Oral Answers to Questions

David Lidington Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

16. What assessment he has made of the implications for his Department of economic conditions in the EU.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

The crisis in the eurozone is having a chilling effect throughout Europe, which is why this Government are arguing vigorously within the European Union for action to promote growth by deepening the single market, boosting trade and cutting red tape.

[Anne Marie Morris]

I thank the Minister for his response. Does he agree that it is important that policies are enacted at EU level to encourage economic growth? Measures designed to help drive sustainable economic recovery, such as exempting micro-businesses from the burden of red tape, would have positive implications for all Government Departments across the 27 member states, including his own.

[Mr Lidington]

I agree completely with my hon. Friend, which is why the agreement at the December European Council for an exemption from European regulations for micro-business was particularly welcome, especially as that will apply not only to new European legislation but will prompt a review of the existing acquis in respect of micro-businesses.

[Mr Spencer]

Can the Minister assure the House that the principles of the Prime Minister’s veto will be followed through, and that any attempt by the EU to impose a tax on this country’s financial services will be vigorously resisted?

[Mr Lidington]

A financial transfer tax would require unanimous agreement by all 27 member states, which is something that the single market Commissioner, Monsieur Barnier, has confirmed to me. The Prime Minister has made it clear that we would not agree to the imposition of such a tax.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

What assessment has the Minister made of the impact on the EU economy of the recent behaviour of the Hungarian Government? Has he reminded that Government that there is an expectation that all EU members adhere to normal democratic norms?

[Mr Lidington]

We are certainly concerned about any developments in other EU member states which might lead to even greater economic instability than we currently see. I have talked about the concerns expressed in a number of quarters with regard to Hungarian legislation with my Hungarian opposite number and with the Commission. As the right hon. Gentleman may know, the Commission is due to release the results of its assessment about now. The Hungarian Government have said that they will consider carefully and constructively the comments that the Commission makes, whatever they are, and I believe that that is the right way forward.

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

It has been reported that the Foreign Secretary advised the Prime Minister before the European Union summit in December that if it is a choice between keeping the euro together or keeping the Conservative party together, it is in the national interest to keep the Conservative party together. Can the Minister confirm that the Foreign Secretary regards the unity of his party as more important to the national interest than the success or failure of our largest trading partner?

[Mr Lidington]

I really had hoped that the hon. Lady would have something a bit better to say than that. What the Government are determined to do is to support our allies and neighbours in the eurozone in their efforts to restore economic stability to their currency union, and also to press for the measures to promote job creation and economic growth which the whole of Europe desperately needs. We are not prepared to take lectures from the Labour party that signed away £7 billion of the British rebate and denied the people of this country the referendum on the Lisbon treaty, which it had promised.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the gloom about the consequences of an early break-up of the euro has been greatly exaggerated, bearing in mind the very positive economic experience for eastern European countries from the break-up of the rouble zone—very similar to the euro—in the early 1990s?

[Mr Lidington]

I have to say that it is unusual to find my right hon. Friend looking to the example of the former Soviet Union for inspiration. We have looked across Government very carefully at what the consequences of a eurozone break-up might be, and one of the key differences between now and 20 years ago is that the economies and the financial systems of Europe are much more closely interlinked now than they were then. It is certainly our judgment that it would be damaging to the British national interest were a collapse of the eurozone or a prolonged recession in the eurozone to take place.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The credit ratings of a number of eurozone states have been downgraded this week. The bail-out fund is now considered to be far too small to do its job. Mario Monti, Italy’s unelected Prime Minister, said yesterday that there would be a backlash against austerity unless Germany provides more support to Italy. The crisis becomes deeper every day. Is it not the case that recovery for many of those countries can come only when they can recreate national currencies, devalue and start to grow again?

[Mr Lidington]

With respect to the hon. Gentleman—his views on the subject are utterly consistent and I respect them—that is a matter for the peoples and Governments of those sovereign countries. From our point of view, what is needed is for the eurozone countries to implement in full the deal that they agreed to in October last year, and for Europe collectively at 27 to move forward urgently with deepening the single market, boosting global trade and cutting red tape and regulation on our businesses. That is the way to growth and jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

9. What steps he plans to take in response to recent reports of human rights abuses by the Government of Russia.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

We will continue to raise concerns about human rights with Russia at ministerial and official levels. We shall sponsor a number of observers at the forthcoming Russian presidential election that is due in March.

[Mr Raab]

I thank the Minister for that answer. With the US Senate due to approve the bipartisan Magnitsky Bill, which will impose mandatory visa bans and asset freezes on those responsible for gross human rights abuses, and with similar proposals in the Netherlands and Canada, will he look at the case for bringing forward an equivalent Bill in this House?

[Mr Lidington]

As the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) in Westminster Hall the other day, if the American Bill, which I understand is at committee stage in the Senate, eventually becomes law, we will look closely to see whether there are lessons on which we might draw. My hon. Friend will know that we have powers in this country to ban any person from coming to the United Kingdom if there are grounds for concern about their character, conduct or associations.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

When the Minister is making representations in Moscow about human rights in Russia, will he raise with the Russians, who have a pivotal role at the United Nations, the human rights abuses in Syria, because if Russia unblocked its present position at the United Nations, it would allow real pressure to be brought on the Syrian regime?

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. We obviously talk a great deal to Russia about the situation in Syria. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, within the past few weeks, has talked to Foreign Minister Lavrov about Syria, including to pass on our great concern about the systematic abuse of human rights in that country.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

Although the respect for human rights in Russia may be considerably greater than in it was in the Soviet Union, does not the terrible treatment of Mr Magnitsky, his death in custody and the refusal of the Russian authorities to recognise responsibility for what happened suggest that my right hon. Friend the Minister should follow the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and not wait until the United States has reached its conclusion, but do everything in our power to follow a similar course of action?

[Mr Lidington]

As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, we have powers in existing law to ban people from coming to this country on the grounds that their presence would not be conducive to the public good. He also knows that successive Governments have followed a practice of not commenting on individual cases. His concerns about the abuse of human rights in Russia are, however, well made. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and all Ministers, when they meet Russian counterparts, always make a point of raising human rights matters.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

10. What representations he has made to the President of Colombia on protection for trade unionists and human rights activists in that country.

Israel

David Lidington Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) on securing this debate. The attendance of a large number of my right hon. and hon. Friends and hon. Members from other parties at this 30-minute debate indicates the importance that the House attaches to both the bilateral relationship between the United Kingdom and Israel and to the wider issues concerning the middle east peace process, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy alluded in his opening speech.

I want to make it clear at the start that the Government see Israel as a key ally and friend of the UK. That does not mean that we agree on everything—we do not hesitate to express our disagreements with Israel where we feel that to be necessary, and successive Israeli Governments have done exactly the same with successive Governments here in London. We enjoy a close and productive relationship with the Israeli Government, and that very relationship allows us to have the candid discussions that are often necessary between friends.

As a number of hon. Members have said, the potential for collaboration between the United Kingdom and Israel is enormous. Our partnership in the high-tech industry could become one of the drivers of Britain’s economic growth. There is a long way to go before we get to that point—America still remains the first thought for an Israeli entrepreneur thinking about international co-operation—but we need to change that mindset, and we have taken some important steps this year towards that goal.

First, in October, during a visit to Israel, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer launched a Britain-Israel high-tech hub. It is a new team, based in our embassy in Tel Aviv, tasked with promoting the high-tech partnership, with staff drawn entirely from the high-tech sector. Its job will be to help find partners for Israeli companies, bring the best of Israeli innovation to British companies and help our two economies to exploit each other’s potential.

Secondly, also in October, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science went to Israel, too, with a high-powered delegation from our digital industries. We intend to continue the exchange of delegations from across the high-tech sector in the coming year.

Finally, regarding political initiatives, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu have agreed to launch a UK-Israel high-tech council. It will meet twice a year, once in the UK and once in Israel, to make sure that our strategy is right.

I could point to other examples of increased co-operation between our two countries. For example, in science and innovation, a major conference on regenerative medicine took place in November. Another example is education, where we are planning a campaign to ensure that the United Kingdom resumes its place as the destination of choice for Israeli students. A third example is cultural co-operation, where the work of the British Council and bilateral exchanges between Israel and the United Kingdom are helping to bring about a greater understanding of the culture of our two countries.

[Paul Flynn]

The political editor of The Daily Telegraph has alleged that a meeting that took place in February this year between the previous Defence Secretary, Adam Werritty and others was attended by Mossad. As the report that we have on the matter decided that that was a private meeting, is it not time that we looked at the policy followed by Mr Adam Werritty as possibly something that would lead to a conflict with Iran and had a legitimate report into the Adam Werritty-former Defence Secretary affair, because the only enforcer of the ministerial code is Philip Mawer—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I am afraid that that is far too long for an intervention.

[Mr Lidington]

I think that it was an ingenious attempt by the hon. Gentleman to import some completely irrelevant material into a debate about an important subject. There has been a full report by the Cabinet Secretary and numerous parliamentary questions from the hon. Gentleman and others. I do not propose to go beyond the responses provided in those documents this morning. I shall move on to the middle east peace process, which was the subject of a large part of the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy.

[Mr Offord]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Lidington]

I have five minutes to speak, and I want to try to reply to what has been said. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me.

The events in the Arab world this year reinforce the urgent need to make progress on the middle east peace process. We are clear that a solution cannot be imposed from outside. We believe that both parties—I emphasise that—need to redouble their efforts to break the impasse and resume negotiations on a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before the window to such a solution closes. Neither side can afford to let the opportunity for peace slip further from its grasp. A successful outcome will require good will and a willingness to compromise from both sides.

To respond to an intervention by, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison), if Hamas is to be regarded as a player in the peace process, it needs to show that it is genuine about making concrete progress towards accepting the Quartet conditions, which will form the basis of any enduring peaceful settlement.

We have been clear in our call for negotiations on a two-state solution without delay and without preconditions, based on the timetable set out in the Quartet statement of 23 September. In our view, the parameters for a Palestinian state are those affirmed by the European Union as a whole—borders based on 1967 lines, with equivalent land swaps; a just, fair and realistic solution for refugees; and agreement on Jerusalem as the future capital of both states.

It is clear from what I have said about land swaps that we expect—I think that both parties do—the final status of settlements to be addressed in negotiations. I believe that Israel’s announcement last month that it would accelerate the construction of a further 2,000 settlement housing units was wrong and deeply counter-productive. That was the eighth announcement of settlement expansion in six months, and there have been further such announcements since.

Settlements not only are illegal under international law and in direct contravention of Israel’s road map commitments, but more practically, represent an attempt to create facts on the ground, which will make a two-state solution, with Jerusalem as a shared capital, even harder to achieve. We have called on Israel to reverse its plans to accelerate settlement construction, and we are clear that we believe that all settlement activity, including in east Jerusalem, should cease immediately.

We were concerned by the Israeli Government’s decision to withhold tax revenues to the Palestinian Authority, which we believe was provocative and against Israel’s own interests, because it had direct implications for the Palestinian Authority’s ability to maintain effective security in the west bank. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear our view on 3 November, and we welcome the fact that Israel has subsequently released the funds. We urge the Israeli Government to maintain a predictable and regular transfer of such revenues.

I do not propose to go into detail about our approach to the Palestinian application to the United Nations; the Foreign Secretary has spoken about that before. There is no time to waste in making progress towards peace. Successful negotiations are the best way to give the Israeli people the long-term security that they yearn for and deserve, and the Palestinian people the state to which they are entitled. Doing nothing is not an option, and the Government remain committed to working with the Palestinians, the Israeli Government and other international partners to make progress towards a negotiated agreement. We will continue to develop our bilateral partnership with Israel, while not ceasing in our efforts to support both parties in finding a long-term and sustainable solution to the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has dragged on for too long.

European Union

David Lidington Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) both on his choice of subject for today’s debate and on how he presented his case to the House. I should say that I was intending in any case—given the number of Democratic Unionist Members whom I am sure wish to participate—to keep my remarks briefer than normal and to give way less frequently than I normally try to do in debates on European policy. Your warning, Madam Deputy Speaker, on time limits reinforces the need for me to behave in that fashion.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his robust support for the decision that our Prime Minister took at the summit meeting last week and agree with him that the priority for the EU ought to be—for the eurozone countries in particular—fixing the immediate and urgent crisis in the eurozone, which is having a chilling effect not only on the UK economy, but on prospects for growth and job creation more generally in the global economy, and particularly the western economy. I also agree with the emphasis that he placed on the need for the EU to focus on growth, jobs and competitiveness in framing its priorities for the future.

[Mr Redwood]

Will the Minister assure me that the Government have no intention of agreeing to this fiscal pact or of letting EU institutions be used to enforce it?

[Mr Lidington]

The position on the use of the institutions was set out in some detail by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday. The truthful response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) is that we are at an early stage. The 26 countries agreed to a pact, but not to a legal instrument, and we do not yet know what action they plan to take. We want the new treaty—if it turns out to be a treaty—to work in stabilising the euro and putting it on a firm foundation, and we understand why those countries want to use the institutions, but it is new territory and raises important issues that we will need to explore with our colleagues in those other European countries.

In the months to come, our intention is to be engaged in the debate about how institutions that have been created and built to serve the interests of all 27 member states and not some subset should continue to operate fairly for all member states and, in particular, for the United Kingdom. We have been very supportive of the role that the institutions—in particular, the Commission—have played in safeguarding the single market, and we will look constructively at any proposals with an open mind, but we need to be clear that if this country had agreed treaty change without safeguards, there would be no discussions going on at all and no protection for important United Kingdom interests.

It is not the case that there was something extraordinary or wrong about the Prime Minister’s decision to veto agreement to a treaty at the level of 27 member states last weekend. The safeguards that he was seeking were safeguards not just for the United Kingdom, but for the whole of the European Union. They were modest, reasonable and relevant and, when they were not forthcoming, the Prime Minister made the right decision, which was to use our veto to protect our national interest.

As the right hon. Member for Belfast North said, we have heard before many of the dire warnings about isolation and retaliatory measures. We heard them when the euro was first created, and it turned out that far from joining the euro being a great opportunity for the UK and for UK business, we were well served by the decision to stay out of the single currency, and I have seen little evidence in the last couple of years to persuade me that—

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. He has indicated several times that he is not prepared to give way at this point. I hope that we can hear what he has to say now, and he may feel like giving way a little later.

[Mr Lidington]

I have already explained why I do not intend to give way as frequently as I usually do in these debates. Several of my hon. Friends have had, and will continue to have, many opportunities to put their arguments to me. I am sure that they will seize those opportunities, but tonight I am conscious that this is one of the rare occasions on which the debate belongs to the Democratic Unionist party, and I do not want their members to be crowded out because Front Benchers go on too long.

The truth is that we have always had a Europe in which there have been multiple forms of co-operation. We are not in the euro and nor do we plan to be. It is good that we have our own economic policy, interest rates and ability to deal ourselves with the problems we face in our economy. The United Kingdom remains a key—indeed, a central—member of all initiatives on European foreign and defence policy co-operation, but we are not in the Schengen borders organisation. We are a key member of the single market, and in fact it is the UK that often drives change and improvement in the single market.

On the other side of the equation, at the same time as the European Council was in progress, the British Government were working closely with EU partners to shape a successful negotiation on climate change this weekend in Durban. Our intention is to continue to work hard with our many allies in Europe to advance our interests. That is not isolation: it is defending Britain’s national interest, and that is what the Government are going to continue to do. That does not mean, as some have said, pulling back from our relationship with the European Union. We remain a full member of the European Union, and that membership is vital to our national interest. Our national interest and the EU interest are not mutually exclusive; we have genuine common interests.

[Mr Cash]

I am profoundly and deeply grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way at last. Would he care to comment on the report in the newspapers today that the Government have already received legal advice that they can use the institutions in relation to the agreement of the 26? The European Scrutiny Committee will be looking into this matter extremely carefully and will no doubt ask him to come to give advice on that matter.

[Mr Lidington]

I look forward with my usual sense of delight to the opportunity to give evidence to my hon. Friend’s Committee. Seriously, I would be happy, as would my officials and those from other Departments, to give evidence to his Committee, but my hon. Friend has been in the House long enough to know that no Minister of any Government comments on legal advice that Ministers may or may not have received.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

Can the Minister give us some sense of how much British taxpayers’ money has been wasted by the allocation of Foreign Office officials to talk with members of his party—the group of 81 Conservative MPs who voted for a referendum—about the repatriation of powers? Is that a good use of taxpayers’ money?

[Mr Lidington]

I actually think that it is a very good idea for officials, not only from the Foreign Office but from other Departments, to hear creative and constructive ideas, especially from Members of Parliament of all parties—and the all-party group on European reform includes members of the hon. Gentleman’s party, as well as members of mine—and from people outside Whitehall and government. The Foreign Office has a range of contacts with think-tanks and academics as well as with Members of Parliament, so that our policy making can be informed by creative ideas from outside. That seems to be a very sensible way of governing, and I am slightly shocked that the hon. Gentleman should appear to think that a closed cadre in Whitehall, insulated from of outside advice and influence, is the best way to proceed. If that is the thinking of the Labour party, it might explain the disastrous legacy that he and his colleagues bequeathed to this Government.

The German Chancellor’s spokesman said yesterday that Britain is one of Germany’s closest partners and one of her most important allies and friends; that we work very closely together on a number of different policy challenges, including within the context of the European Union; that what Britain and Germany share are key convictions on competitiveness and on what creates jobs, innovation and creativity in the economy; and that we will both continue to work to make the single market a joint success. President Sarkozy, with whom we have had one or two disagreements, said in an interview with Le Monde yesterday that he recalled our partnership in defence co-operation signed in November 2010 and our joint intervention in Libya, as well as our shared commitment to nuclear energy as part of a balanced overall energy policy. Our partnerships with France, Germany and all our European allies remain strong and dynamic.

We need not listen only to European leaders. The US Secretary of State was asked the other day whether the position that the Prime Minister took at the summit had caused her concern, given what the questioner termed “the historic bridge” that Britain had offered between Europe and the United States. Secretary Clinton replied in very clear terms:

“I have to say it does not. I think that the role that the UK has played in Europe will continue.”

I do not think that these fears of isolation, which for obvious reasons of vested interest the Opposition want to whip up, will turn out to have substance.

If the Opposition want a little more reassurance from someone whom they might trust a bit more than the German Chancellor’s official spokesman or the United States Secretary of State, I refer them to the comments of Lord Digby Jones. It is no good the shadow Foreign Secretary shaking his head. He was happy to serve in government alongside Lord Jones. In fact, the Labour members of that Government were happy to hail his recruitment as evidence that they were attracting a Government of all the talents and bringing in people from British business to strengthen their ranks—they certainly needed strengthening. Anyway, when asked whether Britain’s business interests would survive and flourish, Lord Jones said, “Definitely.” There is a clear view that our partnerships in Europe will continue and that the opportunities available for British business in Europe will continue to thrive.

[Andrew Percy]

Should we not try to regain ownership of this word “isolation”? Surely, it is not a bad thing to be isolated from something that is not in the country’s interest, that is bad for the United Kingdom and that the British public do not want to be a part of.

[Mr Lidington]

There was a time when Labour leaders were prepared to accept that sometimes there was a need to stand out on their own in defence of British interests. Tony Blair said, when he opposed the introduction of an EU-wide tax on savings, that if we are isolated and we are right, that is the correct position to be in, but as we know, the Leader of the Opposition told his party conference:

“I am not Tony Blair”.

We have yet another example of that inheritance now being disavowed by those who were happy to serve when the opportunity arose.

[Mrs Main]

Will the Minister provide a little more clarity on one point? I believe that the British public do not expect the EU institutions to be used to deliver what they could not deliver under a treaty. Will he give his view on that? If the institutions can be so used, we have been sold a pup—we will have refused something only to be given it in a different manner and in a way that we have to accept.

[Mr Lidington]

I replied to that point at some length in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, and I have nothing to add to those comments.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way; he is being very generous. The Labour party talks about isolation and influence, but does he recall the influence exercised by the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) when he surrendered the 1984 £7 billion rebate in return for a whole load of waffle about the common agricultural policy that, of course, has resulted in precisely no action whatsoever?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is spot on. The right hon. Gentleman was the Europe Minister when the deal was made, and it cost this country a great deal of money for no gain or reform of the CAP, despite the pledges that we were given at the time.

I want to emphasise that despite the major disagreement at last week’s summit meeting over the proposed new treaty amendment, all 27 Heads of State and Government agreed on further measures to strengthen the single market and to cut the cost of European regulation and red tape on businesses throughout the EU. As part of a long-term campaign to cut unnecessary regulation, the Prime Minister secured agreement from the European Council to endorse actions proposed in the Commission’s report on minimising the regulatory burden for small and medium-sized enterprises. Consequently, from 2012 micro-businesses employing fewer than 10 people will not be subject to European regulation, which stands to benefit 4.3 million businesses in the United Kingdom, including, I understand, about 95% of enterprises in Northern Ireland.

The European Council’s conclusions also emphasised the need to prioritise growth and the single market, and the Commission’s annual growth survey, published just ahead of the Council meeting, reflected this country’s calls for faster action to be taken to promote growth, including through the creation of a single market in the digital economy and energy.

[Ian Paisley]

I appreciate the Minister giving way on this point about business. On the pressures that the Republic of Ireland now faces, it looks like it will be forced to remove its beneficial low corporation tax as a result of this new arrangement. At the same time, however, this nation can extend to our part of the United Kingdom the right to reduce our corporation tax. I know what side of the line I would rather be on.

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the risks to any country of giving up control of its tax rates to some supranational body that cannot be guaranteed always to act in the interests of any one of the nations party to the decision. It was no secret at the time of the Irish bail-out last year that the Irish Government came under enormous pressure from other EU member states to raise their corporation tax rates. As he will know, the UK Government were steadfast in supporting the Taoiseach’s resistance to that move.

I recognise what the right hon. Member for Belfast North and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said about it not always being easy to be in the EU. There are plenty of frustrations and occasions when we can see so clearly what is wrong. Any Minister from any party who has sat in European Council meetings will be able to recall times when they wanted to scream with frustration at a piece of what seemed to be unnecessary bureaucracy or expense, or at the complexity and time taken to secure reforms when agreement was needed among a collection of different Governments.

There are many areas where we would like change, but I want to make it clear that the Government’s judgment is that membership of the EU remains very much in the UK national interest. I shall briefly sketch three key areas where we believe that the benefits of our membership far outweigh the difficulties: the single market, the single voice in international trade and diplomatic leverage in foreign policy. There is little doubt that our membership of the single market has allowed us to reap the economic benefits, because the EU comprises the largest single market and most important trading zone in the world. It is bigger than the whole of the United States and Japan combined and gives British business access to 500 million consumers without customs or trade barriers.

In Northern Ireland, EU countries remain key trading partners. Export sales to Europe from Northern Ireland alone amounted to £600 million in 2010, and many Northern Ireland companies have been doing significant business in the EU for many years. The success stories include a broad range of Northern Ireland industries, from engineering to information technology, synthetic fibres, pharmaceuticals, and food and drink. Recognising where additional growth could be achieved by targeting opportunities in EU export markets is one of the keys to improving economic growth prospects for Northern Ireland. That is why for Northern Ireland, as for the whole of the UK, a resumption of growth within the EU would be of immense benefit to our own interests.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The Minister will know that the agri-food sector is one of the biggest industries in Northern Ireland, and it could grow even more if we had a level playing field with Europe.

[Mr Lidington]

I am aware of the concerns in Northern Ireland about the operation of the common agricultural policy. As the hon. Gentleman knows much better than I do, the CAP is implemented in a way in Northern Ireland that is different from the rest of the UK. When I was in Belfast recently, the First Minister made strong representations to me about that. I ensured that they were passed on to my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The concerns of Northern Ireland are very much in the minds of British Ministers who will be negotiating these matters.

There is well documented evidence that trade integration brings wider benefits in areas such as investment and innovation. EU member states comprise seven of the United Kingdom’s top 10 trading partners and account for roughly half our overall exports of goods and services. However, the benefits go beyond exports. EU member states are the main source of foreign direct investment into the UK, with roughly half our total FDI coming from those countries.

[Tristram Hunt]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman has had a chance, and I want to make some progress.

The stock of inward foreign direct investment in the UK from the EU has risen by 800% in less than 10 years, and our membership of the EU single market helps to attract the other half of our FDI, from non-EU investors, who see the UK as a platform from which to break into European trade and access the wider single market.

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

Will the Minister confirm to the House that Norway also has access to the single market, as a member of the European economic area, and in return has a better record in implementing EU directives, in which it has no say, than we do?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend makes the point well. Countries in the European economic area have to comply with EU regulations and implement them fully if they are to have the single market access that we enjoy by virtue of our membership. If we were in a comparable position, British business would have to meet the costs of compliance with whatever regulatory standards the UK decided to impose, in addition to the costs of meeting the differing standards of the remaining EU bloc or any of the other European countries with which they wished to trade.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned all the sectors that are trying to break into Europe, but there is one that cannot break in, and that is the fishing sector. Does he feel that, because of the quotas, the restrictions on days at sea and net sizes, and all the bureaucracy, the fishing industry can never really break through with Europe as it is now?

[Mr Lidington]

There is no doubt that the common fisheries policy has failed both the cause of conserving fish stocks and the cause of sustaining the livelihoods of fishing communities. It is several years ago now, but I can remember going to Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel and listening first hand to fishermen and their families in Northern Ireland expressing the frustrations that the hon. Gentleman has expressed on their behalf. That is why the UK Government believe that the proposals now coming out of the Commission on reform of the common fisheries policy are, potentially, to be seriously welcomed. If they lead to a common fisheries policy based much more on regional and local management, and on rules that mean we can abolish the obscene practice of discarding, that would be of benefit to both conservationists and fishing communities alike.

The second great advantage of European Union membership is that it helps boost our international trade, because the EU’s position as a major trading power gives it weight in global negotiations and opens up new trading opportunities outside the EU for British business. The United Kingdom has already benefited from EU trade agreements with countries such as Mexico, Chile and South Korea, and is now engaged in multiple negotiations with other key trade partners, such as Canada, Singapore, India and the Mercosur nations. Let us be honest: without the size of the EU behind us, the United Kingdom on its own is unlikely to be able to secure the same deep and ambitious free trade deals with other regions or trading countries around the world. The South Korea free trade agreement alone is expected to provide £500 million of annual benefit to the United Kingdom economy. As the Northern Ireland chamber of commerce said when the deal was concluded:

“its opportunities are many and varied, and with”

Korea’s

“wealthy population, it is simply too valuable a market to be overlooked.”

The Northern Ireland chamber of commerce was right. I hope that there will be many opportunities for Northern Ireland companies in South Korea, as the EU free trade agreement is fully implemented.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I will leave the matter of the institutions—it is obviously too sensitive a point—but why would South Korea not have agreed a bilateral arrangement with a country such as Britain in any case, given that we are one of its allies and so on? Why would the South Koreans want to take protectionist measures against us if they are prepared to make a free trade agreement with the rest of the European Union?

[Mr Lidington]

The terms that one is able to extract in the context of such a negotiation will be more favourable if one can negotiate as part of a bloc of 500 million consumers. What the EU was able to offer South Korea collectively was access to a market of 500 million. The UK on its own would have been able to offer access to a market of 50 million to 60 million consumers. That is not an insignificant number, but it is a tenth of the size of the European Union as a whole. That difference in scale means that European countries have greater weight and leverage when they are able to get their act together and negotiate en bloc.

The third reason I believe it remains in our national interest to stay an active member of the European Union is that membership enhances our ability to influence events abroad. On issues where there is a genuine common European interest, where the national interests of the 27 member states converge, it makes sense for those member states to act together, pool our influence and speak with a united voice. One voice representing 500 million consumers is heard more loudly in Beijing, Delhi and Brasilia than 27 separate voices. However, it is equally the case that where EU member states do not agree, it is right and proper that, as sovereign nations with our own national interests, we speak and act independently. It is also right that foreign policy and security and defence policy should remain matters where unanimous agreement is required for a European position to exist.

[Andrew Percy]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend must forgive me, but I want to press on.

Collaboration over Libya has brought in many—although not all—European states, including Italy and Belgium. In recent months, the EU has exerted collective pressure on Libya and Syria, as well as on Côte d’Ivoire and Belarus. Different European countries have different contributions to make. Poland and other eastern partners can give us a unique perspective as we seek to support the democratic movements in the middle east and north Africa, and can also improve our insight with regard to our relations with countries such as Russia and Ukraine. Spain’s influence in Latin America will continue to shape Europe’s engagement there, and Portugal is now helping European interests on the UN Security Council. If we look at the EULEX mission alongside NATO in Kosovo, the EU civilian and military missions supporting NATO elsewhere in the Balkans or the Atalanta mission to tackle piracy off the coast of Somalia, we see operations of European civilian or military experts focusing on particular areas of expertise, often in tandem with NATO, the United Nations or national forces. Those are good examples of where European countries have been able to give themselves greater clout by being willing to act collectively.

The motion in the name of the right hon. Member for Belfast North says that the British people desire “a rebalancing of the relationship with our European neighbours”, and I agree with the hon. Member for North Antrim that there is too much centralised direction of many European policies.

The Government are committed under the coalition agreement to examining the balance of competences between Britain and the European Union, and as both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have said, there is a good case for rebalancing competences between the EU and its member states. Clearly, this would require the agreement of all 27 member states on the basis of negotiation and agreement, and could not be achieved through a unilateral decision. We have made no commitment to a particular outcome from this review. Work has begun and it is in its early stages.

In contrast to the Government’s positive and active commitment to make a success of our EU membership and our robust defence of our national interests, we have heard nothing from Her Majesty’s official Opposition save carping and an evasion of straight answers. Yet Labour was the party that committed us to the EU bail-out mechanism. This was the party that meekly surrendered £7 billion of Britain’s budget rebate. This is the party whose leader refuses to say whether he would have signed the treaty that was before the British Prime Minister last week, but tells the BBC in an interview:

“I don’t think Brussels has got too much power”.

It is a party whose leader still yearns to join the euro, but the only certainty is that if we followed its advice, we would not just be attending EU meetings, as we would be in the queue for a bail-out, along with some of the others.

The Government are committed to a positive and active role within the European Union—on the single market, on global trade and on foreign policy. That is what is in our national interest, but we will not be afraid to stand up and resist, refusing to participate in measures where we believe that they run contrary to the national interests of the United Kingdom.

General Affairs Council (5 December 2011)

David Lidington Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I attended the General Affairs Council (GAC) in Brussels on 5 December.

The GAC was chaired by the EU presidency, Mikolaj Dowgielewicz, Secretary of State for European Affairs of Poland. A provisional report of the meeting and all conclusions adopted can be found at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/genaff/126578.pdf.

The agenda items covered were as follows:

Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF)

In a public session, Ministers noted the presidency’s report on MFF which can be found at:

http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st17/st17448-re01.en11.pdf.

The incoming Danish presidency undertook to take forward this work with the aim of adopting the MFF by the end of 2012.

Preparation for the December European Council

Ministers discussed preparations for the December European Council with the President of the Council, Herman Van Rompuy.

On the eurozone, I and others stressed the need for increased transparency and full interaction between the 17 eurozone members and the 10 non-members.

During discussions on Council conclusions, I set out UK views on energy and made proposals for references to our shared concerns about the regime in Iran.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will report to Parliament after he has attended the European Council on 8-9 December.

Commission Work Programme for 2012

The Commissioner for Inter-Institutional Relations and Administration, Maros Sefcovic, presented the Commission’s work programme for 2012 (see following link). The report cites restoring the EU’s economy as its top priority.

http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st17/st17394.en11.pdf.

Annual Growth Survey

Commissioner Sefcovic also outlined key elements of the 2012 annual growth survey (see following link). The incoming EU presidency, Denmark, added that they would hold a series of bilateral discussions with member states on the report in January 2012.

http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st17/st17229.en11.pdf.

Enlargement

In its conclusions (see link at the beginning of this statement) the Council reiterated the importance of the enlargement process in generating far-reaching political and economic reform and securing stability and democracy; and looked forward to developing a new approach towards those negotiating chapters dealing with judiciary and fundamental rights and justice, freedom and security, tackling them early in the enlargement process. The Council welcomed Turkey’s continued commitment to the negotiation process and the political reform agenda, and, with strong support from me, positively noted the Commission’s proposal for a positive agenda with Turkey in support of negotiations. The Council welcomed the successful completion of accession negotiations with Croatia, while also highlighting the need for continued efforts to reform further where necessary, and looked forward to the signature of the accession treaty in the margins of the December European Council.

On the western Balkans, I reiterated the UK’s strong commitment to the future of all countries of the western Balkans being in the EU once the required conditions are met. Discussion was particularly focused on Serbia and Kosovo. On Serbia, the Council agreed that progress on Serbia’s relationship with Kosovo was the key criterion for movement on their EU path. A decision on Serbia’s candidate status would be taken at the December European Council. The Council also agreed further tangible steps towards Kosovo’s EU future. The Council took note of the progress Montenegro has made towards opening accession negotiations, which would also be considered at the December European Council.

European Court of Justice

The presidency made a short presentation on the state of play regarding proposals to improve the efficiency of the Court.

European Council

David Lidington Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) on securing the debate. While the debate was going on, I was thinking that he and I have known each other for more than 30 years. Although it is fair to say that we have not always managed to agree on political subjects, I have never had any doubt whatsoever about his integrity or his patriotism. I pay tribute to him for the way he put his case today.

We are, indeed, in the rather unusual position of debating a meeting that is about to start and that, to judge from what President Van Rompuy said on Monday, may well go on for many hours after dinner tonight and into tomorrow morning. I therefore need to preface anything I say with the caveat that events may overtake us. I will also be quite straight with hon. Members and disappoint the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) by saying that I am not going to go into detail about the Prime Minister’s negotiating position. The only people who would benefit—indeed, who would be delighted—by a full disclosure of the Prime Minister’s negotiating tactics would be the Governments of other countries represented around the table, who might not necessarily share identical negotiating objectives.

I want to try to respond at least to the broad questions raised during this debate. I certainly agree with everybody who has said that the British Government have a duty to be vigilant and to defend vigorously the national interests of the British people. As the Prime Minister made very clear yesterday, we will support the objective of securing fiscal discipline in the eurozone, but not at the expense of either our industries or our independence. The crisis in the eurozone is forcing the European Union and the eurozone 17 in particular to confront fundamental choices. It matters hugely to the United Kingdom that the eurozone is successful in sorting out its problems.

One point on which I agreed with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East was the interconnection between this country’s economy and the economies around the wider Europe. Many of the statistics are well known. The eurozone accounts for roughly 40% of United Kingdom trade, and its stability matters globally. Around 15% of United States trade is with the eurozone and one can measure the concern of the United States Government by the fact that the Treasury Secretary, Mr Geithner, was dispatched on rapid visits to Paris and Berlin earlier this week.

The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) talked about wanting an orderly deconstruction of the eurozone, which was far too sanguine. He slightly skated over the fact that in every conversation I have had with Ministers of any of the 17 Governments of the eurozone, they have said that they are committed to keeping the eurozone project going. In addition, as far as one can tell from opinion research, the populations of those countries still consider the euro to be an essential part of the national interest of their country. Hon. Members may think that those views are misplaced, but they are the views of the countries that have chosen to join the euro, and, ultimately, we have to respect their sovereign decision.

What I am clear about is that the instability in the eurozone is already having what the Chancellor has described as a “chilling effect” on the United Kingdom’s economy, and a collapse of the eurozone or a prolonged recession in the eurozone as a result of financial instability persisting will be thoroughly bad news for jobs and for hopes of economic growth in our country. It is not only important but urgent to try to sort out the problems of the eurozone. As a number of hon. Members have said, many of us argued from the start that there were flaws in the way that the euro had been designed and that it seemed illogical to have a currency union and a single monetary policy and interest rate without some common agreements and structures in place to govern wider economic and, in particular, fiscal policy.

We can argue that those problems should have been tackled at the start and that the warning signals should have been read when countries breached the stability and growth pact and no action was taken, but we are where we are. I certainly believe that there is a sense of real urgency and of peril among serious-minded leaders of other eurozone countries. They are now speaking in terms of an economic catastrophe that will spread much more widely than the single currency area if this instability is not resolved, and resolved swiftly.

[Mr Baron]

My right hon. Friend is of course right. In the history of the world, there has not been a monetary union that has worked that has not also had to include fiscal union. It is fundamentally flawed. What is more important now is not history but the future. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that perhaps the one reason eurozone leaders are so passionate about the euro is that it is part of a political project for political union, and that they are therefore overegging the economic consequences. Where history can also help us is to remind us that since 1945, as I have highlighted—there has been no riposte from the Minister on this point—we have had 80 instances in which countries have left currency unions. The vast majority have benefited in growth terms from having left a currency union. I suggest to the Minister that he should think carefully. Perhaps the motive of these eurozone leaders is that they see the euro as a weapon that is crucial to political union.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly sensible point about the fact that other countries have departed currency unions since the second world war. It is fair to say that we have not had such a break-up of a currency union on this kind of scale, with economies that are so closely integrated, and in an age when information and capital can be moved rapidly, not just in national jurisdictions but globally, at the click of a computer mouse. Studies that I have seen say that it would be much, much more damaging and risky for the eurozone to break up, particularly if it broke up chaotically, than it was for some of those other currency separations, such as those of the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Incidentally, Slovakia, having broken with the Czech Republic, then decided to enter the eurozone and has engaged in some challenging austerity and competitiveness measures in order to try to make a success of that commitment.

Where I would agree with my hon. Friend is that this has been seen, by those who took part, as a political project as well as an economic project. However, to an extent that we sometimes do not appreciate in this country, those political ambitions have a much greater resonance among the wider electorates in many countries on the continent of Europe than they do here. That is due to all kinds of historical reasons with which we are fairly familiar. I want to emphasise that the prime objective of the summit ought to be to sort out the issues that remain unresolved from the eurozone meetings of 21 July and 26 October. Whether we talk about the European financial stability facility, bank recapitalisation or the detail of the Greek write-down, there is detail that has yet to be finalised, and that needs to be addressed rapidly. So, too, does the need for competitiveness, not only in the peripheral eurozone economies but in the global context of the European Union as a whole. It needs to be embraced as a priority by every single one of the member states and the European institutions. If I have time, I will come on to that. There is some evidence that that challenge is starting to be recognised and addressed.

I accept too—I will make this point very briefly—that if eurozone countries choose to push forward with greater economic integration, there will be a democratic challenge as well. How are economic policies to be made democratically accountable? I accept that that is a challenge for those countries. It is clearly for them, as independent sovereign countries, to decide how they individually address that.

Many hon. Members raised the issue of possible treaty change, and the safeguards that the United Kingdom would require should the eurozone follow that path. Let me set out the options in broad terms. One way to introduce stronger rules for the eurozone, which of course would not apply to the UK, would be a change in the treaty governing all 27 members of the European Union. That would be the most comprehensive way to provide tough sanctions to ensure that eurozone countries stick to their own rules on debt. A second option would be to allow the 17 countries of the eurozone to create a separate intergovernmental treaty of their own. That has happened before, with the Schengen agreement on open borders and with the European stability mechanism. The 17 are free to do that again. The likelihood, however, is that the signatories to such a treaty would want to draw on the EU institutions that belong to all 27 member states to monitor and enforce compliance with any new rules on tighter budget discipline. In both instances, we would have the power of veto. Treaty change at 27 requires unanimity and, while the content of an intergovernmental treaty at 17 is a matter for the 17 signatories, it cannot cut across the provisions of the existing EU treaties, nor can it seek to use the EU institutions without the specific agreement of all the EU 27.

[Mr Cash]

My right hon. Friend, I am sure, recognises the extreme danger of creating a treaty within a treaty. I am sure he realises that that would be a house divided against itself, and catastrophic for our democratic system.

[Mr Lidington]

As I said earlier, this is not without precedent. I am not saying that this will happen, but it is an option that has been floated quite openly by a number of European leaders as a possible way forward. Just as there is a negotiation within the eurozone about the measures and mechanisms to enforce discipline, so there is a negotiation with us and fellow non-euro countries. In the course of these negotiations, whichever option is followed we will make sure that our interests are protected. Of course, there is another option, which is to use the existing frameworks and treaties. That option is still on the table.

In the debate, there has been extensive discussion of the repatriation of powers and a referendum. We need to remind ourselves that this is the first Government in British history to have introduced a legislative guarantee of a referendum. The European Union Act 2011 ensures that there is now a legal requirement on any Government to hold a referendum before any agreement on treaty change that transfers competence or powers from the UK to the EU. I have never pretended that the Act is a panacea. It does not address the issue of repatriation of powers and that was not its purpose. It is a guarantee.

There has been some suggestion from hon. Members that the UK should hold a referendum on any changes the eurozone countries may choose to make. I want to reiterate the point the Prime Minister has made on this issue. What the eurozone countries may or may not do is have arrangements between themselves that pool some of their sovereignty. To say that we have to have a referendum in Britain about something that other countries are going ahead with anyway would not only be a rather odd approach for us to take, but it would probably mean that those countries would choose to go ahead in any case but using purely intergovernmental means, however messy and unsatisfactory from their point of view such an alternative might be. That may well yet happen, but holding a referendum on such a treaty would not bring back a single power.

Personally, I could draw up a list of powers—we had the list in the Conservative manifesto at the previous election—that I think are better decided nationally than by the EU. However, we have to be ruthlessly focused on what is most important to our national interest and, at this time, in particular to our national economy. That is why our priority in the negotiations is safeguards to keep the single market fair and open for our most crucial industries, including financial services, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) made reference.

[Kate Hoey]

Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that none of the options that he has mentioned and that might happen is making any real change to our relationship with the European Union? Surely the changes are fundamental and require the will and support of the British people in a referendum.

[Mr Lidington]

No. We do not know the shape, let alone the detail, of any agreement that might be reached over the next 24 hours or longer. The risk alluded to by a number of my hon. Friends, which perhaps lies behind the hon. Lady’s intervention, is that of caucusing. The risk is that the greater economic integration of the 17, and of more countries over time as other member states join the euro, as is still their intention, will lead to caucusing on single market measures, so that the UK would in effect be presented with a “take it or leave it” option. That is certainly a theoretical risk and I do not want to pretend otherwise. The political reality, however, is, first, that that is not how the eurozone countries have operated up till now. We were given similar warnings when the United Kingdom took the decision to stay outside the euro when it was created, but those dire warnings have not been justified by the events of the years since.

Secondly, when I talk to Ministers from the other 26 member states, I find that neither the eurozone 17 nor the euro-out 10 are cohesive or monolithic blocs. Talking to Dutch, German—in particular—Finnish, Austrian or Irish Ministers, one finds that they all very much want the United Kingdom, with its championship of free and open markets and an outward-looking European Union, to be centrally involved in taking decisions. There is not that drive towards a caucus that a number of my hon. Friends fear.

[Mark Reckless]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Lidington]

I will not, I am sorry. I want to leave some time to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex, so I must conclude my remarks shortly.

I will write to those hon. Friends who have mentioned particular subjects, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) who spoke about energy. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire that we completely recognise the importance of financial services. A thriving City of London is an asset not only to the United Kingdom but to the European Union as a whole. We should go out and sell that case loudly and confidently. We have made it clear that, if a financial transactions tax introduced at EU level were to cost jobs and growth—that is on the basis of the Commission’s own impact assessment—we would veto it. If others wanted to go ahead, foolishly, on the basis of an enhanced co-operation measure, that would be a matter for them.

It is clear that the next few days will be important for Europe. We head into the summit with a clear objective. Yes, we support the eurozone in sorting out its problems, but we will not sign up to fiscal discipline in the eurozone without safeguards and certainly not at the expense of our industries or our independence.

Public Records (Colonial Documents)

David Lidington Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

Further to the statements to the House by the Foreign Secretary on 5 May, Official Report, column 24WS and 30 June 2011, Official Report, column 66WS, I wish to inform the House of our plans to make available to the public, over the next two years, the large collection of colonial administration files currently held by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).

The timetable for transfer of these files to the National Archives (TNA), which has been approved by Professor Badger, the independent reviewer appointed by the Foreign Secretary, follows our undertaking to move rapidly to put these papers into the public domain.

In keeping with this Government’s commitment to transparency and openness, the entire collection of migrated files will be transferred to TNA. None of the papers will be destroyed. Redactions will be kept to an absolute minimum, for example in order to comply with the Data Protection Act. We expect that 99% of the material will be available for the public to read.

The files will be reviewed and transferred in alphabetical order of the colonial territory concerned with the exception of Kenya, Cyprus, British India Ocean Territory (BIOT) and Malaya, which will be prioritised because there has been particular interest. The first batch of files, representing around 16% of the total collection, is expected to be available for public view at TNA in April 2012. This will include material from Aden, Anguilla, Bahamas, Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Brunei as well as the BIOT and Malaya files and the first tranche of papers from Kenya and Cyprus. Given the volume of material from Kenya and Cyprus, the remaining files will be reviewed and transferred in batches over the following months.

The aim is to have all the papers transferred before the end of 2013. We will be publishing a more detailed timetable on the FCO’s website.

Protocol Providing for Additional Members of the European Parliament

David Lidington Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

Following ratification by all 27 member states of the European Union, the protocol amending Protocol No. 36 to the EU treaties on transitional provisions, which made amendments to the composition of the European Parliament, entered into force on 1 December 2011. The protocol was approved for the purposes of section 5 of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 by section 15 of the European Union Act 2011.

The protocol allotted to the United Kingdom one additional seat in the European Parliament. As the statement on 26 October 2010 by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) set out, the Electoral Commission undertook an independent analysis to determine which European electoral region in the United Kingdom the new MEP should be assigned to. As a result of its analysis the Electoral Commission, in compliance with its obligations under the European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003, decided that the west midlands should be the recipient region. The Government accepted this recommendation.

The returning officer for the west midlands region referred to the results of the 2009 European elections, as if the extra seat had been available in the west midlands electoral region in those elections. This method of filling the seat is in accordance with the terms of the protocol and is in line with the practice of most of the other member states which gain additional MEPs under the protocol. In accordance with the procedure set out in schedule 2 of the European Union Act 2011, the returning officer has declared Anthea McIntyre to be returned as the additional MEP for the west midlands.

This is an interim measure until the next elections to the European Parliament take place in June 2014. At those elections all UK MEPs, including the MEP for this extra seat, will then be elected in compliance with the normal procedure.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lidington Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

2. What recent representations he has received on the implications for his Department’s policies of economic conditions in the EU.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I have had a number of recent meetings with representatives of British business who have emphasised the immediate need for eurozone countries to act to restore stability to their currency and the need for the entire European Union to adopt policies to encourage growth and job creation through open markets and less-costly regulation.

[Mr Ruffley]

Under the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, the financial transaction tax would have to go to the Council of Ministers, which requires unanimity. Will the Minister confirm that Her Majesty’s Government will veto the new Franco-German euro tax that will only damage the City of London?

[Mr Lidington]

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it quite clear at the most recent ECOFIN meeting that we would reject an EU financial transfer tax, and he was supported in his opposition by 11 other member states.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Can the Minister tell us what practical actions his Government have taken to encourage our European partners to complete the single European market?

[Mr Lidington]

I have discussed this in the past two weeks with senior members of the Commission, and I have encouraged them to introduce measures under the Single European Act. Yesterday, in Berlin, other Ministers and I talked to our German counterparts about joint action both to deepen the single market and to reduce the cost of regulations, especially for small and medium-sized businesses.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

What discussions has the Minister had with his continental cousins about the fact that the euro is burning while Brussels is fiddling? Would it not be much better to have an orderly withdrawal from the euro, rather than the crisis that we have at the moment?

[Mr Lidington]

I think, as my hon. Friend would admit in private, the idea that the eurozone can somehow be dismantled in an orderly manner is rather far-fetched. The collapse of the euro and a prolonged recession in the eurozone would do profound damage to hopes for growth and job creation in the United Kingdom. It is our largest single trading partner.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Could the Minister for Europe tell the House how work on the Government’s stated aim of repatriating powers from the European Union is progressing?

[Mr Lidington]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear to the British people in his Mansion House speech the other week that we need a rebalancing of responsibilities in the European Union, with some things being done, yes, at the centre, but more things being done by member states in future. That work is ongoing.

[Mr Alexander]

Perhaps the Minister for Europe could be a little more forthcoming. How many staff in the Foreign Office are working full-time on this endeavour, will there be a White Paper on the repatriation of powers, and when, indeed, could the House expect such a publication?

[Mr Lidington]

I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman will have to contain his excitement for a little longer. That work is ongoing, and of course, we shall keep Parliament acquainted with progress on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

11. What assessment he has made of the UK’s relationship with Turkey; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

Turkey is a key partner in trade and investment, and in building international security. Last week’s state visit by President Gul demonstrated the vitality of our bilateral relationship.

[John Howell]

Economic growth in Turkey was 9% last year and its trade in goods with the UK is expected to reach £9 billion this year. Should not those be clinching factors in ensuring that we have a positive relationship with Turkey, and that the EU does not foolishly turn its back on that country?

[Mr Lidington]

We strongly support Turkey’s ambitions for EU accession. We think that Turkish membership of the EU would be extremely good news for the single market and for British and wider European business opportunities.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

When the Turkish Foreign Minister met the Foreign Affairs Committee last week, he brought a representative all-party group of Members of Parliament with him on the delegation. Is that not a good idea? Why does the Foreign Secretary not take a cross-party group of Members of Parliament with him to the Bonn conference on the future of Afghanistan, particularly with regard to the issue of women in Afghanistan?

[Mr Lidington]

I think that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary can speak with confidence not just on behalf of the Government but for the strong cross-party consensus in this House for a peaceful, constructive and democratic future for Afghanistan.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that a key aspect of the UK’s relationship with Turkey is its responsibility to Cyprus as a guarantor power? Will the Government ensure that the opportunities arising from the exploration of hydrocarbon reserves on the coast of Cyprus are fully respected, and that the resulting benefits for all Cypriots are fully preserved?

[Mr Lidington]

Like all countries that are signed up to the UN convention on the law of the sea, we support the right of the Republic of Cyprus to exploit its exclusive economic zone. We continually urge the leaders of both communities in Cyprus to work actively towards a settlement.

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

Further to the Minister’s previous comment, Cyprus would have been high on the Government’s agenda in their discussions with President Gul last week. We have to break the current deadlock in the talks. What more can the Government do to foster that aim? Will it include inviting the President of Cyprus to London?

[Mr Lidington]

It has not yet been possible to arrive at a date for President Christofias to visit London, but there is no objection in principle to that happening. Our role is to encourage and support the leaders of both communities to work with the Secretary-General of the United Nations to reach a comprehensive settlement. That is in the interests of every community in Cyprus.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

12. What recent assessment he has made of the status of the middle east peace process; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

14. What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

We are very concerned about the limited progress that Bosnia and Herzegovina has made over the past year in implementing the reforms necessary for both EU and NATO accession.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

Given that we have now had nearly 14 months without the formation of any Government in Bosnia, does my right hon. Friend think that we, neighbouring states or the international community could be doing anything extra before there is very serious economic damage to that country, on top of the political instability?

[Mr Lidington]

We continue to urge on the leaders of all political parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina the need for urgent progress to establish that state-level Government. I talked about that to EU Special Representative Peter Sørensen and the international community’s representative, Valentin Inzko, a week ago. Every actor with influence on the Balkans needs to work towards greater stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Yesterday two German soldiers were shot and wounded by Serb thugs in northern Kosovo. It is a huge problem. Will the Minister and the Foreign Secretary appeal to President Tadic, whether it is in Bosnia and Herzegovina or in Kosovo, to assume responsibility? The proposed talks next week about Serbia joining the EU cannot get under way so long as there is no democratic law-and-order authority in Kosovo—or, indeed, in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

[Mr Lidington]

I deplore the incident that the right hon. Gentleman described, and I discussed it with my German counterpart yesterday. The Commission’s report on EU enlargement clearly sets out the fact that Serbia needs to address its relations with its neighbours if it is to make progress towards EU accession, as it hopes to do.

Topical Questions

[Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

T5. What assessment have Ministers made of the current political situation in Moldova, especially in view of the news of a delay in electing a new president?

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

The further delay in electing a new president is dismaying, but we welcome the fact that the 5 plus 2 talks are due to commence formally again very soon. It is in the interests of the whole of Europe for Moldova to move as swiftly as possible towards entrenching democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Will my right hon. Friend act urgently to ensure that much more humanitarian aid reaches the Syrian refugees currently in Lebanon, and will he also act to bring about an international arms embargo covering all UN states to ensure that Syria is not armed further?

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should use our presidency of the Council of Europe to push through reform of the European Court of Human Rights, so that it does not consider cases that have been properly considered by national courts but concentrates instead on serious and systemic human rights abuses?

[Mr Lidington]

That is the clear top priority of the British chairmanship of the Council of Europe, which I discussed with members of the Parliamentary Assembly and the secretary-general last Friday.

Foreign Affairs Council and General Affairs Council

David Lidington Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr Howarth) who is responsible for international security strategy will attend the Foreign Affairs Council in defence format on 30 November. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will attend the Foreign Affairs Council on 1 December. I will attend the General Affairs Council on 5 December.

The High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, will chair the Foreign Affairs Council on 30 November and 1 December.

Foreign Affairs Council (FAC): Defence

European Defence Agency (EDA) Steering Board

Ministers are likely to discuss the work programme for 2012 and the plan for the next three years, the annual defence data report, the category B project on helicopter training and pooling and sharing. The UK will work with the agency and its member states to develop and improve the agency’s effectiveness and performance, but will urge the EDA to be realistic about its budget requirements. Unless postponed, the EDA budget will be discussed as an agenda item in the Council meeting.

Operations

The three operation commanders will be present and will provide an update on Operation Atalanta (Counter-piracy off the horn of Africa to protect world food programme and vulnerable shipping). Operation Althea (Operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina) and EU Training Mission Somalia (Military training mission to counter security threats in Mogadishu). There is also likely to be discussion between member states on possible future operations, with a likely focus on a training mission in the Sahel, a regional maritime capacity-building operation off the horn of Africa to strengthen local counter-piracy efforts, and potentially in full respect of the principle of Libyan ownership and in co-operation with the UN, further assistance to the new Libya. The extension of Operation Atalanta’s mandate, which the UK supports, will be discussed during the session. We intend to indicate our support for the ongoing operations, and the need for an internationally recognised strategy for Somalia.

Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Ministers Dinner

The joint dinner (the first since the Lisbon treaty) is scheduled to focus on “hardware” of operations and capabilities, and software. The overarching theme will be effectiveness of common security and defence policy (CSDP) with a focus on force generation, reduced budgets and better tailoring of missions and operations. It is also likely that there will be further discussion of the Weimar nations’ agenda. We will spell out the UK’s vision for the future of CSDP: smarter operations and missions, more coherent use of EU military, civilian, diplomatic, humanitarian, and economic tools, and better EU-NATO relations, maintaining our insistence that the EU should not duplicate NATO. Underpinning this, we need member states to invest in deployable capabilities and focus on value for money. We will resist calls for the creation of any unnecessary additional institutions or processes. The dinner will also provide an opportunity to emphasise the benefits of closer UK-France defence and security co-operation, which we will promote as an example to encourage others to seek better value for money and improved capability through a similar partnerships approach. EU Foreign Ministers will discuss this further at their meeting on 1 December (see below)

Foreign Affairs Council (FAC)

Western Balkans

Baroness Ashton is expected to brief on political elements of Western Balkans policy, focusing on: Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the Government remain concerned about the political situation; and Serbia and Kosovo, where the Government see normalisation of relations between the two countries as a priority, and support further progress in the EU-led dialogue between Pristina and Belgrade.

Iran

Following discussion at the 14 November FAC, Ministers are expected to further develop their response to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) report on Iran which highlighted grave concerns regarding the possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. We are expecting the Council to agree to a list of new designations of Iranian entities and persons.

On 21 November, the UK Government imposed tough new financial restrictions against Iran which cut off all financial ties with Iranian banks. The Foreign Secretary said:

“The IAEA’s report last week provided further credible and detailed evidence about the possible military dimensions of the Iranian nuclear programme. Today we have responded resolutely by introducing a set of new sanctions that prohibit all business with Iranian banks.

We have consistently made it clear that until Iran engages meaningfully, it will find itself under increasing pressure from the international community. The swift and decisive action today co-ordinated with key international partners is a strong signal of determination to intensify this pressure”.

Southern Neighbourhood

We expect Ministers to agree conclusions taking stock of the EU’s engagement with its southern neighbourhood, including implementation of the European neighbourhood policy. Ministers are also expected to be asked to welcome proposals to create a European endowment for democracy, which aims to support democratic reform in the EU’s neighbourhood.

On Egypt, Ministers will take stock of the situation following the planned first round of elections. They will consider how the EU and its member states should react to the situation in Egypt, balancing concern at the recent violence with the need to encourage and support progress on the transition. Our objective is EU support for Egypt which will help to deliver political and economic reform.

Ministers will have an opportunity to discuss the current situation in Syria and co-ordination with the international community to end the violence. This might include a further, 10th round of sanctions against the Syrian regime. We have proposed the listing of 10 military officials involved in the ongoing violence around Homs.

Baroness Ashton is likely to brief Ministers on the latest political developments in Yemen. We expect conclusions to be adopted which welcome signature of the agreement, call on all parties to deliver on their commitments, and state that the EU will continue to monitor the situation in Yemen. The Foreign Secretary welcomed the signing of the Gulf Co-operation Council initiative on 23 November. He said:

“We welcome the fact that today President Saleh has signed the GCC initiative committing to the transition of power within 90 days, after which he will stand down.

It comes after months of deterioration of the situation in Yemen, and will give hope to the Yemeni people that change in their country is possible.

We now call on all political leaders and forces in Yemen to commit to a peaceful and orderly political transition. Both the supporters of President Saleh and the opposition must seize this opportunity and comply fully with UNSCR 2014. We will review progress with other members of the Security Council in the coming days.

The Yemeni people have suffered for too long. The UK is committed to helping them tackle the many challenges involved in this transition.

We commend the Gulf Co-operation Council for their unrelenting efforts to facilitate today’s agreement. President Saleh must now act on his commitment and implement the agreement in full”.

Middle East Peace Process

Ministers are likely to discuss options for helping to relieve restrictions on Gaza. Our position is that we want an increase in the importation of construction materials to Gaza; an increase in exports from Gaza to Israel, the west bank and other countries; and a relaxation of restrictions of civilian movement between Gaza and the west bank. We also expect Baroness Ashton to brief on her three-pronged Gaza package and on the progress made in the 14 November Quartet envoys talks with the parties.

CSDP

Following the joint Foreign and Defence Ministers’ discussion of 30 November (see above), we hope that discussion will continue, concluding with a set of Council conclusions that have a strong operational focus. Potential missions include training local security forces in the Sahel, a regional maritime capacity building operation off the horn of Africa to strengthen local counter-piracy efforts, and possibly an offer of further assistance to the new Libya in full respect of the principle of Libyan ownership and in co-operation with the UN. We will indicate our continuing support for counter piracy efforts and the need for an internationally recognised strategy for Somalia.

Iraq: Camp Ashraf

Baroness Ashton is expected to raise the issue of the future of the (Iranian) residents of Camp Ashraf in Iraq, as the Government of Iraq’s deadline to close the camp at the end of the year draws closer. We will underline our support for the UN’s role in resolving the issue, and stress the responsibility of the Government of Iraq to find a solution which respects the human rights of the residents of Camp Ashraf.

Human Rights

Baroness Ashton is expected to update Ministers on the state of play of the draft EU human rights strategy. She is likely to confirm that she will present the strategy to the European Parliament on 14 December. The draft strategy will issue as a joint High Representative/Commission communication. It will be considered further by member states before it returns to the Foreign Affairs Council for substantive discussion in the first quarter of 2012. Member states are procedurally unable to amend the content of a communication, so are likely to endorse the strategy through Council conclusions. We will provide further information to the chairs of the relevant committees in the House of Lords and House of Commons on the progress of the strategy.

General Affairs Council (GAC)

Preparation for the December European Council

Ministers will prepare the December European Council, the agenda for which will cover three issues; economic policy, energy, and enlargement. The accession treaty with Croatia will be signed in the margins.

i.) Economic Policy. The situation in the eurozone is likely to dominate debate. Ministers will discuss an interim report from President Van Rompuy, in line with October European Council conclusions, on the steps to strengthen the economic union in the euro area. This will explore the possibility of limited treaty change among other issues. Measures to enhance EU economic growth will also be discussed.

The conclusions of the October European Council meeting can be found at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/125496.pdf

ii.) Energy. Ministers will review progress on the agreement reached at February European Council which set out a series of measures to be taken forward on energy policy. There will be an opportunity to follow up on the findings of the nuclear stress tests.

The conclusions of the February European Council meeting can be found at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/119175.pdf

iii.) Enlargement (see also below). Ministers will discuss the Commission’s enlargement package of 12 October. The report recommended: (i) candidate status for Serbia if it re-engages in the dialogue with Kosovo; (ii) opening accession negotiations with Montenegro; (iii) tasking the Commission to develop a “new approach” to enlargement negotiations.

Multi-annual Financial Framework

Ministers will review progress made on the technical discussions made under the Polish presidency to clarify the Commission’s multi-annual financial framework proposals. There will be an opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the revenue generating elements of the package, which have been discussed at committee level throughout November. The package includes changes to the UK abatement and new EU taxes.

Enlargement

Ministers will seek to agree conclusions taking stock of progress on EU enlargement and on the stabilisation and association process in the Western Balkans. The Government believe the Commission communication to be a broadly fair and balanced assessment. We will seek conclusions reconfirming support for EU enlargement and recognition that the accession process gives strong encouragement to political and economic reform in the enlargement countries and reinforces peace, democracy and stability in Europe. We agree with the Commission’s view that progress towards the EU should be based on the principles of consolidation of commitments, fair and rigorous conditionality, and good communication with the public. We agree that key challenges remain for most enlargement countries, for example, the rule of law, and in particular the fight against corruption and organised crime. We also support a focus on the criteria of regional co-operation, particularly for the Western Balkans countries.

On individual countries. Parliament on 22 November debated the closure of chapter 23 of Croatia’s accession negotiations, and Croatia’s accession to the EU. A draft Council decision on Croatia’s accession to the EU has been released and is due to be adopted by the GAC on 5 December, before signature of the accession treaty in the margins of the European Council on 9 December. On Turkey, we will want conclusions that provide a fair assessment of progress and inject much needed momentum into the process. On Iceland, we want the Council to commend the progress Iceland has made in accession negotiations this year. Conclusions will also need to address existing obligation, such as those identified by the European Free Trade Association Surveillance Authority under the European economic area agreement.

Following the FAC discussion of 1 December (see above), the GAC will return to the Western Balkans and discuss the Commission’s enlargement package for the Western Balkans countries. I set out the Government’s views on the Commission’s reports in my explanatory memorandum of 7 November. We remain fully supportive of the future of all the western Balkans countries in the EU once conditions are met. We will take a final decision on the UK position on the opening of accession negotiations with Montenegro before the December European Council. We will also take a final decision on the proposal to grant Serbia candidate status, based on their progress on Kosovo, including in the dialogue. We will take the opportunity to support further steps to provide a tangible EU perspective to Kosovo.

The European Commission work programme for 2012

The European Commission will make a short presentation to Ministers of its work programme for 2012.

Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty

David Lidington Excerpts

Friday 25th November 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I would like to inform the House of measures being taken by the United Kingdom in relation to the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE). These measures were formally announced in the treaty’s Joint Consultative Group in Vienna on 22 November.

Since December 2007, we have continued to fulfil our CFE treaty obligations, and attempted to exercise our treaty rights. We, our North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) allies and other states parties to the treaty have also made considerable efforts to engage the Russian Federation in negotiations aimed at finding a mutually acceptable resolution, but without success.

The Russian Federation has failed to fulfil its obligations under the treaty since December 2007 to provide information to the United Kingdom and other states parties and to allow entry to the Russian Federation in order to verify that the information provided was correct. The United Kingdom, alongside other NATO allies, has repeatedly called on the Russian Federation to return to full compliance with its treaty obligations. We and other NATO allies publicly stated at NATO summits in Strasbourg/Kehl and Lisbon that a situation where 29 states parties fulfilled their treaty obligations and one did not could not continue indefinitely.

As a result, alongside a number of CFE treaty signatories, the United Kingdom announced that for as long as the Russian Federation fails to fulfil its obligations towards the United Kingdom under the CFE treaty, we will cease fulfilment of our key obligations towards the Russian Federation. In effect the United Kingdom:

Will no longer provide information to the Russian Federation in the annual data exchange that takes place under the terms of the CFE treaty on 15 December;

Will no longer provide any notifications to the Russian Federation under the terms of the CFE treaty;

Will no longer accept inspections requested by the Russian Federation pursuant to the CFE treaty.

The United Kingdom remains committed to conventional arms control in Europe and will continue to fulfil our treaty obligations with respect to all other states parties to the CFE treaty. We will also continue to abide by and respect the numerical limitations on conventional armaments and equipment established by the treaty.

We remain open to negotiations with the Russian Federation should they demonstrate a willingness to address constructively the key issues which are currently preventing progress.