom—and, I should add, for a fair number of other national Governments around the European Union—to look for ways to make the European Union more efficient in everything it does and to look for every opportunity to eliminate wasteful or unnecessary expenditure. There are a number of ways that that could be done.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) talked about a possible reconfiguration of the Commission along a senior Minister/junior Minister model. That is not something to which the UK Government are committed at the moment, but it is certainly one idea that is being discussed in think-tanks and elsewhere as a means of trying to impose not just greater efficiency, but greater coherence on the operations of the Commission. If we look at the Commission today, to provide one illustration, we have a Commissioner for External Relations, who is the High Representative on foreign policy, and we have separate Commissioners for international development, for disaster relief and for European Union enlargement. One conceivable model would be to see those four portfolios given to a Commissioner who was head of department and to subordinate Commissioners reporting to that more senior post holder. That is one way of seeking greater efficiency, but there are many others, too.

[Mr Nuttall]

My right hon. Friend is making a very good case for the Government about why this modest amendment is being resisted, but let me ask him a simple question. If my right hon. Friend does not feel that he would be able to persuade our partners in the European Union to accept such a modest amendment as this one, what hope is there of us ever being able to negotiate anything like the sorts of return of competences that would be necessary to satisfy the desires of the British people?

[Mr Lidington]

If my hon. Friend looks at what the Prime Minister achieved last week—against expectations in some parts of this House and outside it—and if he looks at the significant moves taken towards fisheries reform in recent weeks, I think he would see evidence to show that it is possible for a determined and energetic UK Government working closely with like-minded allies to secure the kind of reforms to the European Union that both he and I would wish to see enacted.

[Mr Chope]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I will give way to my hon. Friend, but I want to return to his point about efficiencies and expenditure.

[Mr Chope]

Perhaps this intervention will facilitate that. I ask my right hon. Friend whether the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) was correct in saying that the administrative ceiling is going to increase by 8%. If so, how is that consistent with everything that my right hon. Friend is saying? Why would they need to spend more money on administration?

[Mr Lidington]

I would wish heading 5 on administration to be a lot lower than was provided for in the package negotiated last week. It is up compared with 2006 to 2013, but it is down by €1 billion from the proposals brought forward by the European Commission and President Van Rompuy at the November European Council meeting. I was being told by the Commission as late as December last year that that reduction was completely impossible as it would lead to the inability to recruit staff or to deliver key services, yet there has been that significant reduction. I am the first to acknowledge to my hon. Friend that I wish we could have got unanimous agreement to go a lot further and that we need to return to the charge.

[Emma Reynolds]

Will the Minister confirm, however, that this is still an 8% increase from the previous period? I will give him my table if he would like to see it.

[Mr Lidington]

I may be able to put on record the exact figure later on, but I do not have it in the notes in front of me at the moment.

The other opportunities lie in measures such as the staffing regulations for EU institutions, which are the subject of negotiations at the moment. It is those regulations that govern the salaries, the pensions, the tax status—or perhaps the non-tax status—of EU staff. Those regulations govern such matters as allowances, on which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and I would be in agreement. It is impossible to justify objectively the payment of an expatriate allowance to staff who are working in Brussels rather than London or Paris and who have in some cases been working there for well over a decade yet still receive this expatriate allowance to recognise the apparent hardship of having to work in the Berlaymont.

There are many opportunities that we can and should seek for reform. The Government are determined to do that, and I believe that they have strong support in the House for so doing. However, it remains in the interests of the United Kingdom for this decision to be ratified. I hope that, having heard what I have said, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will feel able to withdraw his amendment, and to be confident in the Government’s resolve to continue to work for the greatest possible economy and efficiency in every part of the European Union’s work.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for his full response to the concerns that have been expressed this evening and the concerns that gave rise to my modest amendment, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) for agreeing with me in spirit, which is something that I certainly value.

I am also grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing the Committee’s attention to the prediction that the administrative ceiling will rise by some 8%, a figure that seems to be pretty much undisputed. That demonstrates the truth of an observation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall). If it is as difficult as it seems to have been to bring about a zero increase in the EU’s administrative budget, how difficult will it be to win back those powers and responsibilities for our own Parliament during the negotiations leading up to the referendum? That just shows how tough a job it is to make any progress in the European Union.

I accept my right hon. Friend’s view that there are difficulties with my amendment, and that it would have, as he put it, technical consequences. However, one does despair when, following all the excitement associated with the power effectively to veto these proposals under the European Union Act 2011, as soon as we start threatening to use the veto—or even arguing for a modest amendment, or for the attachment of a condition to something that the European Union wants to change —we are told “Oh, we cannot do that, it would be ever so difficult”.

I am sure that you share my frustration, Mr Hoyle. We discuss all this stuff, and then, when we reach the end of the debate, it seems that we have travelled no further in terms of substance. We appear to have thrown in the towel in allowing an increase in the number of Commissioners, and it will be very easy for the Commission to increase its expenditure if there is an 8% increase in its ceiling for administration.

However, the debate has provided an opportunity for everyone to see exactly what battle we must fight with the European Union if we are to win back any substantive powers. Furthermore, because I am as concerned as many of my hon. Friends about the hard deal that people in rural areas have had as a result of the local government settlement, I do not want to eat into the time that is available for the debate on that subject by pressing for a Division. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading

[Mr Lidington]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I want to thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in our debates on the Bill. I thank the hon. Members for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) and for Caerphilly (Wayne David) for the support that the official Opposition have given to the Bill. It has been a significant piece of legislation on two counts. First, it has been a useful test of the procedures included in the European Union Act 2011. In the Act, we committed ourselves to providing Parliament with more opportunities to scrutinise European Union business, and the Bill is evidence that we are delivering on that commitment. The requirement for debate and primary legislation to govern these decisions has added to Parliament’s hold over EU business.

Secondly, the proceedings on the Bill have shown that the Government have been prepared to listen carefully to the views of parliamentary Committees. As was said earlier, the Government originally thought that the decision about the work programme of the Fundamental Rights Agency was exempt from the requirement for primary legislation under the 2011 Act. However, we took careful note of the serious argument put forward by the European Scrutiny Committee of this House and the European Union Select Committee of the House of Lords that that was not the case. Our legal advisers looked again at the matter, and we accepted that, on this occasion, Parliament was right. We accordingly brought forward the necessary legislation.

I should like to put on record my gratitude for the outstanding work done by officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Justice on this legislation, and my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) for their work on the earlier stages of the Bill.

The Government believe that all three measures contained in the Bill are in the best interests of the United Kingdom, and that they are sensible and reasonable proposals. None of them will have a significant domestic impact, and none will result in any additional financial burdens being imposed on this country. I commend the Bill and its Third Reading to the House.

Foreign Affairs Council/General Affairs Council

David Lidington Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 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 Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) on 31 January. The Foreign Affairs Council was chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland. Commissioners Damanaki (Maritime Affairs and Fisheries), Georgieva (International Co-operation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response) and Füle (Enlargement) were in attendance for some of the discussions. The President of Somalia, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, attended lunch with the Foreign Ministers.

I attended the General Affairs Council on 4 February in Brussels. The General Affairs Council was chaired by the Irish Presidency, the Foreign Minister for Ireland, Eamon Gilmore.

Foreign Affairs Council (FAC)

A provisional report of the meeting and conclusions adopted can be found at: http://www.consilium.europa. eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/135155.pdf.

EU-CELAC Summit

Baroness Ashton briefed the FAC on the EU-CELAC summit which took place on 26 and 27 January in Santiago, Chile. She said the summit had focused on the importance of trade and investment for growth and stability in the region, and the need to collaborate more closely on shared values such as human rights, including in multilateral fora. CELAC countries had welcomed the high level of EU engagement displayed throughout the summit.

EU-Russia Summit

Baroness Ashton reported back on the EU-Russia summit on 21 December. She said that the EU needed to work more closely with Russia on protracted conflicts in the common neighbourhood, and stressed the importance of the eastern neighbourhood remaining high on the EU-Russian agenda in the run up to the eastern partnership summit in Vilnius in November.

Mali

There was widespread support for France’s actions in Mali, and France was congratulated on its success so far. France stressed the need for African troops to work alongside French forces and to help hold the territorial gains. The Council adopted Council conclusions that welcomed recent military and political developments, reaffirmed the aim of launching the EU training mission (EUTM) Mali by mid-February, and noted that the adoption of the road map permitted the gradual resumption of EU development assistance.

Commissioner Georgieva said that a humanitarian crisis had existed in Mali prior to recent events, but that the French intervention had averted a worsening of the situation. But greater humanitarian access was needed. The donor conference in Addis Ababa had been very positive, with the African contribution particularly notable.

The Foreign Secretary said that the UK would provide up to 40 people for the EUTM Mali, and stressed the importance of providing training in human rights and protection of civilians. The UK would also provide up to 200 trainers for the African-led International Support Mission to Mali (AFISMA) troops in the Anglophone contributing countries.

Southern Neighbourhood

The FAC prepared the 7 and 8 February European Council discussion on EU support to the Southern Neighbourhood, and accepted the need for the EU to assess how successful its approach had been since the Arab spring.

The FAC also agreed conclusions endorsing the joint EEAS-Commission communication on EU support for regional integration in the Maghreb. The conclusions noted the communication’s emphasis on democratic reform and inclusive economic development, looked ahead to a high-level EU-Arab Maghreb Union dialogue and welcomed proposals on co-operation in the security sector, given recent Sahel-linked terrorism.

On Syria, Ministers discussed three areas: the lack of progress as set out in joint Special Representative Lakhdar Brahimi’s latest report to the UN Security Council; the deteriorating humanitarian situation; and the EU sanctions package. The humanitarian and security situation remained dire. Ministers agreed on the need to support Brahimi’s efforts. Brahimi’s presence at the Foreign Affairs Council on February 18 would provide an opportunity for a more detailed discussion.

The Foreign Secretary set out the extraordinary scale of the humanitarian crisis, highlighted by the UN level 3 emergency status. UK humanitarian assistance now totalled £140 million, and, while assistance from the EU had been impressive, member states needed to give more: Europe had to set an example to the rest of the world.

Ministers discussed the issue of amending the EU sanctions regime, and agreed to return to it at the Foreign Affairs Council on 18 February.

Ministers expressed their concern at the political and economic turmoil in Egypt, and focused on the importance of conditionality in the EU’s approach.

EU-US

Ministers discussed the EU’s priorities with the US during President Obama’s second term, focusing on the strategic and political importance of an EU-US free trade agreement (FTA) and its growth-boosting potential. Other shared priorities were co-operation on Asia-Pacific, the Eastern and Southern Neighbourhood, and Africa, in particular the Sahel and the horn of Africa.

Middle East Peace Process

Ministers considered the middle east peace process within the broader discussion of EU-US relations. It was agreed that it was important to engage with the US Administration to encourage them to engage fully on the middle east peace process. High Representative Ashton said the European External Action Service was also focused on working with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the Arab League, and Egypt in this context.

Somalia

The FAC adopted comprehensive conclusions, the first since the political transition ended, setting out a new EU relationship with Somalia. The conclusions welcomed the announcement of the London and EU conferences, and reaffirmed readiness to maintain significant EU support to the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM).

Over lunch, Foreign Ministers had an exchange with the President of Somalia, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud. The president stressed the need for improved international and regional co-operation. He made a plea for continued EU financial support to AMISOM, noting that parallel support to the Somali National Security Forces was also required for them to be in a position to take over in due course. The Foreign Secretary set out his plans for the forthcoming London conference on Somalia, to be co-hosted with the Somalis, which will focus on immediate needs: security, justice, public financial management and continued political progress. Baroness Ashton outlined plans for an EU conference later in the year, which will address medium and long-term Somali needs.

The Arctic

High Representative Ashton and Commissioner Damanaki emphasised the importance of member state support for the Commission’s application for Arctic Council observer status. Ministers also focused on the impact of climate change on the Arctic, and the importance of protecting the rights of the Arctic’s indigenous peoples. High Representative Ashton concluded that whether or not the Commission secured observer status, the EU would continue to engage on the significant challenges and opportunities arising in the Arctic.

South Caucasus

Under AOB, the Bulgarian Foreign Minister Mladenov reported on his joint visit with his Polish and Swedish counterparts to the south Caucasus in December. The three Foreign Ministers urged partners to focus on two issues in particular: the risk of increased conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh; and the need to press Georgia’s President Saakashvili and Prime Minister Ivanishvili to achieve a constructive cohabitation.

Other business

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

Amending restrictive measures on Iraq;

Extending the validity of national permits for the temporary reception of certain Palestinians in the EU;

Amending restrictive measures on Afghanistan;

Approving the six-monthly progress report on the implementation of the EU strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction;

Extending the sanctions against persons responsible for the misappropriation of Tunisia state funds;

Adopting conclusions on support for sustainable change in transition societies;

Approving the EU crisis management exercise programme for 2013-15; and

Approving the crisis management concept for a possible civilian common security defence policy (CSDP) border security mission in Libya.

General Affairs Council (GAC)

With the February European Council taking place on 7 and 8 January, the focus of the GAC was on preparing for this meeting. There was a short presentation on the Irish Presidency’s work programme and a first look at the agenda for the March European Council. After the Council, Ministers had lunch with the President of the European Council, Herman van Rompuy.

Presentation of the Presidency Work Programme

Eamon Gilmore presented the programme for the Irish EU Presidency. He noted the emphasis on measures which would promote jobs and growth. The presidency would focus on the single market, and on regulatory measures—for instance the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. On enlargement, they hoped to open new chapters with Turkey, Montenegro and Iceland.

Preparation for the 7-8 February European Council

The plenary session of the General Affairs Council discussed trade and external relations. The Commission set out the link between trade, growth and jobs and presented the findings from their recent paper on trade. The Commission emphasised the importance of trade in delivering urgently needed growth and jobs.

Although the overall tone of the discussion was clearly oriented towards the need to promote further trade, there were differences on how this should be done. Many Europe Ministers pressed for an ambitious trade agenda based on sending positive messages to those with whom we wish to work. Some warned against mercantilist conditionality tied to access to the single market, which would send out the wrong signal and enable member states to pursue a protectionist agenda.

Conversely, other member states argued that the European Council conclusions should include stronger references to the trade defence instrument. They underlined the importance of reciprocity and the need for a strong industrial policy and called for Japan to dismantle its non-tariff barriers. Several member states called for a specific reference to the public procurement instrument in the European Council conclusions.

I argued that when the European Council conclusions were agreed, they would send a strong signal to those with whom we sought to do business. Did we want this signal to be a lukewarm welcome to trade, with caveats, exceptions and conditions, or should we send a clear signal that we were serious about doing business? I further emphasised that trade is not a zero-sum game. This applied to trade within the single market as well as trade between the EU and others.

When discussing the Southern Neighbourhood, I stressed that the European Council should call for progress in launching deep and comprehensive free trade agreements (DCFTAs). A differentiated approach to these DCFTAs was warranted, where some countries such as Tunisia and Morocco were more advanced than others.

Finally, Ministers discussed whether the Syrian arms embargo was achieving its humanitarian aims. I said that the UK would raise this at the European Council.

Presentation of the Annotated draft agenda for 14-15 March European Council

The presidency introduced the March European Council agenda, which would focus on the European semester. The Commission said they hoped the European Council could endorse a balanced set of conclusions that would give further impetus to the process. On the planned discussion of strategic partners, the Commission suggested that this could be used to discuss relations with Russia.

Lunch with President of the European Council, Herman van Rompuy

The focus of the February European Council will be on the multi-annual financial framework (MFF) at which the Prime Minister will be arguing for at most a real-terms freeze and to protect the UK rebate. Herman van Rompuy, President of the European Council, set out his plans for how the negotiations on the MFF would be handled on 7 and 8 February. The role of the European Parliament in agreeing the MFF was also discussed. Both the Irish Presidency and Herman van Rompuy touched on the consent of the European Parliament, which would be required for any MFF deal.