Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (Ratification of Treaties)
David Lidington Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
Part 2 also requires the Minister, if the “alternative procedure” in clause 23 is being used in exceptional circumstances, to lay a statement giving reasons.
[Official Report, 11 November 2010, Vol. 518, c. 22-23WS.]
Letter of correction from Mr David Lidington:
An error has been identified in the written statement that I made on 11 November 2010. The penultimate paragraph stated:
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
Part 2 also requires the Minister, if the “alternative procedure” in clause 23 is being used in exceptional circumstances, to lay a statement giving reasons.
The correct statement should have been:
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
Part 2 also requires the Minister, if the “alternative procedure” in section 22 is being used in exceptional circumstances, to lay a statement giving reasons.
Foreign Affairs Council and General Affairs Council
David Lidington Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
The Foreign Affairs Council and General Affairs Council will meet in Brussels on 13 and 14 December. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will attend the Foreign Affairs Council. I will attend the General Affairs Council.
foreign affairs council (fac)
Western Balkans
We expect Ministers to focus on Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), and in particular the need for the new Government to focus on the EU and wider reform agenda, including constitutional reforms. There may be some discussion of the EU institutional presence in BiH; we remain committed to the completion of the “5+2” conditionality for the transition of the Office of the High Representative to an EU-only presence.
Additionally, the noble Baroness Ashton is likely to update Ministers on preparations for the EU-facilitated Belgrade/Pristina dialogue. We hope this begins as soon as possible. There may be an initial exchange of views on the outcomes of the 12 December parliamentary elections in Kosovo.
Sudan
We expect conclusions to be adopted on preparations ahead of the referendum on self-determination for southern Sudan in January 2011, as part of the final stages of the comprehensive peace agreement. We believe that these conclusions should emphasise the importance of focused, sustained efforts to ensure a timely, peaceful and credible referendum. We also expect Ministers to discuss humanitarian contingency planning for the referendum, and to underline our continuing collective long-term support for northern and southern Sudan, regardless of the referendum outcome.
Middle East Peace Process (MEPP)
Ministers will discuss latest developments in the region. We expect conclusions emphasising the EU’s support for US efforts, in conjunction with other members of the Quartet. Ministers may also discuss how best to improve access to Gaza.
Somalia/Horn of Africa
Ministers are expected to assess the effectiveness of EU efforts in the Horn of Africa, and in particular support to the peace process in Somalia.
We continue to support EU efforts to train the Somali security forces through the EU training mission Somalia. The existence of pay, command and control and infrastructure for returning troops is vital to the success of the mission. We encourage ongoing EU support to the African Union mission to Somalia, which provides the secure space within which political reconciliation can take place. On the political track, debate is likely to focus on support to Somalia’s regions: Puntland and Somaliland. We support EU work in these areas, building on a central tenet of the UK strategy: support to local and regional areas of stability.
Conclusions are likely to reaffirm the importance of work on Somalia, a UK priority in Africa; raise Somalia’s profile on the EU agenda; and task further work on scenarios for how to end the current transitional period and what should succeed it post-August 2011.
Afghanistan
We expect the noble Baroness Ashton to consider how to increase the effectiveness of EU assistance in Afghanistan, in the context of the EU action plan for Afghanistan. The discussion is expected to follow a briefing by the European Union Special Representatives (EUSR) Ambassador Usackas for Development Ministers at the 9 December FAC (on which my right hon. Friend the Development Secretary has already written to the House).
Strategic Partners
This discussion is likely to take place over dinner on 13 December. The noble Baroness Ashton will solicit views from Partners how to develop on the EU’s relationship with Russia, China and the US. We are keen for the noble Baroness Ashton to continue her work on these partnerships, devising a set of concrete objectives for the EU’s external action. We believe that trade is a central component of these relationships.
Moldova
Discussion will focus on the outcome of the 28 November parliamentary elections. These were largely conducted to internationally accepted standards. Despite the encouraging conduct of the elections, and a good turnout, neither the outgoing coalition Government nor any single party won enough seats to form a Government or to elect a permanent president. The prospect of further stalemate and political instability remains very real. We fully support the statement made by the noble Baroness Ashton and the Enlargement Commissioner, Stefan Füle (see link below).
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_ data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/11 8093.pdf
Iran
The noble Baroness Ashton is likely to report on the recent E3+3 talks with Iran in Geneva. Talks will continue in January 2011. The noble Baroness Ashton released a statement on behalf of the E3+3 on 7 December (see link below)
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/l18263.pdf
Priorities for 2011
The noble Baroness Ashton will solicit views on priorities for her and the External Action Service in 2011.
AOB
A number of smaller issues are on the agenda under AOB. Ministers will hear reports back from the OSCE Summit in Astana, which I attended along with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. Some Partners have requested a general discussion on the plight of religious minorities in Iraq. We expect Ministers to agree (without discussion) short conclusions on the Democratic Republic of Congo, focusing on the forthcoming elections.
general affairs council (gac)
Enlargement
The presidency will chair a discussion on draft European Council Conclusions, taking stock of progress on EU enlargement and on the stabilisation and association process in the Western Balkans. These will be informed by the European Commission’s Communication of 9 November setting out an enlargement strategy and progress reports for candidates and potential candidates. I submitted this communication to Parliament on 30 November under an explanatory memorandum.
As I set out in that memorandum, the Government believe the Commission’s communication to be a broadly fair and balanced assessment. We will seek conclusions reconfirming support for EU enlargement and recognition that the accession process gives strong encouragement to political and economic reform in the enlargement countries and reinforces peace, democracy and stability in Europe. We agree with the Commission’s view that progress towards the EU should take place at the rate of reform of the (potential) candidate country and that key challenges remain for most enlargement countries, including on the rule of law, and the fight against corruption and organised crime. We further support the Commission’s view that bilateral disputes should not be allowed to hold up the accession process.
On individual countries, we will welcome progress made this year by Turkey with the recent constitutional reforms, and support the Commission’s recognition of Turkey’s role in the region. We will expect conclusions to indicate the EU’s readiness to intensify its foreign policy dialogue with Turkey. However, we share the Council’s disappointment that Turkey has not yet fulfilled its obligation to open its ports to trade with Cyprus under the additional protocol to the association agreement and agree that further efforts are needed to accelerate the pace of Turkey’s accession negotiations.
We support the Commission’s view that full co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal remains a requirement for Croatia’s progress throughout the accession process, and that Iceland will need to address existing obligation, such as those identified by the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Surveillance Authority (ESA) under the European Economic Area (EEA) agreement.
We will seek conclusions reaffirming the European perspective of the whole Western Balkans region. We support the European Commission’s recommendation to grant candidate status to Montenegro and to open accession negotiations with Macedonia (FYROM). We will seek balanced conclusions consistent with Kosovo’s European perspective. The Government are concerned about the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and will seek conclusions urging its political leaders to put the reform agenda at the heart of their new government programmes.
Preparations for the December and February European Councils
The presidency has invited the President of the Council, Van Rompuy, to discuss preparations for the European Council of 16 and17 December. The Council agenda covers Economic Governance—the permanent crisis mechanism and pension reform, the EU budget and External Relations (Strategic Partnerships). The discussion on 14 December is likely to focus on economic and eurozone issues. The Prime Minister will report to Parliament on the Council in the normal way.
There will also be a short information point on the February European Council. No agenda has yet been issued, but we expect energy policy and innovation to feature.
Disaster Response
There is likely to be a further discussion of the Commission’s ideas for disaster response, following last month’s presentation by the Commissioner for International Co-operation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response (Georgieva). The Commission’s proposals—with which we are broadly content—concern the response to disasters inside and outside the EU, considering both civil protection and humanitarian assistance, and seeking cost-effectiveness through use of common assets.
Cohesion Funds
The General Affairs Council will have a preliminary discussion of the Commission’s Report on Structural Cohesion Funds
http://ec.europa.eu./regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/repor_en.htm
following the Liege informal Ministerial of 22 and 23 November. Baroness Wilcox represented the UK. The Commission will end its EU-wide consultations on the proposals on 31 January 2011.
Europe 2020
If there is time, we expect the presidency to give a short update on Europe 2020, the EU’s economic growth strategy.
European Union Bill
David Lidington Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
May I remind the hon. Gentleman that since the adoption of the proposals in the Wright report, responsibility for arranging those debates on the European Union has passed from the Government to the Backbench Business Committee? It is for that Committee to make that provision from the 31 days available to it.
Mike Gapes
The Government are hiding behind the words in the Wright Committee’s report. The reality is that if the Government wished to, and they thought that it was sufficiently important, we could have a debate in Government time on the Floor of the House, as we have always done, on the matters to be discussed in 10 days’ time at the European Council meeting, which comes at a crucial time for the future of this country and the EU. The issues range from the crises in Greece and Ireland, to climate change and the Cancun meeting, and what is happening with regard to China and its role in the world. Not least is what will happen over the coming decades with regard to migration policy and the impact that global changes will have on the people of north Africa and elsewhere who might wish to migrate to the EU. Those are the issues that we should be discussing.
We have had a lot of comments recently about Russia, although I will not depart from the subject of debate today. Frankly, the relationship between the EU and Russia is a complete shambles. There is no agreed approach on energy policy or on how we deal with human rights abuses and the suppression of democratic opposition in Russia. Why do we not have a debate about the role of the EU there? These are the vital questions, but instead of discussing them we are hiding behind the minutiae of a proposal, which if it is implemented will, as the hon. Member for Stone pointed out, put power not in the hands of a sovereign Parliament and Members of Parliament—elected representatives—but more and more in the hands of the judges and the judicial authorities, who will increasingly interfere in a political way. They will make the decisions about what matters are to be decided, not the elected people who represent the people of this country.
That is a fundamental matter, yet the Government are slipping this measure through, so that, with all the proposals in schedule 1, clause 18 and elsewhere, we will end up with the judicial system, not the political system, determining how this country is run. That is a fundamental decision—a fundamental matter—yet it has been slipped into the Bill as though it were a safeguard against the European Union taking away sovereignty. Actually, the proposal gives more power to the judges and to the legal system to take away parliamentary sovereignty. That is nothing to do with the European Union; Ministers themselves have determined those matters.
Mr Lidington
May I make it clear that I nodded to indicate that I would respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) in my concluding remarks?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I would not wish to anticipate the excitement that we all hold for the Minister’s speech on that crucial point.
The Bill is important and broadly good. Let us be absolutely clear that there are many of us on the Government Benches, and on the Opposition Benches, who want powers to be brought back from the European Union. The European Union is a state in decay. It is rotten at its very core. It is corrupt. It is dishonest. It is bullying. It has a currency that is failing as I speak, a currency that is bankrupting several of its nations and putting ruinous conditions on Ireland, Portugal and Greece—and the Spanish and the Italians will follow.
The European Union has not been in British interests. It is not the common market that people expected it to be and we need root-and-branch reform. I know that we are in a coalition and that we have made concessions to our coalition partners, as they have made concessions to us. They have not yet realised how dreadful the European Union is, but as one hon. Member said to me earlier, “The more they get to know about it the worse they will know that it is.”
Let us look in detail at this Bill and at why it is welcome as far as it goes. The element on the referendum is very important and I was delighted that Vernon Bogdanor, the extremely distinguished constitutional historian, quoted John Locke in his evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee. My delight is all the greater because John Locke grew up in Belluton, which, as right hon. and hon. Members know, is a village in North East Somerset. John Locke said in his “Second Treatise of Government”:
“The Legislative cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands. For it being but a delegated power from the People, they who have it cannot pass it to others”.
That is the essence of our constitution.
People talk learnedly about the sovereignty of Parliament, but what do they really mean and where does it come from? I think this was all settled in the 17th century. There were two choices: one was that sovereignty came from God and was given to the King, and the other was that it came from the people and moved upwards and that it was borrowed by Parliament for a period. The sovereignty of Parliament is a great thing. We should bear in mind that the Supreme Court is established by Parliament, as are the very monarchy and the laws of succession. That precious sovereignty is ours not because we are the great and good of the land, or because we sit on green Benches in a fine Palace, but because the British people have given it to us for a period, and we may not bind it or give it away. We may not give it to Europe or the United Nations; only the British people can do that, and they must have a referendum lock on it.
We heard a characteristically well-phrased speech from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). He was concerned that the Bill would not provide a lock because it could be repealed by subsequent Parliaments. That is true, of course, but a lock can be unlocked if one has the right key, and the key will be the considerable political capital that would be expended by any Government who wished to remove, dilute or give away the power of the sovereign British people. So, the lock is worth while. There has been an interesting development in law about constitutional Acts having a higher standing than ordinary Acts, and the European Communities Act 1972 is considered to be such an Act, as Lord Laws mentioned in the Thoburn case. If that is right, I hope we will get some guidance from Her Majesty’s Government on whether the Bill would be a constitutional Act that could not be subject simply to implied repeal but would have to be repealed directly. The referendum lock is important and beneficial even though it is not enough in terms of our relationship with the EU.
Clause 18 affirms the sovereignty of Parliament and provides that we allow European law to take effect only because of the 1972 European Communities Act. I welcome the clause, but it was a matter of great dispute among much more learned people than me during the European Scrutiny Committee’s deliberations. I welcome it because of the nature of our constitution, which evolves without things necessarily being written down. We discussed this issue during Committee deliberations on the Fixed-Term Parliaments Bill. There are things that the sovereign could do by royal prerogative that are so unlikely and improbable, because they have not been done for so long, that they have fallen into disuse and effective decay. My worry is that without this clause, the 1972 Act might be viewed as one that cannot be amended or repealed and that we might get to a stage, perhaps in 50 years’ time, when the courts hold that it is so important that it is of a different order of magnitude than any other statute.
Clause 18 turns the clock back, which is rather gratifying because we are told that the Tories never turn the clock back. Evelyn Waugh said that he voted Tory all his life expecting them to turn the clock back but that they did not put it back 10 minutes. On this occasion, we are putting it back by 38 years; we are resetting the constitutional position to where everyone would have known it was in 1972. I think that is important, even though I thoroughly accept the point made by many right hon. and hon. Members that it is not a complete statement of the whole theory of the sovereignty of Parliament. I hope that would be unnecessary because the sovereignty of Parliament comes from the British people and cannot be taken away, however much one says so.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I think that the brevity of the speech by the Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David), is indicative of the absence of content in the Opposition’s case today. We have heard from no less than the Leader of the Opposition that he regards his policies as a blank sheet of paper, and that is what we have heard from the hon. Gentleman this evening.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I want to pay tribute to every right hon. and hon. Member who has taken part in the debate, and I am glad that so many Members, on both sides of the House, have managed to participate. I want to respond briefly to a number of specific issues, and then move on to the questions about clause 18 and the referendum lock, which have occupied most of the debate. I might be unable to cover all the ground today, but I will look forward with relish to the five days of debate on the Bill on the Floor of the House—in Committee of the whole House and on Third Reading—in the new year.
My hon. Friends the Members for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) asked about the commencement of the Bill and whether it would take effect in the lifetime of this Parliament. As they know, the Government have made it clear, as a policy commitment, that we are not going to agree to any treaty change or new treaty that transfers additional powers or competences to the European Union for the duration of this Parliament. That is a policy commitment. Clause 21 provides for the commencement of the whole of part 3, including clause 18, on Royal Assent. The rest of the Bill comes
“into force on such day as the Secretary of State may…appoint.”
To avoid any misunderstanding, however, I want to make it clear that the Government intend to use the provisions of the Bill for any future treaty change. The House will know that one such change is being contemplated now. We also expect to use the provisions on increased parliamentary control during the lifetime of the Parliament, because we expect that there will be some proposals, possibly including an agreement on a new multi-annual financial framework, that will trigger the need for an Act of Parliament under the terms of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry also asked me whether it would be possible for a European prosecutor to be built up bit by bit, thereby avoiding a referendum. The Bill is very clear on that. The United Kingdom could not take part in either a European public prosecutor established under article 86.1 of the treaty or the extension of the powers of such a prosecutor, if set up, under article 86.4 without a referendum. As the treaty provides a specific treaty base for the establishment of a European public prosecutor, that action could not be taken on a different treaty base.
My hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) asked whether there would be any way for the European Union to prevent us from holding a referendum in this country. The answer to that question is no. There is nothing in the treaties that puts any constraints on the way in which the United Kingdom or any other member state decides how to cast its vote on a treaty amendment or a treaty change. The Bill sets out more stringent requirements before a British Minister can assent to something on behalf of this country at the European level. That is a matter for national law, not for European law.
Let me turn to the points made in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), but also by a number of other hon. Ladies and Gentlemen, about clause 18. I want to be absolutely plain that the Government are not attempting through clause 18 to address the wider constitutional issue of the sovereignty of Parliament in the way alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) when he referred to the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998, for example—or the sovereignty of Parliament and what that means in the context of the devolution settlements for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
What clause 18 does is more specific than that—this point was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). Clause 18 deals with the way in which European law, including judgments of the European Court of Justice, is given effect in this country. The clause asserts, for the first time in statutory form, what is already the position in common law as a consequence of decisions by various judges in leading cases: that there is only one reason why European law has effect in this country, and one reason too why, where the two clash, European law is given primacy over United Kingdom law, and that is because Acts of Parliament—notably, but not exclusively, the European Communities Act 1972—provide for such effect to be given to European law.
Mr Cash
Does my hon. Friend agree that the very fact that this provision is being included in statute inevitably means that the courts will have the opportunity to apply the common law principle and that therefore he cannot, by a speech in the House of Commons, restrict the manner in which the courts subsequently interpret the provision?
Mr Lidington
What I would say to my hon. Friend is that to some extent we are repeating the exchanges that we enjoyed in his Committee yesterday. Clause 18 places firmly on the statute book a point of reference to which any future court that considers an argument about the source of authority for European law in this country must have regard. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset put it in terms of turning the clock back to 1972. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex said in an intervention, it is not the case that the argument that European law derives its authority solely from Acts of Parliament has gone unchallenged. It was not only in the prosecution arguments in the metric martyrs case, but in the obiter from Lord Justices Steyn and Hope, to which he referred, that a very different case was asserted—namely that, over time, European law has acquired some kind of autonomous authority in this country. Hitherto, the United Kingdom courts have rejected that argument and upheld the doctrine that it is only through Acts of Parliament that European law has authority here. The clause will provide in statute for the first time a clear point of reference to which the courts must have regard.
Mr Jenkin
My hon. Friend is dealing carefully with the points that have been raised, but will he treat seriously the evidence given to the European Scrutiny Committee by Professor Tomkins? At the end of his written evidence, he stated:
“If Parliament is of the view that its sovereignty requires to be freshly articulated and safeguarded in legislation, it would be well advised to proceed with great care and caution, lest the consequences of its actions come to be seen as the proverbial red rag to the bull.”
I am not convinced that the clause, as drafted, would not be that red rag.
Mr Lidington
We debated this matter at great length in Committee in January. A number of the learned academics who gave evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee discussed parliamentary sovereignty in broad constitutional terms, rather than in terms of the precise objective of clause 18, which is to recapitulate in statutory form the means by which European law is given effect in the United Kingdom.
I want to make it clear from the start that we are talking about a referendum lock on future treaty changes that transfer powers or competence—in particular, powers involving the surrender of vetoes—and that we are not seeking to overturn the terms of existing treaties. I know that that will disappoint a number of Members on both sides of the House, but, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in his opening speech, we are in a legal environment established by the Lisbon treaty, even though some of us might wish that we were not, and we must start from the position that we are now in.
Mr Redwood
Will the Minister tell us whether he can conceive of any circumstances in which this Government would offer a referendum on any aspect of Europe?
Mr Lidington
I thought I had made that clear—[Interruption.] The Government—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is far too much noise from the Opposition Benches. I have heard the question; I want to hear the Minister’s answer.
Mr Lidington
The Government have made it clear that we would not assent to a transfer of competence or powers during the lifetime of this Parliament. It follows, therefore, that we do not expect a referendum in the lifetime of this Parliament, but unforeseen events might arise. The Bill, once it becomes law, will be binding on this Government as well as on any future Administration, whatever circumstances might arise.
Mr Lidington
No, I want to deal with the objections and criticisms that have been made to and of the referendum lock. Serious questions have been asked on both sides during the debate and I want to respond to them. One set of objections came from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who made it clear that he objected to all referendums as a matter of principle—
Mr Lidington
He is now saying that he does not, and I am happy to hear him qualify his earlier remarks. The problem with such an argument is that it ignores two things. First, it underestimates the depth of the mistrust and disaffection that people in this country now feel towards the way in which powers have been transferred from the United Kingdom to the European Union without the people ever being asked for their agreement. It ill becomes the Labour party in particular to offer criticism on this score when the prime reason for such disaffection over the last few years has been that party’s refusal, when in government and with a majority in this House, to agree to the people having a referendum, which had been promised at the general election. This was a promise on which Labour was happy to renege when it came into office.
The argument against referendums on principle ignores the fact that the practice has grown up in the last 13 years of holding referendums on major constitutional changes. We have had them in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Greater London and even in the north-east of England, and I think that people now have a reasonable expectation that they will be invited to have their say if their basic constitutional rights are being affected by legislation proposed by Ministers.
Mr Lidington
The second line of criticism was rather more subtle than that presented by the hon. Member for Rhondda. It was articulated by a number of colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who argued that the Bill left too much discretion to Ministers. My hon. Friends the Members for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and for Witham echoed that argument.
My response is that a number of options were available to us. One was to draft a test phrased in fairly general terms, saying that an important measure would require a referendum, but leaving it to the Government of the day to determine whether that test had been met. We took the view that that would have left far too much discretionary power in the hands of Ministers. What we have done instead is to introduce a Bill that quite deliberately limits ministerial discretion by specifying those changes that would trigger a referendum and also those limited categories of treaty change that would be exempt from the referendum requirement.
Several hon. Friends talked about the significance test, which applies only to a change brought forward under the simplified revision procedure. Within that category of treaty change, it applies only if the sole reason for its falling within the referendum lock is that it falls under clause 4(1)(i) or (j). Any proposal that is covered by clause 4(1)(a) to (h) or clause 4(1)(k) to (m) automatically attracts a referendum. In reply to a direct question put to me, yes, if this Bill had been law at the time, the Lisbon treaty negotiated under the ordinary rules of procedure would have required a referendum before it had been ratified. I only wish we had had such a provision on the statute book when the Labour party betrayed this country’s interests and reneged on the promises it had given.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) argued that the significance was subject only to judicial review and not to Parliament. Of course it is true that any Executive decision by any Minister is liable to judicial review. I dispute his argument, however. Irrespective of whether the significance test applies and whether a referendum is required, any treaty change, however minor, will require an Act of Parliament for its ratification. Such an Act will be subject to full debate and scrutiny and will be capable of amendment in whatever way Parliament wishes.
Mr Lidington
Through this Bill we are making the Government more accountable to the British people for what they do in Europe. We are ensuring that any new proposal to take powers from this place to Brussels will involve the people in having the final say. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
General Affairs Council/Foreign Affairs Council
David Lidington Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
The General Affairs Council and Foreign Affairs Council were held on 22 October in Brussels. I represented the UK.
The agenda items covered were as follows:
General Affairs Council (GAC)
The Belgian presidency (Foreign Minister Vanackere) chaired the meeting. The full text of all conclusions adopted can be found at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/genaff/117939.pdf
Follow-up to the October European Council and preparations for the December Council
The discussion was dominated by economic issues, in particular the establishment of a permanent crisis mechanism, treaty change, and the process leading up to any decision by the European Council in December.
Along with others, I stressed the need to keep changes to the treaty to a minimum and ensure that national Parliaments were fully involved. Others also emphasised the importance of careful presentation and handling of economic policy matters, in order to avoid unnecessary market speculation.
On the EU budget, I reiterated our determination that EU expenditure should reflect consolidation efforts being made by member states. The December European Council will discuss how the EU budget can contribute to these efforts.
European Commission 2011 Work Programme
The Commission presented their work programme for 2011. They hoped it would increase the predictability of the discussions in the year to come. They were actively seeking feedback from national Parliaments. The UK (Sir Kim Darroch) said this exercise would aid transparency, and noted that much of the content was useful, especially on sustainable growth. However, the UK also stressed that any proposals needed to be considered against tests on subsidiarity and the avoidance of regulatory burden.
Videoconferencing at Councils
The presidency introduced proposals for a staged upgrade in the Council’s video conferencing capability. These were approved without discussion.
Disaster Response
The Commissioner for International Co-operation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response (Ms Georgieva) presented the Commission’s ideas on European disaster response. She stressed the need to address the increased frequency and intensity of disasters, and to use the EU’s new institutional arrangements. She underscored the primary responsibility of member states, the need to be cost-effective, and the importance of UN leadership externally.
Many speakers welcomed the ideas but made clear they could not accept EU control of national assets. Any legislative proposals had to reflect the different structures in Europe, and the primacy of the UN in humanitarian operations. The UK (Sir Kim Darroch) stressed the need for flexible and pragmatic solutions, noting that future Council conclusions could broadly endorse moving forward but should not prejudge technical discussions. Others emphasised the importance of greater EU visibility and enhanced co-ordination.
The presidency concluded that there was broad agreement to proceed to Council conclusions at the December GAC.
Transparency Register
Under AOB, the European Commission informed the GAC that they had reached agreement with the European Parliament on a transparency register covering all lobbyists and NGOs who sought to influence the two institutions. The text of the agreement would be forwarded to the Council.
Foreign Affairs Council (FAC)
The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton, chaired the meeting. The full text of all conclusions adopted, including “A” points, can be found at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/117948.pdf
Middle East Peace Process (MEPP) - Gaza/Lebanon
Over lunch, Ministers focused on the efforts to encourage Israel and the Palestinians to restart direct talks. Many speakers emphasised the need for the EU to support the efforts of the US. There was also concern about continuing settlement activity, particularly in East Jerusalem. Baroness Ashton said that it was important to maintain momentum to improve conditions in Gaza, reiterating the EU’s readiness to contribute to this. She added that the EU would continue to work with the international quartet. On Lebanon, a number of Ministers argued that the EU should support the special tribunal. Conclusions were agreed.
Iran
Baroness Ashton updated the FAC on the latest developments on the nuclear dossier.
Sudan
Baroness Ashton invited me to lead discussion on Sudan, following the special session of the UN Security Council on Sudan on 16 November chaired by the Foreign Secretary. I highlighted that this was a defining period for Sudan: the EU needed to work energetically to support a peaceful outcome. The EU should ensure that contingency preparations were ready to be signed off at the next FAC on 13 December. The EU also needed to consider how to engage Khartoum, to complement the US package, and to strengthen the role of moderates in the north. I argued that debt relief might be an important element. Additionally, we should not lose sight of Darfur.
Other speakers echoed these themes, particularly on the need to explore quickly options on debt relief. Assistance for the three kidnapped Latvians and one Hungarian in Sudan was also raised.
Baroness Ashton announced that she was setting up a Sudan taskforce headed up by Dame Rosalind Marsden, the EU Special Representative for Sudan. Conclusions were agreed.
Preparations for forthcoming Summits and relations with strategic partners
The FAC discussed preparations for the forthcoming EU summits with Africa (29-30 November), Russia (7 December) and India (10 December), and for the OSCE summit (1-2 December). The discussion also covered the EU’s strategic relations with the US, Russia and China.
Much of the discussion focused on relations with Russia, specifically visa liberalisation and Russia’s WTO membership. Baroness Ashton proposed that Ministers discuss these issues further on 13 December ahead of her presentation to the December European Council.
Burma
Ministers discussed developments in Burma, including deeply flawed elections and the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. Strong concern was expressed at the continued detention of 2,200 political prisoners, and there was agreement on the need for caution in the EU’s response to recent events, and on the need to co-ordinate with other key partners, including the US.
Iraq
There was a brief exchange of views on the political situation and recent developments in Iraq. A number of speakers emphasised the need to pay close attention to the situation of religious minorities. Conclusions were agreed.
Belarus
The FAC was briefed by the Polish Foreign Minister on his joint visit with the German Foreign Minister to Minsk on 2 November. The Lithuanian Foreign Minister reported on the recent visit to Minsk by the Lithuanian President.
Kosovo
David Lidington Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lidington
That was a step forward, as was the transfer of responsibility for policing three of the chief places of religious and cultural importance to the Serbian population of Kosovo from EULEX to the Kosovan police themselves. We want more of that to happen.
[Official Report, 15 November 2010, European Committee B, c. 16.]
Letter of correction from Mr David Lidington:
An error has been identified in the fourth sentence of the third paragraph of the oral statement given by Mr David Lidington on 15 November 2010, European Committee B, c. 16.
Mr Lidington
That was a step forward, as was the transfer of responsibility for policing three of the chief places of religious and cultural importance to the Serbian population of Kosovo from KFOR to the Kosovan police themselves.
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
David Lidington Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lidington
We have given particular support to the work of the European Union’s Committee on Missing Persons and we donate to its annual budget. As hon. Members know, the CMP has so far found just under 700 sets of human remains, both Greek and Turkish Cypriot.
[Official Report, 16 November 2010, Vol. 518, c. 232WH.]
Letter of correction from Mr David Lidington:
An error has been identified in the 10th sentence of the fourth paragraph of the closing speech of 16 November 2010.
The correct sentence should have been:
Mr Lidington
We have given particular support to the work of the United Nations Committee on Missing Persons and we donate to its annual budget. As hon. Members know, the CMP has so far found just under 700 sets of human remains, both Greek and Turkish Cypriot.
General Affairs and Foreign Affairs Councils
David Lidington Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
The Foreign Affairs Council and General Affairs Council will meet in Brussels on 22 November. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will attend the Foreign Affairs Council. I will attend the General Affairs Council.
General Affairs Council (GAC)
Follow-up to the September European Council and preparations for the December Council
The presidency will review the outcomes of the October European Council and set out the main themes of the December European Council, which takes place in Brussels on 16 and 17 December. No agenda for the December Council has yet been issued, but we expect that economic governance, the EU budget, enlargement and strategic partnerships will be covered briefly in this discussion.
Use of videoconferencing at Council
Ministers will be presented with proposals for the use of videoconferencing as part of contingency arrangements for EU ministerial meetings at times of crisis. This initiative builds on experiences with the volcanic dust cloud from Iceland which disrupted air travel within Europe earlier this year.
European Commission’s Work Programme for 2011
The Commission’s work programme for 2011 outlines the Commission’s priorities for next year and lists initiatives it plans to launch. It has been put on the agenda as an information point only—we do not expect a discussion. An explanatory memorandum on the work programme will be laid before the House shortly. Detailed responses to policy initiatives will be given as legislative proposals are put forward.
Disaster relief
The Commissioner for International Co-operation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response (Kristalina Georgieva) will set out the Commission’s proposals for building EU disaster response capacity. The proposals will focus on the response to disasters inside and outside the EU; consider both civil protection and humanitarian assistance; and seek cost-effectiveness through use of common assets. The UK supports multilateral humanitarian response, but is not in favour of elaborate new structures.
Foreign Affairs Council (FAC)
EU’s Strategic Partners
Baroness Ashton will set out her latest thinking on enhancing the EU’s strategic relationships. This follows the September European Council mandate, which required her to present a set of proposals in December. The UK wants more focused engagement with EU strategic partners—for example, our position for the India and Russia summits are set out below.
Burma
Ministers will discuss recent developments in Burma including the flawed elections of 7 November and the release of Aung San Suu Kyi on 13 November.
Baroness Ashton released a statement on 13 November following the release of Aung San Suu Kyi which can be found at:
http:/www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/l17708.pdf
This followed an earlier declaration of 7 November by Baroness Ashton, on behalf of the EU, on the elections in Burma which can be found at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/l17549.pdf
The UK was closely involved in the drafting the declaration of 7 November which reflects our serious concern about the nature of the elections. The Prime Minister made a statement about the release of Aung San Suu Kyi to the House of Commons on 15 November.
Summit Preparations (Africa, India, Russia and OSCE)
Baroness Ashton will seek Ministers’ views on preparations for summits.
EU-Africa
The discussion on the EU-Africa summit of 29 and 30 November is an opportunity to use the EU to help deliver some of the UK’s objectives in Africa. The overarching themes of the summit are investment, economic growth and job creation. We expect the summit’s communiqué to contain a renewed political commitment to regional integration and trade facilitation. Additionally, the summit should endorse the outcome of discussions in New York on the African Union Mission in Somalia, (AMISOM). On current plans, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) will represent the Prime Minister at the summit.
EU-India
The EU-India summit takes place on 10 December. We expect that the summit will complement our recent drive to enhance the UK’s bilateral ties with India. The FAC will consider the agenda and objectives of the summit which will focus on trade, climate change and regional and security issues of interest to both sides.
EU-Russia
The EU-Russia summit will be held on 7 December. The UK supports the proposed agenda which includes Russia’s WTO accession, negotiations on a new EU-Russia agreement, climate change and EU-Russia relations including support for the partnership for modernisation.
OSCE
Ministers will be invited to discuss preparations for the forthcoming summit (1 and 2 December) in Astana.
The UK delegation will be led by the Deputy Prime Minister. I will also attend. The summit will mark a key step in the Corfu process, set up in 2009 to address a Russian initiative on the future of European security in a comprehensive manner covering all three OSCE dimensions—human, economic and environment and politico-military. The UK and EU’s summit objectives are focused on four priority areas:
To strengthen the OSCE’s conflict prevention/resolution capabilities, including in relation to protracted conflicts, updating existing and considering new mechanisms as needed.
To reaffirm the OSCE’s commitments. Updating and strengthening of commitments in the areas of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of the media.
To strengthen the conventional arms control framework in Europe, including confidence and security building measures.
To enhance the role of the OSCE on Afghanistan, and more generally on countering transnational threats; for example, WMD proliferation, organised crime, terrorism, narcotics.
Iran
Ministers may discuss the state of the E3+3 (UK, France and Germany, and US, China and Russia) negotiations with Iran, depending on progress achieved. Ministers may also raise human rights in Iran.
Middle East Peace Process and Lebanon
Ministers may discuss developments in the US-led middle east peace talks and what the EU can do to support progress. On Lebanon, Ministers are expected to adopt conclusions that express concern about the current situation in Lebanon and supports the National Unity Government and the special tribunal process.
Sudan
Ministers will discuss the situation in Sudan. The UK will be looking for the EU to agree conclusions that set a clear agenda for what more can be done to ensure the successful completion of the comprehensive peace agreement, whatever the outcome of the referendum. The conclusions should stress the urgency needed on preparations for the referendum to take place in January. The Council will also discuss the conflict in Darfur, and may stress that efforts must continue to find an inclusive political solution to the Darfur conflict, and underline the importance of improving security and humanitarian access in Darfur. The UK will encourage a further discussion on Sudan in December.
Iraq
The discussion on Iraq will focus on the internal security situation and in particular recent attacks on the Christian community. The UK has condemned these attacks and others against Shia targets. A number of EU member states have also expressed concern over the attacks. The UK judges that it is important that the current (and future) Iraq Government protect all communities in Iraq, including minorities, against violence. Ministers may be asked to agree conclusions.
Cyprus
David Lidington Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) on securing the debate. He has a long track record in this House of interest in and support for Cyprus. As the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) said, the contributions to the debate have been thoughtful and forthright in equal measure. I thank the hon. Members for Mansfield (Mr Meale) and for Edmonton (Mr Love), and my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and for Hendon (Mr Offord) for their contributions. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) and the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) for their interventions.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss Cyprus and I have listened carefully to the points raised during the debate. The Government support a just and lasting settlement on the island. As has been said, that was an important manifesto commitment and a priority recognised in the coalition’s programme for Government.
I am sure that the House will agree that the status quo is neither satisfactory nor adequate for any community in Cyprus. Reference has been made to the plight of Greek Cypriots, particularly those in displaced families, and, in fairness, to the isolation and economic underdevelopment of the Turkish Cypriot community. Only a united island within the European Union will provide the long-term peace and security that all Cypriots deserve, as well as bring economic development and prosperity to the region. The hon. Member for Mansfield was right to draw our attention to the tremendous economic opportunities in the eastern Mediterranean, which could be capitalised on to the mutual benefit of all Cypriot communities, of Turkey and of Greece, if a just and lasting settlement can be achieved.
A settlement would enable a generation of people to find a way to close a traumatic chapter in their lives, particularly by addressing the difficult issue of property and the isolation of Turkish Cypriots. I believe that reunification would also provide the space for civil society to flourish in the north and south of the island, and for the leaders of the communities to spend more time helping to find solutions to global issues, and ensure that the Cypriot people as a whole come out of the current global economic downturn well placed to enjoy a prosperous and sustainable future. In my view, those benefits far outweigh the admitted difficulties of the compromises that would be necessary to reach a settlement.
Let there be no doubt that the United Kingdom Government are committed to supporting the ongoing settlement negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations, and particularly of Alexander Downer, which are aimed at achieving a settlement based on a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation with political equality. That political equality must be accorded not only—although most obviously—to the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities, but to the smaller minorities on the island. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, chairman of the British-Cyprus all-party group, reminded us of the Maronite community. The position of the Maronite community and its members’ entitlement to cultural and religious freedom of expression will be fully resolved only by a comprehensive settlement that reunites the island. The Government support the resolution passed by the Council of Europe in July 2008 that called for additional measures to
“support the revitalisation and promotion of the cultural, religious and linguistic heritage of the Maronites,”.
Ian Lavery
Does the Minister agree that not only do we have a moral obligation to support a solution in Cyprus on a one-state basis, but we have a legal obligation based on the treaty of guarantee and the memorandums that we have signed with Cyprus? Does that differ from what he has just said?
Mr Lidington
No, it does not. The hon. Gentleman draws me on to comments that I was about to make.
Far be it from me to criticise a distinguished elder statesman such as the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), but I am happy to make it clear that the Government’s position is to support a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation with political equality for a united Cyprus. We do not support partition. As the hon. Member for Wansbeck has said, as one of the guarantor powers, we are bound by treaty not only to resist but to prohibit any step that would lead either to the partition of Cyprus or to its unification with any other country. The new British Government remain in support of that position on the present and future status of Cyprus.
Mr Meale
Does the Minister agree that there would be a great danger if Britain’s policy moved away from the one that he has expressed? If we break the treaty signed in the ‘60s that gave independence to Cyprus, it would break all other parts of the treaty. That could affect the British bases on the island.
Mr Lidington
As a general principle, if one signs and ratifies a treaty, one should stick by its obligations. That is what we intend to do.
Important British interests are at stake in the search for a settlement in Cyprus. The amount of human misery in Cyprus, whichever community we are talking about, would in itself justify making the search for a settlement a political priority; but there are also hard-headed British national interests at stake. Although a peaceful and lasting settlement in Cyprus would not, as others have said, remove all obstacles to Turkish accession to the European Union, it would remove one of the most significant blocks to that process. I believe and the Government believe that Turkish membership of the European Union is in the interests not just of the UK, but of Europe as a whole. A settlement would also make possible the effective co-operation between NATO and the European Union that has been impossible for so many years, because of the stand-off between Turkey and Cyprus over the events of 1974 and what has happened since.
I hope that both sides in the negotiations and especially at the forthcoming meeting in New York can continue to show both flexibility and leadership. The leaders have the full support of the international community and they need to grasp the opportunity to find a solution before that window closes.
Mr Love
One of the concerns expressed widely within Cyprus is that Cyprus is not considered important enough internationally for a solution to be found. In reflection of that, would it not be sensible for the British Government to make greater use of the European Union to try to bring parties together and to pressure all the parties to negotiate, and would it not be much more sensible if the three guarantor powers, of which we are one, met to try to co-ordinate the putting of pressure on the two parties at the negotiations in New York?
Mr Lidington
I would not rule out a meeting of the guarantor powers at some stage, if that would be helpful. The hon. Gentleman reminds me that in his speech he called for vigorous diplomacy on the part of the British Government. I do not dissent from what he said, except that I would add two words of caution. First, by virtue of our history and status as a guarantor power and our possession of the sovereign base areas, we of course have a particular interest in Cyprus and the search for a settlement there; but sometimes, precisely because of our history, we are not necessarily the most welcome source of advice, particularly public advice. Sometimes it is better if others—in this case, the United Nations envoy, Mr Downer—take the lead. It is very important that the negotiations are seen to be, in the end, in the ownership of the Cypriots themselves, because unless there is buy-in from both communities in Cyprus, a settlement will not endure.
Secondly, although the search for a settlement in Cyprus is seen by the Government as an important political priority, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in the conduct of foreign affairs, just as in the conduct of domestic politics sometimes, it is best to talk candidly to friends, allies and partners behind closed doors, rather than through a megaphone. We have to suit the technique to the occasion.
Mr Burrowes
May I press the Minister further on the details of the relationship with Turkey? The hand of friendship has gone out from the Prime Minister to Turkey. Will the Minister be able to draw attention to the role that we play in terms of pressing the case for Cyprus?
Mr Lidington
I will come to that very point in a moment. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of it. Before I do so, I want to deal with a point that the hon. Member for Caerphilly raised by saying that the coalition Government have maintained the offer made by the previous Labour Government to cede nearly half the sovereign base area territories in the event of an agreed, negotiated solution in Cyprus.
I shall now respond to what my hon. Friend just said. We welcome the support that Turkey has given the settlement process. Prime Minister Erdogan has publicly stated his full support for the Cyprus settlement process on a number of occasions, including in March this year, when he confirmed—this is an important point—Turkey’s acceptance of the UN principles under which the process takes place. We regularly discuss all aspects of the Cyprus issue with Turkey. As my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green said in an intervention, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did so publicly as well as privately when he visited Turkey earlier this year. Most recently, we raised the subject of Cyprus during President Gül’s visit to London last week, and I did so with Turkish Ministers when I attended the Bosphorus conference in Istanbul in October.
Turkey has an important role to play in encouraging the Turkish Cypriots to grasp the opportunity of a settlement and to ensure that the negotiations succeed. A settlement will deliver economic benefits to Turkish Cypriots and end their sense of isolation once and for all, which is a key Turkish objective. A settlement in Cyprus will, we believe, be of great benefit to Turkey as a whole and her ambition eventually to join the European Union.
A number of hon. Members talked about particular aspects of the tragedy that has afflicted Cyprus for more than 30 years. Some referred to the damage done to cultural sites and places of worship. There is no doubt that that damage took place, particularly during 1974 and in the immediate aftermath. I have made note of the points that were made particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon and by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North about the alleged desecration of cemeteries and church graveyards. I will take advice on how we might raise that issue.
Jim Sheridan
For the record, I point out that I have passed on the photographs that were taken recently at the Morphou rally, which demonstrate the clear indignation caused by the vandalism that has taken place.
Mr Lidington
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. It is important, as a means of helping to build community reconciliation, that we support confidence-building measures at local level and take account of the reality of the grief still experienced by many individuals and families. Action in respect of the proper treatment of cultural and religious sites and co-operation in the search for missing persons are matters that the British Government take very seriously indeed. We have given particular support to the work of the European Union’s Committee on Missing Persons and we donate to its annual budget. As hon. Members know, the CMP has so far found just under 700 sets of human remains, both Greek and Turkish Cypriot.[Official Report, 23 November 2010, Vol. 519, c. 2MC.]
Mr Lidington
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not, because I am getting very near the end of my time.
I welcome the commitment of the Cypriot leaders from both communities to the current negotiations. Their meeting with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon this Thursday is a positive step, but there is a great deal of further work to do to maintain the momentum and to ensure that the important opportunity to achieve a strong and lasting peace is not lost. These are different from previous negotiations. It is now in the hands of the leaders themselves to reach agreement. I agree that there can be no arbitration or tight deadlines, but a purely open-ended process will not benefit the Cypriots themselves. I urge all parties to engage positively and flexibly in negotiations and to grasp the opportunity to secure the benefits that all communities in Cyprus so richly deserve.
Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (Ratification of Treaties)
David Lidington Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 Commencement Order No.3 was made today 11 November, 2010. This brings into force part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRaG Act) which deals with the ratification of treaties. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has overall responsibility for the conclusion of treaties, and leads on policy in this respect. Part 2 of the CRaG Act is the new basis for treaty scrutiny by Parliament, and replaces the former constitutional practice dating from 1924, known as “The Ponsonby Rule”, with statutory provisions.
The effects of part 2 of the Act may be summarised as follows:
Section 20 provides that a treaty that is subject to ratification or its equivalent, is to be published and laid before Parliament for a period of 21 sitting days, during which both Houses have the opportunity to resolve that the treaty should not be ratified. If the 21 sitting days expire with no such resolution being passed by either House, the Government can proceed to ratify the treaty. It also defines the legal effect of a negative vote by either House.
Section 21 provides a mechanism for Parliament to request extensions to the 21 sitting day period, in blocks of up to 21 sitting days, at the discretion of the relevant Minister.
Section 22 provides an “alternative procedure” in exceptional cases where a Minister is of the opinion that it should be ratified without following the procedures in section 20.
Section 23 makes provision for classes of treaties that are to be dealt with differently because they are scrutinised by other means, notably—(i) under the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 or the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008, (ii) agreements and arrangements relating to taxation, or (iii) because scrutiny of them is not for the UK Parliament that is, treaties concluded by overseas territories, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man as authorised by HMG.
Section 24 requires that treaties laid before Parliament under section 20 shall be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum explaining the provisions of the treaty, the reasons for HMG seeking ratification of the treaty, and other relevant information.
Section 25 defines “treaty” and “ratification” for the purposes of the Act.
The Act changes the Ponsonby rule in several respects:
Part 2 gives legal effect to a vote against ratification in the Commons or Lords. It prevents the Government from moving immediately to ratify a treaty if either House votes against ratification.
If the Government nevertheless wish to proceed to ratification, the Minister must lay a statement giving reasons why. If the Commons voted against, a further 21 sitting day period must expire before ratification can take place. If the Commons vote against ratification during this subsequent 21 sitting days, the Government are prevented from ratifying the treaty. However, a statement can be laid more than once and therefore this process can continue. If the Lords vote against ratification, but the Commons do not, then a ministerial statement must be laid before Parliament explaining why the treaty should nevertheless be ratified.
The definition of “sitting days” is limited to days on which both Houses sit.
Part 2 also provides that the Minister can extend the sitting period by 21 sitting days or less (and votes against ratification will continue to have legal effect in this period).
Part 2 also requires the Minister, if the “alternative procedure” in clause 23 is being used in exceptional circumstances, to lay a statement giving reasons.[Official Report, 13 December 2010, Vol. 520, c. 3MC.]
Guidance on the ratification of treaties and part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 is published by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on its website (www.fco.gov.uk/treaty).
Oral Answers to Questions
David Lidington Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
4. What recent discussions he has had with the Government of Turkey on the deployment of Turkish troops in Northern Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
British Ministers raise the Cyprus settlement process with our Turkish counterparts at every opportunity. I last did so with both Turkey’s Foreign Minister and Minister for Europe on 23 October. The presence of Turkish troops in Cyprus is one of the issues that will need to be resolved as part of a comprehensive settlement.
Mr Offord
I inform the House that I have registered an interest, as I attended the Morphou rally just a month ago. In addition to the religious and cultural destruction suffered by orthodox churches in the northern part of Cyprus, is the Minister aware of the desecration of graves in towns such as Morphou by the siting of army bases and the parking of fire tenders on Cypriot graveyards? What pressure can he bring to bear on the Turkish Government to stop such actions and return those sacred sites to their former use?
Mr Lidington
It is important that the Turkish Government lend their full weight to the negotiating process that is under way between the two Cypriot communities under the auspices of the United Nations special envoy, and the issues to which my hon. Friend has referred need to be considered as part of those discussions.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
I hear what the Minister has said about the representations made to Turkey, but has he made any representations to either of the two community leaders, the President of Cyprus and the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community? What extra efforts are the British Government going to make, knowing that the UN has invited both leaders to go to New York? What extra efforts will be made to ensure that we have a proper, comprehensive peace settlement?
Mr Lidington
At both ministerial and official level, we are urging the leaders of the Greek Cypriot community, President Christofias, and of the Turkish Cypriot community, Mr Eroglu, to demonstrate leadership, flexibility and a willingness to compromise in the interests of everybody living on the island of Cyprus. We welcome the decision by both leaders to attend the meeting with Ban Ki-moon on 18 November. We remain in very close contact not just with the Governments of Cyprus and of Turkey, but with Mr Downer, the UN special envoy, and we will lend whatever support we are able to in the hope of bringing the negotiations to a successful conclusion.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
Will the Minister for Europe make it absolutely clear that the British Government’s position is to continue to seek a united, peaceful Cyprus for both communities, and that as one of the three guarantor powers we, with Turkey and Greece, will lead that effort at the United Nations and in this country, and reject the idea that there might be an acceptable settlement that divides the island between the two communities?
Mr Lidington
Our treaty obligations, as the hon. Gentleman implies, require us to prohibit any action which might lead to the partition of Cyprus or its union with another country. We remain committed to a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation where there is political equality and respect for the human and cultural rights of all.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
5. What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on his Department’s promotion of trade and industry.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
In 2011, our priorities for the European Union will be to ensure, first, that it can seek to deliver economic growth, through action to increase trade, competitiveness and jobs; and secondly, that it demonstrates effective control over its own spending.
Pamela Nash
I thank the Minister for that answer, but can he explain to the House why the European Parliament’s lead budget negotiator has stated that the EU spending increase is likely to be at least 4.5%, when the Prime Minister is still publicly stating that there will be a 2.9% cap?
Mr Lidington
I think the MEP concerned is demonstrating a certain amount of wishful thinking. Our position remains that we are not prepared to accept anything beyond 2.9%, and the Prime Minister was able to win the support of 12 other Heads of Government for that position at the recent European summit.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
At a time when the European Commission’s accounts have not been signed off for the 16th year running, would that not be a decent priority for the Government to raise in the coming year?
Mr Lidington
It certainly forms part of the efforts that we need to make to ensure much more effective budgeting and expenditure control by all the European Union institutions. As my hon. Friend knows, part of the problem is not simply fraud; it is the over-complicated, bureaucratic nature of many European Union rules. That root cause needs to be addressed.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
May I suggest to the Minister that our priority should be to seek the abandonment of the common fisheries policy, which is universally regarded as nonsense and has been a major factor in the depletion of fishing stocks in the North sea and elsewhere?
Mr Lidington
My right hon. and hon. Friends from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be trying to ensure in the forthcoming fisheries negotiations that we reform the fisheries policy in a way that delivers the proper conservation of fish stocks and the marine environment.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Could the Minister reconfirm that it is a priority of the coalition Government to veto any transfer of powers to Brussels by treaty, and thereby also confirm that there will never be a need for a referendum on Europe during this Parliament?
Mr Lidington
It is certainly the policy not just of my hon. Friend’s party and mine but of the coalition Government as a whole that there should be no transfer of powers or competence to the European Union by way of treaty change for the duration of this Parliament, up to 2015. We also intend to introduce legislation to ensure that any future British Government would need to seek the approval of the British people through a referendum if they ever sought to impose such a transfer of powers or competencies.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
14. What his most recent assessment is of the political situation in Moldova; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
Early parliamentary elections will be held in Moldova on 28 November 2010. It is important that these elections are held to internationally accepted democratic standards. High standards of democracy, human rights and media freedom are essential for Moldova to continue to move closer to the mainstream of the European family of nations, and the UK is playing a full role in monitoring those elections.
Alun Michael
I thank the Minister for that reply, which is encouraging about the processes. Does he agree that it is important that we help to consolidate the democratic processes in Moldova, and help to resolve the problem of Transnistria? Does he encourage British MPs to engage with our counterparts in the Moldovan Parliament towards those ends?
Mr Lidington
I certainly encourage colleagues on both sides of the House to engage in the way that the right hon. Gentleman, who is vice-chairman of the all-party group on Moldova, suggests. When I visited Moldova recently, I was struck by the courage and determination of the democratic politicians there. I think it is important for all parties in this House to demonstrate our support for Moldovan democracy.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
Is it not one of the great successes of the last 20 years that countries from the former Soviet Union in the east of Europe, such as Moldova, have moved from the dead hand of communism towards democracy? If Moldova ends up with a coalition Government after its forthcoming election, will the British Government have any particular expertise to offer them?
Mr Lidington
It is always dangerous for one country to try to export exactly its own way of doing things to a different nation, but we will do whatever we can to address the continued impasse with Transnistria, and to entrench democracy and the rule of law in Moldova.
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
T2. Now that legal routes seem to have been exhausted following the disappointing High Court judgment on investment scams in Northern Cyprus, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Minister will take up the matter, and will he meet me, my constituent Sandra Kacinski and other victims to discuss it?
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend and his constituent, as well as other colleagues, to discuss this issue, which we take seriously.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
T7. Although I fully understand our treaty obligations on Cyprus, and I wish next week’s talks with Ban Ki-moon well, will the Foreign Secretary acknowledge the reality that there continues to be de facto partition, from which the Greek Cypriot side benefits and with which it is comfortable, but which leaves the Turkish Cypriots in isolated limbo? Does he agree that that situation cannot go on as it is?
Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Foreign Secretary will be aware of the multilateral surveillance procedures for EU budgets, which apply to all member states, whether they are in the euro or not. Is he aware of Com. (2010)526, which makes it plain that we have to provide more financial information to the European Union, whether we are in the eurozone or not?
Mr Lidington
When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took part in the taskforce, he ensured that we would not need to supply anything to the European Commission that had not been given to Parliament first or that the Commission would be unable to find through the intelligent use of Google. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has anything to be afraid of.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
T5. I am pleased that the Prime Minister will raise human rights issues while he is in China. I hope this is a sign of a Government who take international human rights seriously and who want to have a truly ethical foreign policy. Will the Prime Minister also take the opportunity to talk to the Chinese about the sale of weapons to Sudan and ensure that they are not used there to cause human rights problems and further the conflict?
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
T9. Can the Minister tell us how the Van Rompuy economic governance proposals will help to ensure that European economic crises are better managed in future so that we are not all taken unawares again?
Mr Lidington
The taskforce conclusions are intended to provide a framework for stability and decent economic governance in the eurozone so that never again are all European economies taken by surprise by the sort of financial collapse that we saw in certain southern European economies about 18 months ago. It is profoundly in the interests of the UK that the eurozone should be strong and stable, given the interdependence of their economic interests and ours.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that one of the less well known but most insidious aspects of the blockade of Gaza is that Israel threatens to shoot any Palestinian considered to be near the Israeli border? Israel defines 17% of the entire territory of the Gaza strip as constituting nearness to that border, while 17 of the 22 Palestinians killed have been killed in the area. What can the Foreign Secretary do to get Israel to see sense on that issue?