Ministerial Correction

David Lidington Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

Further to parliamentary question 68626 [7 September 2011, Official Report, vol.532, c. 449W], regarding the costs of the Council of Europe, part of my written answer to the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) was not published. The correct answer is as follows:

[Mr Lidington]

: The following table shows the totals of the Council of Europe (CoE) Ordinary Budget between 2003 and 2010, the contribution made by the UK, and the proportion of the total paid by the UK.

Court of Justice of the European Union (Appointments)

David Lidington Excerpts

Wednesday 14th September 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

At a conference of representatives of Governments of member states on 8 September 2011 the appointments of a Swedish judge to the Court of Justice and a Bulgarian judge to the General Court were considered.

The nominations were in respect of: Mr Carl Gustav Fernlund of Sweden and Ms Mariyana Kancheva of Bulgaria.

Having consulted with the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice and the Attorney-General, the Foreign Secretary agreed to the appointments.

General Affairs Council (12 September)

David Lidington Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

The General Affairs Council will meet in Brussels on 12 September. I will attend.

I will deposit the provisional records of the Foreign Affairs Council and General Affairs Council in the Library of the House when they are issued by the Council secretariat. I will issue a written ministerial statement in slower time, with the Government’s assessment of the debate at the Council.

General Affairs Council (gac)

Next Multiannual Financial Framework

The presidency intends to present the outcome of the discussion held by the Friends of Presidency group. This is a Committee of officials from the member states, with attendance from the Commission, to prepare and discuss aspects of the next multiannual financial framework. The Commission proposals (linked here— http://ec.europa.eu/budget/reform/ were published in June 2011 and are unacceptable to the UK. The UK Government have been clear that, at a time of ongoing economic fragility in Europe and tight constraints on domestic public spending, the Commission’s proposal for the multiannual financial framework is unrealistic. It is too large; it is not the restrained budget the Commission claims and it is incompatible with the tough decisions being taken in countries across Europe. The negotiations are at a very early stage and discussion is expected to be general.

Following the GAC, Ministers will have an orientation debate during lunch. This will be an opportunity to discuss general issues such as how the budget operates/functions, in particular the structure of the budget—this means how the budget headings are set out, for example what level of flexibility there should be to move funds between envelopes. The discussion will also touch on the macro-economic assumptions upon which the Commission’s figures are based, that is; assumptions about growth, GDP and the rate of inflation. There will also be discussion of emergency funds, such as the emergency aid reserve, and how these funds operate.

I will place particular emphasis, during my interventions, on the principle that the budget should be transparent.

Economic Governance

The presidency will update the Council regarding the “six pack” of legislative proposals for economic governance proposed by the Commission to implement the recommendations of President Van Rompuy’s economic taskforce (his report is linked here—

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/117236.pdf.

The six recommendations from the Commission called for a strengthening of both the preventive and corrective arm of the existing stability and growth pact, including new regulations to formalise sanctions for eurozone countries; provided for new regulation to improve macro-economic surveillance across the EU27; and included a new directive which sets out minimum standards for member states’ domestic fiscal frameworks.

The Government have supported the proposed economic governance legislation in broad terms. The March Finance Ministers Council (ECOFIN) agreed a general approach to the six proposals linked here—

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms data/docs/pressdatayen/ecofin/119888.pdf

including a UK exemption from relevant articles of the fiscal frameworks directive. Negotiations are currently underway with the European Parliament (EP).

European Council of 17-18 October 2011

Delegations will be presented with a draft agenda, submitted by the President of the European Council, to set out the main items that the European Council is expected to address on 17-18 October 2011. The agenda for the October European Council will include economic policy, and external aspects of the EU economic policy including trade; preparations for the G20 summit on 3-4 November; and the EU position ahead of the climate change discussions in Durban (28 November-9 December). Additional agenda items may be added in the lead up to the Council.

Accession Treaty with Croatia

The presidency is likely to use the opportunity to take stock of the work done so far in drafting the accession treaty with Croatia. Discussion is likely to be limited, although the date and venue for the formal signature of the accession treaty may be raised.

European Institutions

David Lidington Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

This is the second day in succession that I have had the pleasure of serving under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on securing this debate. I am certainly aware of her long-standing interest in the European Union and European institutions. As she rightly said, it would be good to have more opportunities to discuss such issues, and I would welcome the prospect of many more Members taking part in those debates. It is a pity that, often, only a number of committed aficionados attend European debates. I would like the issues to be debated more generally. As she rightly said, the decisions that British Ministers negotiate at European level have a direct and, in many cases, significant impact on the lives of the people whom we represent.

I listened carefully to the points that my hon. Friend raised and I agree that the European institutions that she mentioned have many shortcomings that, coupled with the previous Government’s reluctance to involve the people in important decisions about the European Union, have led to a growing sense of disconnection between the British electorate and the European institutions. I assure her that this Government are committed to addressing that disconnection and the issues underlying it.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

In that case, can the Minister assure us that any new European Union treaties will be put to a referendum of the people, as will any new measures, particularly fiscal ones?

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a subject to which I was planning to come in the next stage of my remarks. The Government are intent on working hard within Europe to deliver the kind of Europe that suits British interests and the British people, in the knowledge that we now have, for the first time, a proper guarantee that, if it is ever proposed to pass new competencies or powers from this country to Brussels, the British people will get a vote in a referendum. That guarantee is provided by the European Union Act 2011, which recently came into force. For the first time, British voters will have their rightful say over any further expansion of EU powers. I believe that that will put our participation in the EU on a sturdier and more democratic footing. If a new treaty amendment or a brand-new treaty were to be introduced that involved the transfer of further competencies or powers from this country to the European Union, that treaty or amendment would be caught by our new Act of Parliament, and a referendum would be required subsequent to primary legislation here so that the British people would have the final say over whether those powers were transferred to Brussels.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

That is all very well, and it is welcome as far as the future is concerned, but is not the problem that, under the Lisbon treaty and other measures, far too much power has already been ceded to Brussels? What we need is to get some of it back. Should it not be the Government’s priority to use the current situation in Europe to negotiate the repatriation of powers to the British people? That is the key issue as we move forward.

[Mr Lidington]

As the right hon. Gentleman says, the Act is not a panacea, and I have never claimed that it would be. It does not address the repatriation of powers. That was not its purpose. Under the coalition agreement, the Government are committed to examining the existing balance of competencies and what they mean for Britain, and we continue to consider that issue. I appreciate that both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Witham would have liked the coalition agreement to commit us to returning important powers from the EU to the United Kingdom. During the 2010 general election, I stood on and campaigned for exactly the same manifesto as my hon. Friend did. I do not resile from anything to which I committed myself then, but we must abide by the political reality of the outcome of that election, which the British people delivered. The coalition agreement forms the basis for this Government’s policy.

My hon. Friend argued that ongoing negotiations on EU reform could be an opportunity to deliver a new EU agenda. The current problems in the eurozone were predictable—and, indeed, predicted, not least by British Conservatives—but that does not change the fact that, although we seek to expand British trade with the world’s emerging powers, 40% of it is still with the countries of the eurozone, so it is in our national interests that the eurozone countries prosper and find a way through their difficulties.

The economic logic of a monetary union, as British Conservatives have argued frequently, is greater fiscal and economic union, and we see some signs that the eurozone countries are moving in that direction. If they wish to do so, we should not stand in the way of their progress. If, at some stage in the future, moves towards greater fiscal union among the eurozone countries lead to a treaty, there will be an opportunity for the United Kingdom to ask, “What is in our national interest?” That is the approach that we took on the treaty change to establish a European stability mechanism for eurozone members. As the Prime Minister said, Britain would benefit from taking some powers back from Brussels. However, I caution my hon. Friend that although events are fast-moving and predictions risky, there is no sign of an immediate move towards such a treaty change. Treaty change is neither easy nor straightforward, and the eurozone countries know that, whatever the position in the United Kingdom, several countries, including the Netherlands, Denmark and Slovakia, have provision in their constitutional arrangements for referendums in some circumstances, so it would be a complicated matter. For that reason, I do not think that there is pressure at the moment to go down that road.

My hon. Friend raised more general points about the future of the eurozone. Although the Franco-German proposals appear to be a step in the right direction, we must consider the detail carefully. She is absolutely right that we should not let ourselves be sucked into the deeper fiscal integration on which the eurozone appears to be embarking. That is important to the Government.

On financial transaction taxes, clearly, unless such taxes applied to all financial centres globally, we would see a relocation of trading from centres where taxes apply to centres where they do not. Therefore, a financial transaction tax that applied only to European Union countries would be extraordinarily damaging for every financial centre in the EU, including the City of London. The Government are taking an active role in international discussions exploring financial sector taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear on many occasions that he thinks that the idea of an EU-only financial transaction tax would be profoundly counter-productive and unwelcome.

My hon. Friend mentioned budgetary discipline and financial efficiency in Europe. Both are cornerstones of the Government’s policy towards the European Union. We want all institutions to ensure that their spending and activity produce genuine benefits for our citizens. We are taking firm action on the 2012 EU budget. Of course, the annual budgets of the European Union are ultimately determined by qualified majority voting. We do not have a right of veto. Although the current proposal for an increase of about 2% is greater than the British Government would have wished, it is still roughly equivalent to a real-terms freeze in that budget, and it is significantly less than the Commission’s original proposal of 4.9%. I also note that it is almost €8 billion less than the budget ceiling for 2011, which was agreed by the previous Labour Government in 2005. We will continue to work with other like-minded countries to get the very best deal possible for the taxpayer. I shall embark on a further stage of that work when I go to Brussels next Monday for the General Affairs Council.

[Bob Stewart]

Is it possible that we could just say, “No, we are not giving you that money”? We know that that would break a treaty, but surely we are not alone in Europe in that respect. Would not one option for us to think about be for Britain to say no, as Margaret Thatcher did?

[Mr Lidington]

However tempting my hon. Friend’s suggestion might be, the problem with unilateral action is that it can so easily be used to justify unilateral action by others that would be profoundly detrimental to our national interest. Aspects of the European Union—most obviously the single market, the creation of Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Government—have benefited the prosperity of and employment among British citizens. They have helped attract vast foreign direct investment to these shores. Other European countries have, at times, fumed and sworn at the fact that the single market meant that they had to dismantle protectionist barriers. However frustrating some aspects of the way in which the EU is organised may be, and however we might aspire to see changes in those structures, I caution my hon. Friend against unilateral action, because that could set a damaging precedent.

We in this Government believe that tax policy is for member states to determine at national level. The Commission has proposed certain new EU taxes. We think that those would introduce additional burdens and damage European—not just British—competitiveness. The United Kingdom will oppose any such new EU taxes.

If we look beyond the annual 2012 budget to the next, probably seven-year, financial perspective, where unanimity rather than qualified majority voting applies, we will see that the Prime Minister has stated jointly with his EU counterparts that the maximum acceptable expenditure increase is a real freeze in payments and that that should be year on year from the actual level of payments in 2013, not from the level of commitment, which is usually above the level of the money actually paid out.

I also assure my hon. Friends that the Government will certainly defend the United Kingdom rebate, which remains fully justified owing to expenditure distortions in the EU budget. We should not cease to remind the British people of the fact that the increases in our direct contributions, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham has referred, are the product of the shoddy budgetary deal negotiated by our predecessors, Mr Blair and the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), when they were in office.

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

I welcome what the Minister has said about EU taxes and his approach to the budget, but what are we going to do about some of the social directives about temporary workers and so on when we desperately need to deregulate our economy to get growth? What are we going to do about that avalanche of new regulation coming from Europe?

[Mr Lidington]

The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), is working hard to assemble a coalition of like-minded Ministers and is engaging with the Commission to seek to avoid the sort of damaging additional social regulation to which my hon. Friend rightly refers. We are also keeping a particularly close eye on the position of the working time directive. The Commission may come forward with new proposals in the next 12 months. Our priority will be to protect the opt-out, which is valuable to British competitiveness. If there also prove to be ways in which to mitigate or reverse the impact of the European Court of Justice judgments that defined time on call as working time we would seek to do that as well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Witham called for greater efficiency and the reduction of waste. I support her on that, as I do on her call for increased transparency over all the activity and detailed expenditure of the institutions. The more transparency we have over EU spending and the legislative process, the greater evidence we will find to support our arguments for improved efficiency and the reduction of waste. An important part of transparency is scrutiny, and I am keen to ensure that we do everything possible to make our own parliamentary scrutiny processes still more significant. It is a vital part of the democratic process and the Government are committed to ensuring that scrutiny committees can clear proposals before we agree to them at ministerial level.

My hon. Friend is right that the priority should be growth, competitiveness and jobs. That is where Europe should be focusing its energy and attention now. We are pushing for a further drive on the liberalisation of the single market, on breaking down barriers to trade, and on making European regulation less burdensome and expensive, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises, on which so many jobs throughout Europe, not just the United Kingdom, depend. We are determined to resist any gold-plating of European Union legislation.

My hon. Friend talked about the Council of Europe and prisoner voting. The Commons has given a clear view that prisoners should not have the vote. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has echoed that call. The Government believe that it is right to consider the final judgment in the Italian case of Scoppola, as well as the wider legal context, before setting out the next steps on prisoner voting. I want those next steps to be as close as possible to the clearly expressed will of the House of Commons.

[Mr Dodds]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

Forgive me, but I want to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Witham. On immigration, the Government are committed to applying transitional measures on the migration of workers from new member states. The framework for this has already been agreed with Croatia for controls of up to seven years. Under the terms of Croatia’s accession negotiations, member states can apply the same type and length of restrictions to Croatian workers as those that apply to Romanian and Bulgarian workers, who may obtain permission to work on the basis that they are highly skilled or have the offer of a skilled job. The precise controls that we will apply for Croatia have not yet been determined. My colleagues in the Home Office are considering that at the moment.

The Government believe in championing the British national interest within the EU. We champion the UK position on every issue. Sometimes, getting the reforms that we want to see is a hard and slow business, but we will be relentless in our commitment to get the best possible deal for the prosperity, security and well-being of our own citizens.

Question put and agreed to.

Palestinian State (UN Membership)

David Lidington Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I thank and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) not just for securing this important debate but for the way in which, for many years, he has championed the cause of the Palestinian people with commitment, passion and, in my experience, always with immense courtesy to other Members, whether they agree with or differ from him on the issue. The events in the middle east are important to him and to everybody in the House; the attendance at this debate demonstrates the importance that the House gives to the matter.

It is also right for me to say that despite everything else that has been going on the Arab world in the past 12 months—in north Africa, Syria and Lebanon—the Foreign Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) have consistently held the view that finding a just and peaceful settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians must remain a central part of British and international policy towards that region. I have heard my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary say on many different occasions that what has been happening in the Arab world makes it more urgent, not less, that the international community should use every bit of leverage that it has and every bit of diplomatic energy that it can spare to press for that settlement to be agreed sooner rather than later.

This is the 20th year of the middle east peace process, and it has been 20 years since the Madrid conference was launched, but if we are honest, not much has changed for Palestinians and Israelis in the 20 years since the Oslo accords were signed. Israelis continue to face threats from violent extremists, and Palestinians, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield said, still have no state. The United Kingdom Government, whatever party has been in office, have long made it clear that peace in the middle east enabling a resolution of that long-running dispute has enormous importance for both global and regional security. The goal of the international community should be to ensure that this is the last year of process and the beginning of a lasting agreement between the parties.

After the events of the past few months, the world can no longer claim that change in the middle east will come slowly and incrementally, nor can we allow the middle east peace process to limp along indefinitely as it has done. If the peace process becomes a casualty of wider regional change, that will feed instability and violence rather than democracy and human development.

The Government believe that there is no alternative to negotiations to address all the fundamental issues at the heart of the Israel-Palestine conflict. A solution cannot be imposed from outside, although other countries can influence those directly involved. We want the parties themselves to redouble their efforts to break the impasse and resume negotiations for a two-state solution before the window to such a solution closes. Bold leadership is needed on all sides. Neither Israel nor the Palestinians can afford to let the opportunity for peace slip further from their grasp. In our view, the two-state solution, however difficult it is and however narrow the remaining window of opportunity, is the only way to realise both the aspiration of Palestinians for a state of their own and the long-term security that Israelis deserve.

This month marks the time frame set out by President Obama for welcoming Palestine as a full member of the United Nations. September also marks an important waypoint in the Palestinian Authority’s good work on their state-building programme. I applaud and welcome the progress made by the Palestinian Authority on institution-building and financial management initiatives, which the United Kingdom has supported. We recently signed a memorandum of understanding to continue to support the Palestinian Authority in their work to build up the institutions of the embryonic state and support the Palestinian people. In the current financial year, the Department for International Development expects to provide almost £80 million to this end as part of a total of £275 million allocated to the occupied Palestinian territories for the next four years. We hope that the Palestinian Authority will complement this admirable work on state building with the necessary progress on the political track.

I understand clearly, and remember from the visits that I paid to the occupied territories during my time as shadow spokesman on the middle east, the sense of anger and growing frustration that exists among ordinary Palestinians at the things about which the hon. Gentleman has spoken—the settlement building, the roadblocks, the demolition of Palestinian homes and the construction of a barrier, the reason for which one can understand in terms of Israel’s security needs, but which goes beyond the green line and which, as the hon. Gentleman has said, in too many places separates working rural families from their farmland or makes it more difficult for Palestinian workers to travel to their accustomed place of work in Israeli-administered areas.

The Prime Minister made our position on UN recognition of a Palestinian state clear during President Obama’s visit in May. He agreed with the President that a Palestinian state was a legitimate goal, but the best way of achieving this was through a comprehensive agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.

This is an important issue for Britain for four key reasons. First, as I have said, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains one of our top priorities. Secondly, there is a sense of growing frustration and pressure among the Palestinian people, which threatens the stability that we have seen over the past year. At a time when we have seen people all around the Arab world fighting for, and realising, their rights to shape the societies and Governments under which they live, it is only just that the Palestinians too should realise their goal of an independent, viable state of Palestine.

Thirdly, the security of Israel and her prosperity matters deeply to the United Kingdom as an important strategic partner and friend. We have long said that Israel’s own need for long-term security can only be assured if there is a comprehensive settlement to the Israel-Palestine dispute, including the creation of an independent, sovereign and contiguous Palestinian state.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that, under international law, Palestine fulfils all the requirements to become a recognised state?

[Mr Lidington]

I think that one could find different lawyers who would be prepared to argue almost any point of detail on that question. I want to come on to the point about national recognition and the UN position. I make it clear that the Government’s position is that we believe that, whatever we say or vote for in this Chamber and whatever is voted for in the United Nations, whether in the Security Council or the General Assembly, a lasting, enduring, peaceful settlement on the ground is something that, in practice, will only be secured through negotiation, not by resolutions passed in a particular place.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

In the context of all the negotiations that have taken place or that have, at times, broken down, we have often heard from Israel that the problem from its perspective is that it does not have a reliable, equivalent partner with which to negotiate. Would not some progress in terms of recognition of statehood remove some of the claimed problem that Israel says it has in the context of this very frustrating negotiating process?

[Mr Lidington]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but we also have to accept the political reality that various acts have taken place in the past few years that have made it difficult to keep negotiations going. Direct negotiations of a serious character are not now taking place. In the absence of such negotiations, I think that there is simply going to be greater bitterness, greater difficulty and the narrowing still further of that window of opportunity for the successful creation of a two-state solution. I think that the emphasis for the United Kingdom and the international community should be on trying to get those negotiations back on track.

My fourth and final point about why this matters to Britain is that, of course, the dispute deeply affects the politics of the broader region, and the fluid dynamic resulting from the Arab spring makes the prize of stability that would come from an Israel-Palestine agreement even more significant.

We want to see a return to negotiations on the basis agreed by the Prime Minister and President Obama. The United Kingdom Government want to see borders based on 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, security for Israel, and the right for Palestinians to govern themselves in a sovereign and contiguous state. We see Jerusalem as being a shared city which will be the capital of both countries, and we also of course accept that there needs to be an agreed and just solution for Palestinian refugees.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being most generous with his time. Can he cast any light on the Government’s views on the plight of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan in particular, and what would happen to their status in respect of recognition of a Palestinian state?

[Mr Lidington]

The detail of that is something that will have to be worked out in negotiations. I think it is fair to say that the negotiations that took place between President Abbas and former Prime Minister Olmert began to address the issue of refugees, even though no final agreement could be reached before Mr Olmert left office. Our view on the humanitarian treatment of those people, particularly in Lebanon where there are some serious problems concerning the treatment of Palestinian refugees, is that we urge the host Governments to treat those Palestinian refugees fairly, humanely and equally.

[Richard Burden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Lidington]

I will give way, but I am conscious that I want to respond to the key point of the hon. Gentleman’s speech.

[Richard Burden]

I hope that the Minister will do that and I will make my question brief. I agree completely with what he has said about the need for a comprehensive settlement to achieve peace, but my question is: do the UK Government see the recognition of a Palestinian state as an impediment to achieving that comprehensive settlement? If not, why do we not do it?

[Mr Lidington]

We think that the recognition of a Palestinian state is something that needs to be achieved within the framework of negotiations. That is certainly the best way in which to go about it. It now looks as if Palestinian action at the United Nations this month is increasingly likely. We are working closely with partners to build consensus on a way forward that recognises the progress Palestinians have made on their state-building efforts, that meets Israel’s legitimate security concerns, and that avoids confrontation at the UN, which would have a damaging effect on the resumption of negotiations. Whatever action is taken in New York, it is important that that increases and does not diminish the prospects for a return to negotiations. We have reserved our position on the question of recognition of a Palestinian state while we continue to urge all parties back to talks. Recognition is a matter for each Government to decide bilaterally and, if needed—no resolution has yet been tabled—we will take a decision nearer the time, in consultation with the European Union and other partners.

It is important to remember that action in the UN is not an end in itself. September is not the closing date for resolution of this conflict. What happens afterwards is vital, which is why our goal remains ensuring that steps are taken now to pave the way for significant and conclusive talks, and why we believe it is vital that any action in the UN does nothing to endanger the prospect of such talks.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

As co-chair of the Liberal Democrat international affairs committee, I would welcome a British yes vote in September. Is not the irony of the American and Israeli position in opposition to this that both the United States and Israel themselves declared their own statehood in advance of the final resolution of their negotiated borders and many other issues?

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point tellingly and well, but I will not be drawn into 1776 and all that. We want the new generation of Palestinians to grow up in hope, not despair, believing in a peaceful settlement with Israel, and not impoverished and not susceptible to terrorist recruitment. I want to assure the House that this Government will not cease in our efforts to support the parties in finding a long-term sustainable solution to this conflict that will make that vision a reality.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lidington Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

6. What recent assessment he has made of the level of political stability in the Balkans.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

Progress on political and economic reform in the western Balkans is uneven. We welcome the successful conclusion of EU accession negotiations with Croatia but remain particularly concerned by the political situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where sustained international focus is needed.

[Henry Smith]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. What is Her Majesty’s Government’s assessment of the readiness of Croatia and Serbia to join the EU, given the fact that, with hindsight, Romania and Bulgaria probably acceded to the Union too soon?

[Mr Lidington]

The Croatian Government have met the conditions laid down by the Commission and supported by member states, but the European Council also agreed when it concluded accession negotiations that there should be a further stage of pre-accession monitoring to ensure that the Croatian authorities’ commitments to reform are still delivered in practice.

We look forward to the Commission’s report on Serbia’s progress on economic and political reform, which is due in December. Although the arrest of Mr Mladic was an important step forward, it does not remove the need for Serbia to do everything else with regard to internal reform and addressing regional co-operation to meet the terms of EU accession.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

On that very point, while welcoming the EU-brokered talks between Serbia and Kosovo, does the Minister share my disappointment that immediately afterwards President Tadic called for the partition of Kosovo? Serbia is also meddling in Bosnia and Montenegro as if it still controlled Serb regions in those countries. Does he agree that Serbia has to be told that it must accept Kosovo’s right to nation statehood and recognise Kosovo, and that that is a sine qua non for British acceptance of Serbia going down the road to EU membership?

[Mr Lidington]

As far as the British Government are concerned, it is quite clear that the frontiers in the Balkans have been drawn and there is no going back on Kosovo’s independence. Regional co-operation must be addressed in the context of an accession process for Serbia and a full European perspective for Kosovo. We welcome the initial agreement reached through the dialogue and want that to progress further.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

While the political process in Bosnia is in such flux, the malign influence of organised crime is growing. I am very worried by this. What assessment does the Minister make this horrible influence on the day-to-day lives of people in Bosnia?

[Mr Lidington]

When I was in Sarajevo last month, the issue of corruption and, in particular, the failure of judicial and police institutions came up again and again in conversations with representatives of civil society. If Bosnia and Herzegovina is to make progress towards EU membership, it is vital that these matters are fully addressed. A detailed menu of reforms is laid out in the Commission’s report published at the end of last year. We continue to urge the Governments in Sarajevo and in Banja Luka—the two entities—to make progress. In the first place, they have to form a state-level Government. Until that is in place, it is difficult to see the required progress being made.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

It has been 16 years since the massacre at Srebrenica. Will the Government indicate what is being done at home and abroad to make sure that young people learn about this atrocity?

[Mr Lidington]

My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Warsi attended the anniversary commemorations in Srebrenica this year, and she made clear, in her public speech on behalf of the British Government and in her private conversations with civic and political leaders of the different communities, the importance of community reconciliation and of making sure that atrocities such as that of Srebrenica are not forgotten but serve as a reminder to everybody from all traditions, in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in the wider Balkans, that the horrors of the past must be put behind us and that we need to work for reconciliation for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

15. What recent discussions he has had with his international counterparts on the human rights situation in Belarus.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I regularly discuss with my international counterparts the abuse of human rights by the regime in Belarus. I most recently did so with the Russian deputy Foreign Minister the week before last.

[Tracey Crouch]

I thank the Minister for his reply. He will be aware that there has been very little progress in Belarus, with the Lukashenko regime continuing to arrest people who peacefully protest against the Government there. Given the regime’s blatant disregard for calls by international partners such as the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and others to improve civil liberties in Belarus, does my right hon. Friend not think it time for the UK Government to take an international lead and call for further sanctions against the regime?

[Mr Lidington]

I think that we should use every means possible to persuade the regime in Minsk to cease its persistent and systematic abuse of human rights. It is important to try to do that in a way that does not make even more wretched the lives of the ordinary people of Belarus. We are among those in the European Union who are pushing for a rigorous further examination of sanctions that might be levied to achieve the outcome that both my hon. Friend and I want.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

T4. Nearly 2,000 people remain missing in Cyprus as a result of the conflicts in 1963 and 1974. This affects Greek and Turkish Cypriots across the island. The Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus has made progress, but does the Minister agree that an increased commitment and speedier resolution of this tragic issue would constitute a significant confidence-builder towards a final settlement for the island?

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I visited the headquarters of the Committee on Missing Persons and its laboratory while I was in Cyprus a few weeks ago, and I was impressed by the work that it is doing to discover the fate of those missing people, both Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot. That is morally right, because it helps the affected families to come to terms with what has happened to their loved ones, but, as my hon. Friend has said, it is also a good measure for building confidence between two communities that, sadly, have become separated by the events of recent decades.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Lisa Nandy. Not here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

It is 20 years to the month since little Ben Needham went missing on the island of Kos. His mother, Kerry, is my constituent. It appears that new evidence may have come to light, and Kerry believes that any investigation or review of her case would be helped by securing political commitments to her cause at the top level of Government, such as we have seen in the case of Madeleine McCann. Will the Foreign Secretary agree to meet Kerry and me to discuss the case of missing Ben?

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Lady will appreciate that I would not want to comment in detail on the case across the Floor of the House, but I would happily make time to see her and her constituents to discuss it further.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Will Ministers say what reports they have received on the economic situation in Greece, on whether there has been any intelligence on the likelihood of a default and on the likelihood of Greece remaining in the euro?

[Mr Lidington]

We receive many reports on Greece—including, of course, on the very grave economic situation there. The economic health of the eurozone, including that of Greece, is important in assuring jobs and prosperity in this country. It is important both that the Greek Government deal with the structural reforms and the changes to bear down on their own deficit and that the eurozone more widely addresses the causes of instability. We hope that they do so at their meeting planned for this week.

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

The Hadeel fair trade shop in my constituency has for some years imported from small producers in the west bank and Gaza products of various types that support the very type of economic development that was supported earlier. It has recently had great difficulty in importing material and in sending money back to the producers. If I write to the Secretary of State with more details, will he look into this issue and try to resolve this blockage of what is a sensible fair trade measure?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Will the Secretary of State give us an update on the situation in Kosovo, particularly in relation to moves towards proper and full democracy and the stamping out of corruption at Government level?

[Mr Lidington]

A Government have been formed in Kosovo, after initial difficulties, but there is certainly much more to be done to deal with the problems of corruption and organised crime. We therefore fully support the work that is being done by EULEX, the European rule of law mission in Kosovo. We also take every opportunity to urge Ministers in Kosovo to take the lead in making dealing with those problems a priority.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

I assure my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that Liberal rebels are not yet taking delivery of any weapons, although the notion of campaigning with a Kalashnikov in the one hand and the alternative vote in the other does have its attractions.

May I return my right hon. Friend to the issue of Palestinian recognition? Given that there is every indication that there will be recognition of a Palestinian state, what assessment has he made of the impact on the influence of the United Kingdom in the region if that recognition takes place without our endorsement?

Foreign Affairs Council and General Affairs Council

David Lidington Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

The Foreign Affairs Council and General Affairs Council will meet in Brussels on 18 July. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will attend the Foreign Affairs Council. I will attend the General Affairs Council.

Foreign Affairs Council (FAC)

Initiatives in the area of the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP)

We expect Baroness Ashton to present a report on CSDP which will be used as the basis for a discussion by Ministers. This follows an interim report which was presented to Defence Ministers at a FAC on 23 May. We are keen to support any initiatives that ensure the EU and NATO complement each other better. More generally, we will encourage the continued development of European civilian and military capabilities, and improvement to the co-ordination between EU civilian and military planning structures to help achieve a more joined up approach to crisis management. But we are opposed to the creation of any new institutions.

Southern Neighbourhood (Syria/Lebanon/Libya)

On Syria, we expect the Council to agree conclusions which will keep up the pressure on the Syrian regime to end the violence engage in meaningful reforms and take forward a genuine and inclusive national dialogue.

We also expect conclusions on Lebanon which, while we recognise the complex challenges of the country’s internal political structure, make clear our expectations that the new Government uphold their international obligations, particularly by committing to co-operate with the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.

And on Libya, we expect EU Ministers to take their lead on the discussion at the contact group meeting due to be held on 15 July. We may also take the opportunity to remind Ministers of the need to push ahead with implementation of the ambitious new approach to the region set out in the new European neighbourhood policy endorsed by the European Council and the FAC in June.

Climate Change and Security

Following a joint request by the Foreign Secretary and his German counterpart, Dr Westerwelle, that the FAC discuss climate change in the light of the urgent and serious threat it poses to growth and security. Foreign Ministers will have the opportunity to consider the respective roles they, the High Representative, the European External Action Service (EEAS) and National Diplomatic Services can play in responding to climate change. Our view is that there is a need for greater emphasis on this in both member states’ and the EEAS’s approaches to foreign policy. We also expect the adoption of formal conclusions.

Middle East Peace Process (MEPP)

The 18 July FAC will receive a report from Baroness Ashton on the 11 July quartet meeting. We expect Ministers will want to support quartet efforts to get the Israelis and Palestinians back into direct talks. There is also likely to be a discussion of how the EU should respond to proposals for a UN vote on Palestinian statehood in September.

Pakistan

We welcome the opportunity to discuss Pakistan. We want to emphasise Pakistan’s strategic importance to the EU, and the need to re-energise the EU-Pakistan relationship. We would like conclusions which include commitments that will lead to a broader and deeper relationship and set the framework for a third EU-Pakistan summit.

Afghanistan

Discussion on Afghanistan is likely to cover a wide range of issues including security transition, the EU’s long-term engagement with Afghanistan, and the EU police mission (EU POL). We will encourage a focused discussion, emphasising the importance of the EU’s commitment to Afghanistan post-2014 and urging progress on key areas of the EU’s expertise such as governance and capacity building.

Strategic Partners

If there is time. Ministers may consider the EU’s relations with its strategic partners. They would focus in particular on Brazil and South Africa (given forthcoming EU summits with those countries in October and September respectively). They may also cover China, Russia and the US, following Baroness Ashton’s work last year to define EU priorities with those countries. We are keen that the EU identifies concrete goals, preferably using its trade levers, with each country. And that the EU places an equally high priority on its relations with India.

General Affairs Council (GAC)

Multiannual Financial Framework

The European Commission will present their proposals for the EU budget multiannual financial framework 2014-2020. The proposals can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/budget/index_en.cfm.

This could be the opportunity to remind the Commission of the joint letter to the President of the European Commission signed by the Prime Minister and leaders from Germany, France, the Netherlands and Finland in December 2011. This letter can be found at:

http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/statements-and-articles/2010/12/letter-to-president-of-european-commission-58224.

Reform of the Statue of the European Court of Justice

The Court of Justice of the European Union has submitted a number of proposals for reform to improve its efficiency and, in particular, to clear the significant backlog of cases in the General Court (GC). The GC is important because it has jurisdiction to hear at first instance competition and trademark cases that are vital to the functioning of the single market. The key proposal is to increase the number of judges in the GC by 12, from 27 to 39, at a cost of an additional €13.6 million a year. While we support reform, we will have to take account of the need to deliver real budgetary restraint at EU-level.

Presentation of the Presidency’s Programme

Ministers will be given a presentation by the Polish presidency on their main priorities for the next six months. More information on the Polish presidency can be found at: http://pl2011.eu/en.

June European Council

Ministers will discuss follow-up to the June European Council, which covered migration, economic policy, north Africa and the middle east. Following the Council, the Prime Minister reported the outcomes to the House in his statement on the

“Statement on the European Council”.

The statement can be found at the following link:

http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/latest-news/2011/06/statement-on-european-council-meeting-2-65137

The conclusions of the June European Council meeting can be found at: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st00/st00023.en11.pdf.

European Union Bill

David Lidington Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments 2 and 4.

[Mr Lidington]

Since the Bill was given its Third Reading just four months ago, it has been considered carefully and assiduously by the other place, as Members in all parts of the House would expect. I pay tribute to the House of Lords for the diligent way in which it examined the Bill. The Government might not always have shared the views of colleagues in the other place, and we will deal with the points of disagreement in more detail during the debate, but it only right for us to note and welcome the careful, meticulous analysis conducted there.

The House of Lords has agreed to 15 amendments that it now falls to us to consider. They cover a number of issues, and I am sure that Members in all parts of the House will want to spend some time considering each of them, so I shall try to make good progress with each group.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Having read the Lords amendments fairly carefully over an hour or so, I have the impression that they are all essentially about weakening a Bill that was not very strong in the first place. Could we not shorten the debate and vote on them fairly quickly?

[Mr Lidington]

I welcome what I take to be the hon. Gentleman’s support for a reversal of some of the Lords amendments and a restoration of the Bill to the state that it was in when it left this House. However, I am in his hands and those of other Members in terms of the time that it will take to deal with the amendments. I feel that we should do justice to the consideration that the House of Lords devoted to the Bill by dealing in turn with the amendments for which it voted.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

If I may quote the hallowed words of, I believe, John Bright, we should perhaps

“Be just, and fear not”.

Will the Minister be kind enough to confirm that he will do everything possible to ensure that the amendments relating to clause 18, to which the European Scrutiny Committee gave such careful consideration and on which it produced such a comprehensive report, will be reached so that we can at least discuss those questions emphatically? They are extremely important, and will allow us to discuss the Supreme Court and its potential interpretation of laws that might inhibit the supremacy of this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I certainly do not intend to delay our reaching a group of amendments in which I know my hon. Friend is particularly interested. However, as I said to the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), I am in the hands of the House in terms of how long it will take us to debate the two groups of amendments that Mr Speaker has placed before the group relating to clause 18.

The first three amendments were proposed by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Howell of Guildford on behalf of the Government. They are essentially technical, and were intended to deal with concern that was expressed in the House of Lords about the interpretation of some of the provisions in part 1. They fall into two categories.

Lords amendment 1 changes one of the definitions in clause 1 involving the phrase “or otherwise supporting”. The fear was expressed in the House of Lords that the Bill, as originally drafted, could inadvertently prevent Ministers and their officials from taking part constructively in negotiations about new proposals for action. That is not, and has never been, the Government’s intention. Our intention is that the United Kingdom should continue to be an active player in the European Union, engaging with our partners and ensuring that the EU delivers what it ought to be delivering for the benefit of our citizens and those of other European countries.

Under the Bill, the Government would not be able to vote in favour of, or otherwise support, a treaty or other provision specified in part 1 when the time came for the final decision to be made in the European Council or in the Council of the European Union without the necessary approvals. The words “or otherwise supporting” are included simply because—as many Members who follow European affairs closely will know—it is possible for a proposal that is subject to unanimity to be adopted even it has not been agreed to by each member state in a formal vote. For example, a formal vote does not always take place. In certain circumstances where the Chair believes that he or she has the mood of the room, silence can be taken as assent and, when a decision requires unanimity, abstention is, effectively, counted as a supportive vote, as set out in articles 235(1) and 238(4) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union.

[Mr Cash]

Having listened with enthusiasm and interest to my right hon. Friend’s earlier remarks about timing, on the basis that I think it is generally conceded that this particular batch of amendments is entirely uncontroversial and that the whole question of the amendments’ content could be dealt with in about 30 seconds flat, will he be kind enough to address them as swiftly as possible, to ensure that the House can get its views across on all matters?

[Mr Lidington]

I am encouraged by my hon. Friend’s remarks to be increasingly confident that we can reach the group of amendments on which he is anxious to speak in good time. I remind him, however, that four hours have been set aside for our deliberations on these three groups of amendments, and I think it is right that we should do justice to the consideration that the House of Lords gave to the Bill by addressing each of the amendments it approved.

On Lords amendment 1, all I want to say further is that the phrase “or otherwise supporting” is included to remove any doubt—just as the previous Government used that phrase to remove any doubt when drafting the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008—and to ensure that a proposal could not be adopted in such a way without the appropriate authority required under the provisions of the Bill.

Lords amendments 2 and 4 make it clear beyond doubt that, under the terms of the Bill, a referendum would not be required in the United Kingdom if a treaty change did not apply to the UK but only to Gibraltar, and this would not transfer competence or power from the United Kingdom. I say straight away that it is hard to work out a scenario in which a treaty amendment that constituted a transfer of competence or power would apply only to Gibraltar and not to the UK. It is possible in theory, and this point was raised in the other place, and we have sought to assuage that concern by proposing these two technical amendments.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Notwithstanding the recent comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) on the need for brevity, let me say that while I agree that this is a technical tidying up of the clause as it left this place, I am concerned that a future Foreign and Commonwealth Office—not the current one—that wished to stitch up the good and loyal people of Gibraltar should not have that opportunity through the back door of the European Union.

[Mr Lidington]

I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that the current Government are absolutely committed to Gibraltar remaining British for as long as the people of Gibraltar want that to continue. We have made that clear publicly since the day we took office, and I have repeated it in public both in this country and on a visit to Gibraltar a few months ago.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given that this proposal refers specifically to Gibraltar, has the Minister sought and obtained the views of the Government of Gibraltar, and are they supportive of it?

[Mr Lidington]

Yes, we have done so. The original provision before its amendment by the House of Lords was approved by the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, whom we consulted before originally publishing the Bill, and we have consulted the Government of Gibraltar about the additional change in this Lords amendment and they are content with it. They do not think it in any way damages their position.

I hope the House will agree to these Lords amendments.

Lords amendments 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 2

Treaties amending or replacing TEU or TFEU

[Mr Lidington]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 3.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendments 5 to 13 and 15.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I ask the House not to support the Lords in these amendments. I am afraid that I am going to have to test the patience of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) a little on this group, because these Lords amendments were passed against the Government’s wishes and, in our view, significantly weaken the Bill’s safeguards.

The amendments would restrict the scope or operation of the referendum lock that was approved by this House. They are contrary to our clear intention to ensure that any future proposal to amend the European Union treaties to transfer further competence or power from this country to the European Union should be subject to the consent of the British people. The purpose of the Bill is to reconnect with the people whom we serve. It aims to re-engage them with key decisions on the direction of the European Union, on which they have, in the past, been denied their say. The amendments would not deliver on those aims but, on the contrary, make it much more difficult to achieve them.

[Mr Cash]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in deploring what recent events have demonstrated? Does he, thus, agree that it would have been extremely desirable to ensure that a referendum should apply to any treaty, either current or future, which attempted to change the fundamental relationship of the United Kingdom to the European Union, including in respect of the creation of a two-tier Europe—between the eurozone and the EU—in economic governance? Does he agree that that is a matter on which a referendum is every bit as important? This is not merely a question of a transfer of competence and powers but one that goes to the very heart of the constitutional relationship between the UK and the EU.

[Mr Lidington]

If, as I hope, this Bill obtains Royal Assent and goes on to the statute book, this Government and future Governments will, from the moment its powers are commenced, be bound by the provisions of this legislation with regard to the way in which they handle any future proposal to amend the European Union treaties, negotiate and agree a completely new treaty or invoke one of the passerelle clauses in the treaty of Lisbon. As my hon. Friend knows, in certain cases a Government would have to hold a referendum before a particular treaty could be ratified by this country. For any treaty change, even one that according to the provisions of this Bill would not automatically require a referendum, an Act of Parliament—primary legislation—would be needed, and it would of course be open to Parliament at that time to decide to go further even than the provisions that we are putting forward in this legislation.

[Mr Cash]

May I say that I am delighted by that delightfully disingenuous response? As my right hon. Friend knows perfectly well, I am referring to the treaty that has already been made, and I immediately realised what he was up to when he talked about “any future” treaty. I accept that an Act of Parliament may be needed, but does he not, by the same token as the principles that he has set out in great detail, also agree that we should have a referendum on the creation of such a two-tier Europe, which creates constitutional change in the relationship between the EU and ourselves?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

The principle on which the Government have consistently sought to act in preparing and introducing this legislation has been that a change to the treaties that transferred new competencies or powers from the United Kingdom to the institutions of the European Union would require the agreement of the British people in a referendum. That is the principle, so for us the test for the sort of hypothetical treaty change that my hon. Friend is describing would be whether it transferred competencies or powers from this country to the EU. I do not want to stray too far from the subject of the Lords amendments we are discussing, but the hypothesis that he describes could just as well be a question of a quite separate intergovernmental treaty between members of the eurozone, for example, as an amendment to the treaty of Lisbon, which would require the assent of the United Kingdom.

[Mr Cash]

Let me have one last shot. Does the Minister concede that there is a world of difference between the members of the coalition Government having entered into an agreement between themselves for purposes that suit them and the constitutional convention that a referendum is required when there is a fundamental constitutional change in the relationship between us and the European Union? It is as simple as that.

[Mr Lidington]

We sought in this Bill to define a constitutional change of the sort that my hon. Friend describes in terms of a transfer of competencies or powers from the United Kingdom to the European Union. That seems to us to be a significant constitutional change and the definition is one that we have incorporated into the Bill. Now, if he will forgive me, never mind how delightful I find his interventions, I think I ought to make some progress in addressing the Lords amendments directly.

Let me deal first with Lords amendments 3 and 5, which one might term the threshold amendments. They would provide for a turnout threshold of 40% for any referendum under the Bill. If that threshold were not met, regardless of the result the final decision over whether to ratify a treaty change would pass from the people back to Parliament. That runs contrary to the spirit and intention of the Bill and would leave the British people in real doubt about the effect of their vote.

I know that the intention of colleagues in the House of Lords was to safeguard the sovereignty of Parliament, but I do not agree with them that the Bill would challenge the status of Parliament. In fact, Parliament will have a much stronger role than ever before.

[Henry Smith]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for being so courteous in giving way. Does he agree that, ironically, elections to the European Parliament often have a turnout of 40% or less, as do many local authority elections? Would it not be absurd to consider those as merely advisory?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is right. We get into very dangerous territory as elected representatives when we start to say that only votes or elections in which the turnout was above a given percentage are valid. What is at issue is our intention to provide for the British electorate to have the final say on whether or not the Government of the day can agree to transfer competencies or powers from the United Kingdom to the European Union. The outcome of a referendum should, in our view, be determined by the will of those who vote and not by how many turn up to vote.

As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said earlier this year when we debated a turnout threshold for the referendum on the alternative vote:

“If we agree to anything that passes for any sort of threshold, people in this country will have an incentive to say, ‘If you don’t know, don’t vote’”.—[Official Report, 15 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 907.]

A turnout threshold seems to me to be a recipe for apathy. It would undermine one of the fundamental aims of the Bill, which is to reconnect the British people and better inform them of the decisions taken in their name at European Union level.

[Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)]

The argument that the Minister is very fairly advancing is reinforced by what the Electoral Commission said in advance of today’s proceedings. Its task and statutory duty in issuing a certificate following an election has to be based on a proper definition of the size of the electorate and what constitutes turnout. Does the Minister agree that the amendments add no clarity whatever to that?

[Mr Lidington]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct about the views of the Electoral Commission, which I believe it expressed publicly in its response to the amendments passed in the other place. There could be some perverse, although unintended, I am sure, effects if the threshold amendments were upheld. In some circumstances, there would be an incentive for one side in the referendum campaign to urge abstention rather than support in an effort to keep turnout below the magic threshold of 40%. It could also mean some very peculiar outcomes. Obviously we are talking hypothetically, but if we stuck with the 40% threshold, a poll would be deemed invalid if there was a turnout of 39% in which 5% voted one way and 34% voted the other, whereas a poll with a turnout of 41%, with 21% voting one way and 20% voting the other—the 1% margin—

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

That is not 100%.

[Mr Lidington]

I assumed that I did not need to translate the figures for the right hon. Gentleman and I am sure that he understands my argument perfectly well. There could be a very small difference between the two sides in a referendum result, but it would be valid if the turnout was just above the 40% threshold, whereas a much bigger and more decisive outcome just below the 40% would be deemed to be of no account.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

In very extreme circumstances, there could be a result of 39% to zero with the zeros winning.

[Mr Lidington]

I think the hon. Gentleman is being hypothetical and I am sure that some voters would be cussed enough to insist on going to the polls whatever the odds against them but his point is a reasonable one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am not trying to bury my unsuccessful past.

[Mr Lidington]

In 1979, I was still a university student and had other things on my mind than the devolution referendums in Scotland and Wales. If one takes the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the imposition of the threshold then and looks back at the history of the decade after, which resulted in no move towards satisfying what were genuine aspirations for a greater degree of devolved government in Scotland and Wales, it made the public disconnection from Westminster of the people in those two countries greater over the subsequent years. But this is a matter that historians can argue over.

[Mr Davidson]

Can I clarify what the Minister is saying? Is he saying that the 40% rule would apply not only to referendums in this context but to any future referendum and that the Government would be committed to opposing any 40% threshold for any future independence referendum in Scotland?

[Mr Lidington]

I am not going to speculate on a hypothetical Scottish referendum. We have said clearly not just on this Bill but on the Bill that authorised the referendum on the alternative vote system that we felt the decision should be taken by those people who voted, and the outcome should not depend on any artificial threshold that we chose to impose.

[Mr Cash]

My right hon. Friend may recall that it was my amendment that led to the question of the threshold in the AV Bill. Does he accept that something profoundly different went on in the 1970s regarding Scottish devolution, because it was a different formula? On this particular issue, however, there is no doubt that the same kind of spontaneous combustion would occur in relation to any referendum on the European issue, fortunately, and the same kinds of figures would prevail as were registered in parts of Staffordshire—80% against the Government’s proposals to enter into a treaty that was unacceptable to the United Kingdom. There is nothing that anyone can do about it. Tests, thresholds and all the rest of it would be swept away.

[Mr Lidington]

I am confident that if and when a British Government made a proposal to support a treaty change to give extra powers to the European Union and put that to the people, the turnout would be significantly above 40%. I have confidence in the voters.

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

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being generous with his time. Does he agree that thresholds are just bliss for the lazy politician? If politicians are not sure that they are going to win and want those on the other side to prove their point, they can sit at home and do nothing. If we extended the threshold to local elections or European elections, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) suggested, I would not have been elected on the 23% turnout that was achieved in the east midlands in 1999. More votes were cast that very weekend to evict Bubble from the second “Big Brother” house.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend puts his point well. There have been parliamentary by-elections where the total turnout was less than 40%, and I do not think anybody argued at that moment that the election of that Member was in any way invalid.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend presumed earlier that the Lords had inserted the amendments to protect parliamentary sovereignty. Is it not possible that some noble Lords voted to insert the amendments because, in the circumstances outlined by the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), if 39% of people vote against something to do with the EU and 0% in favour, they would prefer it if the 0% won? In this context, is my right hon. Friend aware that some noble Lords are in receipt of EU pensions? Would it not have been better if that financial interest had been declared?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend has put matters on the record. I am content to take the arguments and reasons given by Members of the House of Lords as justification for the amendments in which they believed.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that if we accept the amendment, we are setting up a perverse incentive for the Government of the day to seek a low turnout if they wish to get a measure through? That might affect the way they publicise a referendum or engage with the process.

[Mr Lidington]

That puts it fairly. The perverse incentive to seek an apathetic reaction from the electorate is one that I would want to avoid.

[Mr Davidson]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I will give way one last time, because I want to deal with the other Lords amendments in the group.

[Mr Davidson]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way in the circumstances. Surely the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) is wrong and we cannot have a situation where Members of the House of Lords who are in receipt of money from Brussels vote and do not declare it. Surely that would be counter to everything in our parliamentary democracy and surely they give an indication that they are in receipt of gold from Brussels.

[Mr Lidington]

One thing that I have learned in my 19 years in this place is that each House is very jealous of its own procedures and privileges, including what the rules should be on the declaration of financial interest, so I think we should leave that to the House of Lords authorities to decide.

I am surprised that the threshold amendment was supported in the House of Lords by the official Opposition Front-Bench team. I hope that when the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) catches the Deputy Speaker’s eye, he will provide some explanation of that course of action and indicate whether he plans to lead his party through the Lobby in defence of a 40% threshold, although he has probably given up hope of leading the hon. Member for Luton North.

That support is particularly astonishing because the hon. Member for Caerphilly is seriously at odds with his, and my, immediate and distinguished predecessor. It was the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who was Labour’s spokesman on Europe, who said repeatedly in debates on 2 November last year that he disagreed fundamentally with the very idea of thresholds, saying:

“I do not agree . . . about thresholds in referendums because, broadly, they are not a good idea.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 846.]

He repeated that a few columns later. As a Conservative politician, I feel slightly nervous trespassing on the frontier between Caerphilly and the Rhondda, but the hon. Member for Caerphilly owes the House an explanation for this departure in Labour party policy that he has presumably devised and implemented.

Amendments 6 to 13 are very significant indeed in their impact. They would remove from the referendum lock several passerelle decisions that would transfer power and competence from Britain to the European Union. The other place accepted that decisions to adopt the euro, give up UK border controls, or create a single, integrated military force should require a referendum. That was a welcome step, but it is not enough. The coalition agreement set out clearly that

“no further powers should be transferred to Brussels without a referendum.”

All the decisions included in clause 6 as it left the House of Commons would constitute such a transfer.

Some Members of the Lords felt the original clause 6 did not provide Ministers with what they termed sufficient “pragmatic flexibility”. I would say in response that it is a direct consequence of the abuse of so-called “pragmatic flexibility” in the past that there is such lack of trust in the European Union today, and in Governments as a species, for decisions taken on European Union matters. It is that lack of trust which the Bill seeks to address. Speaking as someone who disagrees with some of my hon. Friends on the Back Benches, I want to see the United Kingdom playing a vigorous, active, constructive role on behalf of our people within the European Union. Our ability to do that and to enjoy the confidence of the British people in so doing will be enhanced if we can point to the safeguards that are provided for in the Bill included in clause 6.

[Mr Cash]

On that important point, is my right hon. Friend aware of the remarks of the Prime Minister as reported in The Spectator only a few days ago on the question of the renegotiation of the existing treaties, which I called on the Prime Minister to do when he came back from the last European Council summit? Does the Minister for Europe know that I tabled a written question to the Prime Minister asking him what objectives he has set to maximise what he wants from the UK’s engagement with Europe, and whether such objectives will include any opportunity to renegotiate the UK’s relationship with the EU? As the Minister must know, the answer that I received today says that the Prime Minister is not going to answer that question, I am afraid, and that he has transferred it to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Does the Minister have an answer for me, therefore, to the question that seems to have been transferred to him?

[Mr Lidington]

Providing the formal response to my hon. Friend’s question is clearly a treat that is yet in store for me. I will obviously give him a proper and considered response when the question reaches me, but everything I have observed about how my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has acted in respect of the European Union since the general election has shown his utter determination to maximise the interests of the United Kingdom and the British people in every negotiation at European level in which he has taken part. Everything that he, the Deputy Prime Minister and other members of the Government do, from conversations with colleagues to meetings of the Council of Ministers, is about trying to get the best possible advantage for the United Kingdom from our membership of the EU.

[Mark Reckless]

In that case, although Ministers had such great success in preventing the use of the EU-wide financial stability mechanism in the case of the Greek bail-out, will the Minister explain why it was simply nodded through with respect to Portugal?

[Mr Lidington]

I think that I would test the House’s patience if I were to go into that in detail, particularly as there was a debate on bail-outs a few weeks ago, in which I think my hon. Friend participated, and to which my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury responded at some length. I am sure that there will be other opportunities to question Treasury Ministers about that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. For the convenience of the House, I remind Members that just because the debate has the word “Europe” in the title, that does not mean that we can have a wide-ranging debate on European issues. Some latitude has been given, as Mr Cash knows, but could we now please look at the specific amendments?

[Mr Lidington]

The amendments to clause 6 would introduce huge inconsistency in the referendum lock. They would make the method used to transfer competence or power the determining factor in deciding whether or not a referendum should be held, rather than the fact of the transfer of competence or power itself. There are four ways of amending the treaties to allow transfers of power and competence from the United Kingdom to the European Union. First, there is the ordinary treaty revision procedure. Secondly, there is the first part of the simplified revision procedure, which was the method used recently to agree the recent treaty change on the eurozone stability mechanism. Thirdly, the British veto could be given up using the second part of the simplified revision procedure set out in article 48(7) of the treaty on European Union. The fourth and final way is through the use of a decision or passerelle without formal treaty change.

The Lords amendments seek to remove the last two methods from the referendum lock. I do not see the logic in this. For example, the amendments would mean that were a future UK Government to decide to give up their veto over foreign and security policy under the ordinary treaty revision procedure, there would first have to be a referendum, but if they decided to give up that veto under the passerelle decision in article 31(3), which would have exactly the same effect as a change under the ordinary revision procedure, there would be no requirement for a referendum. I do not think that the British public would understand being able to vote on a treaty change that gave up the veto but not having a say over a passerelle that did exactly the same thing, and there are other such examples. As my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Howell argued, this would be tantamount to locking the front and back doors of a house but leaving the kitchen window open. It is not the way to restore the trust of the British people.

The amendments would also draw an artificial distinction between a possible future agreement on a common European defence that would involve the creation of a single, integrated military force and other similar decisions that would not. The amendment suggests that the only controversial element would be a decision to develop a “single, integrated military force”, but there would inevitably be confusion over the extent to which such a force would be established. For example, would the establishment of an integrated command structure, an integrated unit or integrated budgets count? That lack of clarity could allow each step to be presented as “not quite” leading to a single integrated military force, and therefore “not quite” justifying a referendum. It is important that we hold to the principle that were a British Government to decide to opt in to a common European defence, that should ultimately be subject to a decision by the British people. A common defence could undermine the pre-eminence or capability of NATO, notwithstanding any assurances provided in the EU treaties. Maintaining that pre-eminence has been a long-standing concern of this and previous British Governments.

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

My right hon. Friend is making an able demolition of these unacceptable amendments, but will he describe what sorts of decisions on common defence he thinks would currently trigger a referendum, because it is difficult to see how such decisions would constitute a transfer of power under the rather narrow definition set out in the Bill?

[Mr Lidington]

As the House debated in Committee and on Report, in the Bill it is the creation of a common European defence entity that goes beyond what is defined as a common security and defence policy, which as my hon. Friend knows is very limited in scope within the treaties as they stand. If there was to be a common European defence, that would clearly have to be defined in treaty terms, but sometimes, as he would be the first to note, language that appears quite generalised in scope, once written into a treaty, provides the basis on which numerous detailed measures can then be brought forward because there has been an overall extension of competence to the EU institutions. It could—I am not saying that it always would—spell the end of an independent UK defence policy, which was one of the previous Government’s red lines during their negotiations on the Lisbon treaty.

The amendments would also remove any decision to participate in a European public prosecutor from the referendum requirement. Hon. Members will recall the sensitivity and divergence in views across Europe over the idea of a European public prosecutor who would be able to launch prosecutions in the United Kingdom and other member states in areas affecting the EU’s financial interests. When we considered this issue earlier this year it was accepted that people should be asked for their approval before any Government could agree to participate and allow cases to be prosecuted independently in the UK’s legal system.

We have always guarded jealously—rightly, I think—the principle that decisions on whether to prosecute any individual or corporate entity should be taken by the designated independent prosecutors. To give those powers to some new European body that could come in and state whether a prosecution would or would not take place, irrespective of what the Crown Prosecution Service, the Director of Public Prosecutions or Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs said about a particular case, would be a very serious shift of power and competence away from this country to Brussels. It would be right for the British people to be asked to assent to that before a Government were allowed to ratify such a decision.

Before I move on from the Lords amendments to clause 6, I should like to express my amazement that, when the House of Lords voted for an amendment to remove from the referendum lock a decision to end the requirement for unanimity in agreement to the EU’s multi-annual financial frameworks, the official Opposition voted in favour of that proposal. I hope that the hon. Member for Caerphilly will explain on the record where the Opposition now stand on the matter. Everyone in the House, whatever their views on the EU, knows that in the next couple of years a key issue facing every Government in the EU and all the Brussels institutions is the negotiation on the new MFF which will effectively set budgetary decisions and ceilings for the next five or seven years in the EU’s life and development. It is vital that that remains subject to unanimity and that the British Government, whoever is in office, continue to have a right of veto.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

indicated assent.

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman is nodding, so he must explain why members of his party—not just Labour Back Benchers but official spokesmen in the House of Lords—trooped through the Lobby to say that they wanted to scrap the British veto and allow the fate, for example, of the UK’s rebate to be subject not to consensus but to qualified majority voting. That would be the impact of the measure. The hon. Gentleman is saying that he would remove from the referendum lock a decision to switch from unanimity to QMV on that matter.

[Mr Cash]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that perhaps it has something to do with the report on the question of economic governance, in which it appeared as if the underlying theme expressed by certain Opposition Members in the House of Lords was edging us towards the prospect of fiscal union? There really is a substantial difference in policy, principle and philosophy, if I can use that expression, in their attitude to the EU and that of the House of Commons.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Opposition need to own up to where they are coming from. If the hon. Member for Caerphilly wants to intervene and say that his Front-Bench colleagues in the House of Lords had gone rogue and he was unable to control them, that he was sorry and he did not really mean it, a plea for forgiveness might be entertained. But if he really supports the proposal to remove decisions on the MFF from the referendum lock, he should say so clearly to the House, because the Labour party did not say that when the Bill was debated in the House of Commons.

[Mr David]

I will make a deal with the Minister. I am more than happy to explain the Labour party’s decision when I speak to the Lords amendments, but will he explain to the House the comments of Members of the other place such as Lord Brittan, or the actions of Lord Heseltine, both of whom expressed complete disagreement with fundamental aspects of the Bill?

[Mr Lidington]

I have huge respect for Lord Brittan, Lord Heseltine and those senior Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords who have devoted their political lives to support for European integration—they have a consistent and honourable point of view on this. I do not agree with them. There is a key difference—and the hon. Gentleman may wish to challenge me—between the way in which Lords Brittan and Heseltine spoke and voted and the way in which his colleagues did so. My noble Friends gave distinguished service in government, but many years ago, and they are no longer ministerial spokesmen. The hon. Gentleman must explain why the Labour party’s official spokesmen in the House of Lords spoke and voted in the Lobby for an amendment that he appears very unwilling to support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. It has been interesting to hear hon. Members discuss their opinions of the careers of distinguished Members of the House of Lords, but I should like the Minister to return to the business before the House, which is Lords amendment 3, and his views on that, rather than on anyone in the House of Lords.

[Mr Lidington]

I will try to avoid that temptation, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

To help out the Opposition, the Minister may have noticed that they had a completely different policy on the MFF on days that began with a “T” from on those that began with any other letter. That happens to be true when it comes to the Lords.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I do not want the Minister to help out the Opposition, who can take care of themselves. I want him to help out the Government by speaking to the amendment. Perhaps he would return to it.

[Mr Lidington]

I shall turn to Lords amendment 15, which would insert a sunset clause into the Bill, so that part 1 and schedule 1 would expire when Parliament is dissolved, only to be revived at the discretion of the Secretary of State and with the approval of Parliament for the duration of the new Parliament. That exercise would have to be repeated every five years. I have looked carefully at the arguments for such a measure. As the Government made clear in the other place, sunset clauses can be useful in legislation proposing new or extraordinary powers for the Executive, or in legislation that would serve a specific or time-limited purpose, but this Bill does neither.

Some colleagues in the House of Lords said that the Bill was a constitutional innovation and should therefore be subject to a sunset clause, but much of what we do in Parliament is innovative. We believe that the Bill is an innovation that will be welcomed by the British people, and it should become an enduring part of our constitutional framework.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I agree entirely, and I think that the British people would like the Bill to be rather stronger.

[Mr Lidington]

I think that the British people would be alarmed at the thought that they were being offered new rights and responsibilities for a term of only five years, and would then have to wait and see whether they would be graciously renewed by a new Parliament.

In a survey conducted two years ago, more than four out of every five British people wanted a referendum on any future treaty change. Everything that we do in the House is reversible—no single Parliament can bind its successor—so there is no reason to single the Bill out for a sunset clause, which would mean that it merely loaned power to the people of this country on the future direction of the EU for a limited time. After that, the decision on whether or not to lend them the power for another five years would be in the hands of the Government of the day. The British people would rightly look on such a proposition with disdain.

[Henry Smith]

My right hon. Friend is entirely right. If the amendment were allowed to stand, would it not render the proposed legislation completely empty? As he eloquently said, it goes against the constitutional principle that no Parliament can bind its successor.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is quite right. In a previous Parliament, when we voted for constitutional legislation as far-reaching as the devolution of power to the Scottish Parliament and the Assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland, we did not vote for the inclusion of sunset clauses. Parliament took the view that if that legislation, in due course, proved not to be workable, or if there were a profound change in the public mood or a new Government were elected with a mandate from the people to effect changes and reverse that devolution, that was a matter for the future Parliament at that time. The idea that we should impose a sunset clause in this case simply because it is something new seems to be completely inconsistent with the way in which Parliament and successive Governments have approached previous constitutional reforms.

[Mr Cash]

I am interested in the line that my right hon. Friend is taking. Without pre-empting any other discussion, does he agree that this is also about the whole question of our membership of the European Union being only on loan from this House because under the Factortame decision Lord Bridge made it clear that it was a voluntary act and no more? Does he therefore think that inserting a reference to the European Communities Act 1972, as proposed in the amendment tabled by the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, would be making a profound mistake in thinking that this all hinges on the Act when in fact it depends on Parliament itself?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is inviting me to comment on the subject matter of the third group of amendments. I hope that he will forgive me if I delay commenting in that fashion until we reach those amendments.

This Bill places Parliament at the heart of every decision to be considered. Each decision will need parliamentary approval, whether by Act or by resolution. The sunset clause would take that power away from Parliament, and until such time as part 1 was revived, none of the controls in part 1—not just the referendum lock but none of them—would apply. Some colleagues in the other place claim that the Government are binding future Governments and not themselves. However, we have already said that we will use the Bill to ratify the current treaty change on the eurozone stability mechanism, and we will also use it to consider the treaty change required for Croatia’s accession. Once the legislation is enacted, this Government, too, will be bound by it.

There is another reason why a sunset clause is unnecessary. The previous Government set up a system of post-legislative scrutiny under which the Government of the day are required to publish a memorandum to Parliament on the operation of each Act of Parliament up to five years after the commencement of that Act. This is examined by relevant parliamentary Committees, which can decide whether to conduct a detailed examination of that legislation. I am happy to put on record that we think that this is a good idea and that a future Government must publish a full report on how this Bill has been used within five years of its becoming law. That will result in the clarity and the reflection that colleagues in the other place seek, but without arbitrarily depriving the British people of their say.

The case for this Bill is simple: it is to give the British people the chance to have their rightful say over future changes to the EU treaties, whether through formal revision or use of the passerelles that transfer competence or power from this country to the EU. The Bill does not substitute the British people for Parliament, for Parliament will continue to have a central and strengthened role in approving such key decisions, but it provides a vital opportunity to address the disconnection that has developed over the years between the British people and the decisions taken in their name by Parliament and Government. This group of Lords amendments would not help us to achieve these goals—indeed, they would seriously jeopardise our chances of doing so—and that is why I hope that this House will disagree with them.

[Mr David]

I would like to comment briefly on Lords amendments 3 and 5 regarding the 40% threshold and on Lords amendments 6 to 13 regarding the number of referendums. I will then focus on Lords amendment 15 regarding the so-called sunset-sunrise clause.

Some people in both Houses say that a reasonable turnout in referendums is necessary to ensure a demonstrable degree of legitimacy. That argument was advanced during the alternative vote referendum debate, but it has weaknesses. We have already heard that there is a certain perverse incentive to encourage a lower turnout than might usually be the case, and that is a fair point. It is important to remember that there has been a threshold of 40% on only one occasion—the devolution referendums for Wales and Scotland in 1979. Wales rejected the then Government’s devolution proposals by a majority of four to one, while in Scotland there was a turnout of less than 40% but a narrow majority in favour of the proposals. The result in Scotland brought this question to the fore: when is a win not a win? That is a real dilemma, and it is one of the reasons that many Labour Members have reservations about the use of the 40% threshold.

Reference was made to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I should point out that Rhondda is in south Wales and Ronda, as it was pronounced by the Minister for Europe, is in Spain. My hon. Friend tells me that, although he speaks Spanish, he represents to the best of his ability the constituency in south Wales.

Amendments 6 to 13 would reduce the number of theoretically possible topics for referendums from more than 50 to three: the single currency, the creation of a single EU integrated military force, and border controls and the Schengen protocols. As Labour Members argued consistently on Second Reading and in Committee, there is an overwhelming argument for referendums to be held if ever a British Government wanted this country to join the single currency, which is extremely unlikely, and when there is a proposal for a major constitutional change. In Committee, we proposed an amendment for a Joint Committee of both Houses to examine whether a proposed treaty change was a significant constitutional change. Unfortunately, that proposal was not successful in this House, and nor did it gain sufficient support in the other place. However, that remains our position. Of course, Members in the other place are entitled to their views, but we have reservations about the proposal that referendums should be confined to these three subject areas, and it is important to put on the record that my comments set out the Labour party’s position.

That brings me to the sunset-sunrise clause. In the other place, Lord Kerr, the distinguished former head of the diplomatic service, put forward three arguments for such a clause, one of which related to foreign policy. He argued with conviction that were the provision enacted, other European Governments could freeze Britain out of the debate through enhanced co-operation or by acting outside the treaties altogether. That might happen, he said, when a British negotiator in Brussels is unable to agree to something

“because his Government back home will tell him, ‘Don’t be silly. That would trigger a referendum.’”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 June 2011; Vol. 728, c. 810.]

He argued that a regular assessment and decision at the start of a new Parliament on whether such a system was working would be a reasonable measure to adopt. That is worthy of consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

They are, and it is for that reason that I will not be able to vote for them, even though I happen to have some sympathy for the idea of a reasonable test for referendums. However, these amendments are a blind—an attempt to get people to go along with the 40% test for the electorate on the one hand, but also to associate them with a whole range of matters that are entirely inimical to the interests of the United Kingdom. I am not particularly interested in the list that the Government have produced; as I said at the beginning of the proceedings on this Bill, I think that it is a mouse of a Bill. The issue on which we now need to concentrate is the big landscape and the fact that, as the European Council on Foreign Relations paper argued the other day, Maastricht has to be revised. We will have to return to the question of what kind of Europe we want.

This list of proposed matters—which will never come up in this Parliament, as we know—is, therefore, a blind in its own way, but to reduce it to three core issues really makes it an absurdity. I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that on the big landscape, this is the time for us to take a bigger, more responsible and more statesmanlike view, in the interests of the people of this country, to see the European question as the failure that it is and to get down to the serious business of renegotiating all the treaties and moving to an association of nation states, so that we can work together co-operatively, rather than by co-ordination, to deal with the real, practical problems that this country faces—the Brazils, Indias and Chinas of this world—instead of dancing on the head of a pin, as we are with most of this Bill.

My argument to my right hon. Friend is very simple. He may have the advantage of having come forward with a few proposals that touch at the margins of this issue, but the real question is what is he—or, indeed, the Prime Minister—going to do to get us out of the mess that those treaties have got not only us but the people in Europe into? Indeed, young people aged between 18 and 25 in several countries are now suffering unemployment of 47%. It is absolutely impossible to accept that, and as I said in the 1990s, when this whole system collapses, it would not surprise me to see the rise of the far right and massive unemployment, destabilising the entire European Union, with the most devastating consequences for the international order. That is the problem that we are faced with, and that is why these amendments are not to be accepted.

Lords amendment 3 disagreed to.

Lords amendment 4 agreed to.

Lords amendments 5 to 13 disagreed to.

Clause 18

Status of EU law dependent on continuing statutory basis

[Mr Lidington]

I beg to move Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 14.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment (b).

[Mr Lidington]

I should like first to recognise that the issue we are debating is, to an extent, an issue of detail that has aroused some fairly intensive debate, involving some extremely experienced and high-powered lawyers. It is not an issue related to the rationale for clause 18 as a whole, and I welcome the acceptance by the House of Lords of the rationale for a provision of this nature. Indeed, the author of Lords amendment 14, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said when he presented his amendment on Report in the other place that there was very little between his position and that of the Government on the point of principle, saying:

“It is important that this declaratory measure”—

that is, clause 18—

“should be made because of the theory sometimes propounded that Community law in the United Kingdom derives from the treaty alone by virtue of the European Union legal order. I believe that it is right that we should make it plain at this juncture that that is not so.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 June 2011; Vol. 728, c. 790.]

However, noble Lords who voted in support of Lords amendment 14 took the view that the European Communities Act 1972 is the only route by which EU law takes effect in the United Kingdom, and that all the references to directly effective or applicable EU law in other Acts are linked to that Act. Lords amendment 14 therefore amends clause 18 to refer specifically to the European Communities Act 1972, rather than to the wider reference point of “an Act of Parliament”, in order to affirm that this is the sole route by which directly effective and directly applicable EU law takes effect in the UK.

[Mr Cash]

I rather suspect that my right hon. Friend expected that I would rise at about this point. Very quickly, the European Communities Act 1972 might be the Act of Parliament by virtue of which we voluntarily entered into the acceptance of European law—as it has accumulated, like a tsunami, since 1972, both widening and deepening—but does he not agree that the crucial words are those of Lord Bridge in the Factortame case, who said that we voluntarily did that? Therefore, the special significance of the 1972 Act has to be tempered by the fact that it was what Parliament decided at that time. That is the crucial question to which we shall turn shortly.

[Mr Lidington]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am sure he will recall the debate on these matters on Second Reading and particularly on the first day in Committee when we spent an entire day debating clause 18. He will also recall—it is clear from Hansard—that I made it clear on behalf of the Government that the European Communities Act 1972 had effect in this country, so European law had effect here insofar as it stemmed from that piece of legislation, because Parliament had willed that that should be the case. If a future Parliament were to decide to repeal that Act, it would be perfectly within that Parliament’s power so to do, although my hon. Friend would be the first to appreciate that there would be immediate consequences for the UK’s treaty obligations. There would be a political crisis at that point. We debated that important issue of principle for a day in Committee, as I said, but I want to try to focus on the Lords amendments now.

[Mr Cash]

Indeed. That is precisely why my right hon. Friend knows I must move on to ask him about the assertions of certain members of the Supreme Court—criticised by the late Lord Bingham in severe terms—to the effect that Parliament has only a qualified sovereignty and that the ultimate authority effectively rests with them. It is precisely for that reason that we should be extremely anxious to ensure that no words are imported into this clause, as the Bill leaves this House and will finally be enacted, that would in any way allow the Supreme Court to move in on that territory and claim ultimate authority.

[Mr Lidington]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I have been generous to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) as the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, but his interventions are getting very long. I realise that these are important points, but he is always able to catch my eye if he wants to expand on them.

[Mr Lidington]

I make two points to my hon. Friend. First, the only reason the Supreme Court has power to adjudicate here on European Union matters is because Parliament has provided for directly effective and directly applicable EU law to have effect in the United Kingdom legal order by virtue of passing statutes that give European law that direct effect and application here. Secondly, as I think my hon. Friend knows—he is being a bit mischievous—he is trying to tempt me again on to a much broader issue, which is the important philosophical question of whether ultimate legislative supremacy lies with Parliament or whether parliamentary sovereignty is a construct of the common law controlled by judges. Speaking as an elected parliamentarian, I am quite clear and argue quite naturally that Parliament as the elected limb of body politic must have the ultimate say, but in making that case we are entering into a philosophical debate that goes way beyond the parameters of the European Union Bill, let alone Lords amendment 14.

Let me return to the Lords amendment. I am mindful of the arguments advanced by Lord Mackay of Clashfern and his supporters in the House of Lords, and I greatly appreciate their legal expertise. We considered Lord Mackay’s arguments very carefully both before the debate in the other place and following the Lords acceptance of the amendment. I sought further legal advice on this point, and the Government’s view remains that although the European Communities Act 1972 is indeed the principal means by which directly effective or directly applicable EU law takes effect in the UK, a number of other Acts of Parliament also give effect to EU law independently of the 1972 Act. For example, provisions of the Scotland Act 1998, of the Government of Wales Act 2006 and of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 put Ministers from the devolved Administrations under an obligation to act in accordance with EU law. Some of those settlements define EU obligations in a manner similar to the language used in section 2(1) of the 1972 Act—but, significantly, they do so not by reference to that Act.

The Government are therefore concerned that, were this House to agree with the Lords amendment as it stands, it could create the risk that the courts interpret this clause as restricting the ability of legislation other than the 1972 Act to incorporate directly applicable or directly effective EU law into UK law. That, in turn, could ultimately mean that clause 18 could be interpreted as being more than declaratory, which would rather undermine what we are trying to do with this Bill. This would not, in our view, reflect the law accurately, and so we seek to disagree with the Lords amendment as currently framed.

In that sense, I agree entirely with the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Mr Cash) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd), but I also recognise Lord Mackay’s point that the 1972 Act is the primary conduit for directly effective and directly applicable EU law to take effect in the United Kingdom. In recognition of this concern, the Government propose a change of wording to the Lords amendment that would retain the reference to the European Communities Act 1972 but, importantly, also refer to the existence of other Acts of Parliament that also give effect to EU law.

[Mr David]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point and I have sympathy with his argument. Crucial to the argument, it seems to me, are the words

“by virtue of an Act of Parliament”.

What is the difference between putting those words at the end rather than at the start of the clause, where they were initially?

[Mr Lidington]

I decided to include the words on the basis of the best legal advice available to me across Government at the time. When preparing the Bill for introduction into this House, I examined the wording and the question of whether a reference to the 1972 Act alone would be appropriate. I was given very clear legal advice that, because of the other statutes that make reference to the application of EU law, a simple reference to the 1972 legislation would not suffice. That explains the original wording of the Bill that came before the House of Commons.

What we have sought to do in framing our amendments to the Lords amendment is to recognise the view that the other place took that clause 18 should incorporate language that recognises the particular importance of the 1972 legislation. We see no reason why we should not amend the clause to make a specific reference to the 1972 Act so long as the clause also makes reference to those other Acts that give effect to EU law. This reflects the Government’s consistent position that other Acts of Parliament— independently of the European Communities Act 1972—might also allow for the incorporation of directly effective and directly applicable EU law into the UK legal order.

[Mr Jenkin]

I still do not understand what was wrong with the Government’s original drafting.

[Mr Lidington]

We believe that the original drafting met the tests that we had set to implement our policy of having a declaratory clause. What we are trying to do is to express through Government amendments the point made in the House of Lords that the 1972 legislation is of particular importance, while preserving the point of principle that we believe was incorporated in the original language as debated by the House of Commons.

[Mr David]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I want to make some progress.

It is not only the devolution legislation that mentions European Union law. The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, the Chiropractors Act 1994 and the Competition Act 1998 are further examples of legislation that allows European Union law to have direct effect in this country. Section 9A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act requires the United Kingdom to make a disqualification order against a person in certain circumstances, including circumstances in which an undertaking commits a breach of competition law under either article 81 or article 82 of the EC treaty—now articles 101 and 102 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. That Act refers directly to the treaty provisions without referring to the 1972 Act.

The amendment accepted by the other place removed the reference that makes it explicit that only by virtue of such Acts does directly effective and directly applicable EU law take effect in this country. Removing that reference leaves open the possibility of arguments that directly effective and directly applicable EU law could enter our law by other means, thus undermining the rationale behind the clause. The amendments that the Government propose seek to restore that important qualification, and to remove any doubt about whether directly effective or applicable EU law could enter United Kingdom law by other means.

[Mr Cash]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Lidington]

We welcome the acceptance in the House of Lords of the principle of clause 18, and recognise the concerns raised by colleagues there about the formulation of the clause. We believe that our amendments will both meet the concerns expressed by the proposers of the amendment and ensure that the provision reflects the law accurately. I therefore urge Members in all parts of the House to support them.

[Mr Cash]

I am sorry that the Minister deemed it unnecessary, or undesirable, to accept my intervention, but that does not prevent me from making my point.

As the Minister will recall, it was the clear view of the European Scrutiny Committee that clause 18 was unnecessary. I am glad to say that a conversation in which I engaged today with one of my—let us call him—long-standing contestants in matters European, Lord Howe of Aberavon, confirmed that he shared our view. I have great respect for his legal knowledge, and I am delighted that we have achieved such a degree of understanding.

The Government are embarking on what is, in matters constitutional, an extremely dangerous path to tread: a primrose path that could lead to disaster. I know that there was a great deal of detailed discussion—I hear of these things—with Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who, after all, used to be Lord Chancellor, and indeed was Lord Chancellor at the time of the Maastricht treaty. I remember well, as I am sure he does, that the whole business of European government was conceded, to our deep regret; hence the rebellion which I had the pleasure to lead.

The Government appear to have been caught on the horns of a dilemma, and I think that they should have dealt with that in a different way. On one hand they are confronted with the European Scrutiny Committee, the expert legal advice that it has received, the further consideration that it has given to these questions throughout the intervening period, and its conclusion that clause 18 is unnecessary and undesirable. On the other hand—the other horn of the dilemma—is the view of Lord Mackay of Clashfern that the amendment is merely declaratory.

--- Later in debate ---

If there is to be a clause 18, for the reasons that I have outlined, the version that went to the Lords from the Commons should be preferred to the Lords amendment in the name of Lord Mackay of Clashfern. As I proposed in the amendment to Government amendment (b), the words “Act of Parliament” are to be preferred to “the European Communities Act 1972”. The Government’s amendment addresses these issues, but it would be much better not to state the principle at all; the amendment fails to deal with the trap that has been set. I know Lord Mackay of Clashfern to be a distinguished and canny Scots lawyer, and he understands exactly what he intends. He has, by the most clever sleight of hand, reinserted into the provision—[Interruption.] I see the Minister shaking his head and I shall give way to him.

[Mr Lidington]

I respect my hon. Friend’s expertise in this area, but to suggest that Lord Mackay of Clashfern would be party to any kind of sleight of hand is not to do him justice, and I hope that my hon. Friend would reconsider that point.

[Mr Cash]

I have no problem in acknowledging someone’s powerful views on constitutional questions. For example, I remember during the Maastricht proceedings that the noble Lord was quite clear on the question of whether the Maastricht treaty took us further and deeper into the integration process. He argued that it did not make any difference in principle because the 1972 Act already conceded that there had been a change in the constitutional position and, to all intents and purposes, there was, thus, no real change in the substance of the issue. That is not to accuse anybody; it is merely to recognise that they have a constitutional viewpoint and to recognise how they really regard the encroachments on our sovereignty, which were evident in the Jackson case, in the evidence that the Committee received from many distinguished witnesses and in the fact that the Government’s previous explanatory notes led us into a situation where we criticised the Government and they withdrew the offensive words, precisely for the reasons that I am presenting.

The reality is that we have caught out the Government on their wording and they have now acquiesced in other wording which opens the door to statutory interpretation by the Supreme Court. That is the kernel of this matter. Whether or not my right hon. Friend the Minister really likes the way in which I have expressed this is neither here nor there. The real question, on which I challenge him, is this: does he deny that the wording in the Government’s amendment, in response to the Lords amendment, imports the opportunity for the Supreme Court to apply statutory interpretation and, thereby, to create a situation that could be best avoided, as set out by Lord Howe of Aberavon, our European Scrutiny Committee and the evidence that we received from so many people, by having no clause at all, rather than the current clause 18?

The Minister knows that I feel very strongly about the fact that we promised in our manifesto a sovereignty Act, and that was the consequence of discussions at the very highest level with the leadership. We knew that that was put into the manifesto as a direct response to the promises that were made. The bottom line is that we were given a second-rate provision that is unnecessary and that has since been criticised by the European Scrutiny Committee and eminent constitutional experts, including Lord Howe of Aberavon, and what the Government are introducing merely acquiesces to a degree in what Lord Mackay of Clashfern has proposed. That simply is not good enough and the Government should withdraw the proposed clause while they have the opportunity to do so. It is for those reasons that I shall be voting against it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) and my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Mr Cash) and for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) for their participation in the debate and I shall be brief in my response. I want to deal with the point of principle as well as the important point of detail about the interaction between this clause, the Government amendment and the Interpretation Act 1978.

[Mr David]

Before the Minister goes on, may I cast his mind back to the trenchant criticism from the European Scrutiny Committee about the explanatory notes that accompanied the Bill and, in particular, those on clause 18? I seem to recall the Minister giving the House a commitment that the explanatory notes would be examined and, if necessary, redrafted. Has that redrafting occurred and will there be further redrafting in the context of his amendment tonight?

[Mr Lidington]

The explanatory notes were changed when they were reprinted before the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords, just as I gave the House an undertaking that they would be. We amended the notes to make it clear that the references to common law in the relevant section were meant in contradistinction to statute law and that we were not commenting, as a Government and in either the Bill or the notes, on the important but much broader philosophical debate about the origins of parliamentary sovereignty.

Let me deal first with the point of general principle to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, in particular, referred. It has always been the Government’s position that clause 18 is declaratory of the existing state of our law in making it clear that European Union law has direct effect and application in this country for one reason and one reason only: namely, Parliament has given it that effect through primary legislation. I differ from my hon. Friend in that I continue to believe that it is valuable for us to have this declaratory clause on the statute book to serve as a clear expression of Parliament’s will and as an abiding point of reference for the courts if they are invited in future to consider again the sort of arguments that have previously been brought before them, most notably by the prosecution in the metric martyrs case, to the effect that European law has acquired over time an autonomous authority of its own that does not derive from Acts of Parliament.

[Steve Baker]

May I say how grateful I am that my right hon. Friend has given this clear statement of the Government’s and Parliament’s intent? We appear to have disappeared into such esoterica that even for one who takes a close interest in the clause it is almost impossible to understand the debate. Will the Minister confirm that should judges need to rule on this clause, they will be able to refer to Hansard to be absolutely clear what Parliament’s intent was?

[Mr Lidington]

Judges will of course look first at statute but it is also the case, following the Pepper v. Hart judgment, that if the courts are in any way uncertain about the meaning of a piece of legislation, they can look at what the Minister of the day said on behalf of the Government, as recorded in Hansard, as an aid to interpretation.

[Mr Cash]

That may well be but as the Minister rightly says it will be the Minister’s view that is taken into account by the court and the Whips will make darn certain this evening that we lose this vote. That is the problem and that is one reason why I take such exception to this.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend has made his point. Not only Lord Mackay but the Lords Constitution Committee recognised that clause 18 is a reflection of the existing position in United Kingdom law. I do not want to get into a long argument with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone about the report of the European Scrutiny Committee, but that report focused largely on the bigger question of whether parliamentary sovereignty was a common-law principle. I repeat to the House what I said during Committee—that this clause does not get into that issue at all. It makes clear the basis on which European law takes effect in our domestic legal order.

Let me address the detailed point that has been put. Both my hon. Friends the Members for Stone and for Harwich and North Essex argued that the reference to the 1972 Act taken together with the Interpretation Act meant there was a risk of future amendments to the 1972 Act falling outside the scope of clause 18. This point was specifically considered in the drafting of the Government’s amendments to the Lords amendment. That is exactly why the Government’s amendments, especially amendment (b), do not limit the clause to the 1972 Act but also take account of all Acts that might give rise to directly applicable and enforceable EU law, which will include any Acts amending the 1972 Act. I hope that with that reassurance colleagues on both sides of the House will be able to endorse the Government’s amendments.

Amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 14.

Amendment (b) proposed to Lords amendment 14.— (Mr Lidington.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Western European Union (Closure)

David Lidington Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

On 30 March 2010 the UK announced its intention to withdraw from the Western European Union (WEU). A 12-month notice period followed our and the other nine WEU member states’ denunciation of the modified Brussels treaty and the WEU will be formally closed on 30 June 2011.

The WEU has played a valuable role in discussion on European security. It embedded the principle of mutual defence in post-war Europe, promoted consultation and co-operation on defence and security matters in Western Europe and has conducted operations in a number of vital theatres. But the WEU’s mutual defence role became largely symbolic as soon as NATO was established; its operational role has long since been succeeded by the EU through the common security and defence policy; and we could no longer justify the cost of over €2 million a year to UK taxpayers.

The European Security and Defence Assembly within the WEU will also close. It has provided an important forum for parliamentarians to meet and debate European defence issues with their peers. The Government recognise the value of such debate and in order to see that continue we have been working with the relevant parliamentary committees to facilitate the establishment of a new forum for parliamentarians from across Europe to meet and debate common foreign and security policy issues. Quite rightly this is a matter for national Parliaments, but the Government will continue to provide support where required to help ensure suitable inter-parliamentary debating arrangements are in place.

After the closure of the WEU, outstanding tasks will be overseen by a board of the EU Satellite Centre composed of representatives of the 10 former WEU member states. This is the most cost-effective way of managing the WEU’s legacy tasks. These tasks include our continuing obligations to former WEU staff and making arrangements for the final liquidation of the WEU assets. This will include the sale of the WEU building in Paris, which is jointly owned by the 10 WEU member states.

General Affairs Council and Foreign Affairs Council, 20-21 June 2011

David Lidington Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

The Foreign Affairs Council and General Affairs Council were held on 20-21 June in Luxembourg. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I represented the UK.

The agenda items covered were as follows:

Foreign Affairs Council (FAC)

The FAC was chaired by Baroness Ashton. 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/foraff/122937.pdf.

Sudan

Ministers agreed conclusions (see link) which:

Expressed support for the African Union’s efforts to facilitate a cessation of hostilities in Southern Kordofan.

Called on all parties to stop hostilities.

Denounced the 19 June attack against the UN mission.

Agreed to follow a comprehensive EU approach to Sudan.

The Foreign Secretary underlined the need to support the efforts of the Mbeki panel and continued political dialogue with Khartoum, which should include messages on debt relief. He also emphasised the need for a continuing UN presence after 9 July, to ensure the protection of civilians and humanitarian access.

European Neighbourhood Policy

Ministers agreed conclusions (see link) which endorsed the review of the European neighbourhood policy (ENP), setting out an ambitious new approach to the EU’s neighbourhood. This review is in line with the Government’s goal of an enhanced EU offer to its neighbours, particularly those emerging from the Arab spring, holding out the prospect of profound economic integration for those who engage in meaningful democratic reforms.

Western Balkans

Ministers discussed Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Kosovo.

On Albania, Ministers agreed conclusions (see link) deploring the deterioration of the political situation and increase in tensions following disputed municipal election results. They also urged the Albanian authorities to strengthen its reform efforts particularly in relation to the Copenhagen criteria and the 12 priorities identified in the European Commission’s 9 November 2010 opinion on Albania’s application for membership.

The Foreign Secretary and other Ministers welcomed the appointment of Peter Sorensen as the new head of delegation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Foreign Secretary said that Kosovo needed to be given tangible reassurance of its EU future. Ministers also noted Serbia’s EU ambitions.

Immediately following the FAC, I attended the western Balkans forum with other EU Foreign and Europe Ministers and Foreign Ministers from across the western Balkans. The meeting was chaired by Baroness Ashton, the Commissioner for Enlargement (Fule) and the Hungarian Foreign Minister (Martonyi). Many speakers emphasised the continuing importance of regional co-operation in the context of EU enlargement. I made clear that we did not want to see a pause on enlargement after Croatia’s accession. The positive prospect of conditions-based enlargement was a driving force behind economic and political reform and as such demanded clear and collective commitment to the process.

Belarus

Ministers adopted conclusions (see link) and agreed further restrictive measures on Belarus. The conclusions set out the EU’s concerns about the deterioration of human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Belarus. On restrictive measures, the Foreign Secretary spoke in favour of including three companies closely linked to the Belarusian leadership. These were agreed.

Syria

Ministers agreed conclusions (see link) which condemned violence, reiterated the call for reform, and laid the ground for further work on sanctions.

On the same day as the FAC, the Foreign Secretary made a statement on Syria:

“President Assad’s speech today was disappointing and unconvincing. If President Assad is to restore any credibility the Syrian people need to see concrete action, not vague promises. We have been clear that rapid and real implementation of substantial reforms, addressing the legitimate demands of peaceful Syrian protesters, is what is urgently needed. There must also be an immediate end to violence by Syrian security forces, the release of all political prisoners, an end to the torture and abuse of those who remain in detention and access given to international humanitarian agencies.”

Libya

Conclusions were agreed (see link) setting out the EU’s approach to a ceasefire and a political solution based on Gaddafi’s departure. The conclusions also referred to sanctions measures, such as the listing of Gaddafi-controlled ports in Libya.

Yemen

Ministers agreed conclusions (see link) which called for all to respect the current ceasefire and reiterated the need for a solution based on the Gulf Co-operation Council’s initiative.

Middle East Peace Process

Over lunch, Ministers discussed the current situation in the peace process, including: the role of the Quartet; the handling of a possible unilateral declaration of Palestinian independence in September; and options for encouraging the two sides to restart negotiations.

General Affairs Council (GAC)

The GAC was chaired by the Hungarian EU presidency (Foreign Minister Martonyi). A draft record of the meeting can be found at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/genaff/122949.pdf.

June European Council

Ministers examined the draft conclusions for the European Council of 23-24 June. The discussion covered the main agenda items: economic policy (progress on the euro-plus pact and on the EU’s response to the sovereign debt crisis); migration (review of progress in implementing asylum and migration polices); Croatia (review of progress on accession negotiations); and events in the southern neighbourhood.

I emphasised the need for positive language on economic growth, and for the right approach on deregulation for small and medium-sized enterprises. I also sought references on trade, particularly in relation to the Doha round.

On the European neighbourhood policy, I pushed for a clear Council position welcoming the review to be reflected in the Council conclusions.

European Semester

The presidency set out recommendations on national reform programmes submitted by member states under the Europe 2020 strategy for jobs and growth. The Council agreed to forward texts to the European Council. I abstained from voting on the grounds that there had not been sufficient time to complete UK parliamentary scrutiny. I asked that more time be given for the scrutiny processes in future.

18 Month Presidency Programme

Poland, Denmark and Cyprus presented the 18-month programme of the EU presidencies. The programme was endorsed.

I will deposit copies of this note in the Libraries of both Houses, and I will continue to update Parliament on Foreign and General Affairs Councils as and when future meetings are held.