EU Documents

David Lidington Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

In the interest of the House and on behalf of Government I am depositing in the Library a full list of explanatory memorandums submitted by the Government from 12 April to 9 June. This covers the period of Dissolution and the subsequent weeks during which the parliamentary scrutiny Committees have not met.

I will also deposit a full list of EU documents deposited by the Government in the Library of the House during the same period.

I would invite members to examine both these lists and to raise any questions of policy in the usual way or via correspondence. It is vital that the House has a chance to scrutinise the work of Government and to consider policy. This is particularly true of our EU business.

As noted by the Foreign Secretary to the House on 3 June, we are looking to improve parliamentary scrutiny of decision-making in Europe and ahead of ministerial Councils.

UK Parliamentary Sovereignty and the EU

David Lidington Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) on securing this debate, and also express my sincere condolences to him on the recent death of his mother. He clearly set out his views on sovereignty. In the last Parliament, he championed the United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill to allow for further debate and consideration of such matters. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are now considering a United Kingdom sovereignty Bill, and the programme for government agreed by both parties in the coalition states:

“We will examine the case for a Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority remains with Parliament.”

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) pointed out, the common law is clear; Parliament is sovereign. European Union law takes effect in this country only by virtue of an Act of Parliament. The European Communities Act 1972 states that European Union law should have primacy. That means national laws, including Acts of Parliament, must be interpreted in such a way as to comply with EU rules. Where the two are incompatible, UK law is disapplied. The 1972 Act, therefore, gives EU law primacy over UK law for so long as that Act remains in force. However, as successive Governments and the courts have recognised, such measures do not impact on sovereignty, because it is always open to Parliament to amend or repeal an Act; it is Parliament’s choice that EU law has primacy, and it can, if it chooses, change its mind. I do not want to underplay the enormous political consequences that would flow from such a decision, but those are the constitutional facts, and they were confirmed in the most trenchant language in the metric martyrs’ case in 2002 when the courts ruled that

“Parliament cannot bind its successors by stipulating against repeal, wholly or partly, of the [1972 Act]…there is nothing in the [1972 Act] which allows the Court of Justice, or any other institutions of the EU, to touch or qualify the conditions of Parliament’s legislative supremacy in the United Kingdom. Not because the legislature chose not to allow it; because by our law it could not allow it…being sovereign, it cannot abandon its sovereignty.”

The Government are now exploring how they can ensure that the fundamental principle of parliamentary sovereignty is upheld. They want to assess whether the common law provides sufficient ongoing and unassailable protection for that principle. It is an important process, and it is only right that sufficient time is allowed for discussions within Government and for appropriate advice to be taken. Once the Government have decided on whether there should be a Bill to reinforce the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, we will make an appropriate statement to the House.

[Mr Cash]

My hon. Friend the Minister will know that I have spoken on both this subject and the metric martyrs’ case on many occasions. Does he not accept that we voted against the Lisbon treaty, which is a consolidating treaty and incorporates all the treaties? In addition to that, the issue of primacy is already clearly stated in Costa v. ENEL and in other cases. They say that the European Court of Justice asserts its primacy over our constitution. I hope that the Minister will come on to that, because that is where a big problem starts to get even worse.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend will have to forgive me if I say that the kind of questions that he asks are precisely those that the Government will wish to consider in the exercise that I have just described—when they come to a view as to whether we should introduce primary legislation to reinforce the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. So far, as he knows, the British courts have upheld the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. We want to ensure that such a principle is unassailable and ongoing.

[Chris Bryant]

Before the Minister’s speech, we were told by the Government that a committee will be set up to do such work. Now, however, he seems to be saying that there will not be a committee, but just a general process of cogitation, regurgitation and general thinking. Does he describe that as the backburner or the long grass?

[Mr Lidington]

It is certainly not the long grass. The work has already started, but it requires proper consideration. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s impatience and eagerness for an outcome to this exercise, but given that we are only a month into the new Administration, he will have to bear with us a little longer before we come to a conclusion. I can assure him that as soon as a decision is taken, we will make a statement to Parliament, so that he and other hon. Members can question and challenge us on the outcome of that debate within Government.

The Government have been clear about what we intend to propose in legislation at the earliest opportunity. We have agreed that there should be no further transfer of sovereignty or powers from the United Kingdom to the EU over the course of this Parliament, and that commitment is written into the coalition programme. The Government are also committed to increasing democratic and parliamentary control, scrutiny and accountability in relation to EU decision-making. We will introduce a Bill to ensure that the British Parliament and the British people have more of a say, and that will increase the democratic accountability of the European Union. The Bill that was listed in the Gracious Speech has two main elements: a referendum lock and greater parliamentary control over the use of the so-called passerelle or ratchet clauses in the Lisbon treaty.

Let me describe briefly what we propose in terms of a referendum lock, although my hon. Friend the Member for Stone and the House will appreciate that very detailed work is now going on to determine the precise language of the Bill. Any proposed future treaty that transferred competences or areas of power from the UK to the EU would be subject to a referendum. No Government would be able to pass more powers to the EU unless the British people had agreed that they should be able to do so and no Government would be able to join the euro unless the British people had agreed that they should do so.

My hon. Friend said that there might be an attempt to bring about treaty change to create some form of economic governance in light of the current financial crisis. I can say to him that there is no consensus so far even in the euro area that there should be a further treaty. Any EU treaty, even one that applied only to the euro area, would need the unanimous agreement of all 27 member states, including the UK. Each of those 27 member states would have a veto. Even in the case of a hypothetical treaty that the British Government were prepared to endorse, the fact remains that any treaty that proposed to transfer powers from the UK to the institutions of the EU would require a referendum for ratification, under the terms of the programme for Government that the coalition has set out.

We also plan to change the law so that any Government would be required to pass primary legislation before they could give final agreement to any of the so-called ratchet clauses. There is a variety of those clauses; there is no easy definition of a ratchet clause. Some provide for modification of the treaties without using the ordinary revision procedure and some are one-way options that are already in the treaties, whereby EU member states can decide together to exercise those options, and which allow existing EU powers to expand. There are options, for example, in the common foreign and security policy, in justice and home affairs, and in environment policy. Besides the provisions on primary legislation, in our Bill we will also ensure that the use of any major ratchet clause that amounts to the transfer of an area of power from the UK to the EU would be subject to a referendum.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone and the hon. Members for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) spoke about the inadequacy of our current system of parliamentary scrutiny of European legislation. The Government plan to improve the scrutiny of EU decision making, and getting the scrutiny system right is a very high priority for us. I am currently examining ways of strengthening the existing system of parliamentary scrutiny and I am keen to discuss proposals with the new Scrutiny Committees of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, once they are formed. I hope that they will be formed in the very near future.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

There has been an honest division of view about how parliamentary scrutiny should be reformed. The hon. Member for Stone talked about having all the debates on scrutiny open. I took the other view, because we receive very valuable advice from Officers of this House—honest and frank advice, which I may say is often sympathetic to my view as well—and the Officers would not be able to provide such advice if the debates on scrutiny were carried out in public.

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman makes a clear point that we in Government and the House as a whole will want to bear in mind when it comes to taking decisions about the scrutiny process. It is also important that we look at the practice of scrutiny in other EU member states. I had a meeting last week with the chairman of the Swedish scrutiny committee, and we are exploring the models of scrutiny that are in use elsewhere in the EU, to see whether there are any aspects of those processes that we might usefully adapt for our own purposes here.

[Chris Bryant]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. I sensitively suggest to him that most other member states conduct scrutiny remarkably worse than we do, which is quite a thing to be able to say.

In addition, all I would say to the Minister is that we still do not have the European Scrutiny Committee set up. For the life of me, I cannot see why the chairmanship of that Committee was not established when the other Select Committees that we have already elected were established. Also, I hope that a new scrutiny reserve resolution will be tabled fairly soon. I urge the hon. Gentleman to try and make this issue as much a matter for the House as for the Foreign Office, because it should be a matter for the whole of the House to decide on.

[Mr Lidington]

I take very seriously the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. He also asked me about the new Cabinet Committee on European Affairs. That Committee is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and the deputy chairman is the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. It has met; it met for the first time last week. However, I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman by saying that it does not meet, and does not intend to meet, in public. There is no difference in that regard to the system for any Cabinet Committee. Members of the devolved Administrations are not members of the Cabinet Committee on European Affairs but they continue to meet under the aegis of the Joint Ministerial Committee on Europe, to prepare for the European Councils each year.

[Chris Bryant]

Waste of time.

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman says that, but we want to make our relationships with the devolved Administrations work a lot better than they used to during his time in office; that is one of the differences that the new Government intend to make. We want to turn not only those formal meetings but our regular contacts with our colleagues in the devolved Administrations into something that informs the development of our approach to European affairs. Now, having said that, I must press on.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone asked questions about a number of detailed issues and I want to reply very quickly to those questions. So far, there are no proposals at all on the table that would require the UK or any other member state to submit its budget plans to the Commission in advance of informing Parliament, and my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor have all made it clear that we would be utterly opposed to any such proposal.

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of some of the current proposals on financial services, which are with the European institutions now. In particular, the de Larosière package on financial supervision is a matter of primary importance to the interests of this country. Yesterday, in both the formal proceedings of the General Affairs Council and in bilateral conversations with some of my counterparts from other countries, I said that we wanted to see the unanimous agreement that was reached on the proposal at ECOFIN in December 2009 maintained in any future drafts of that proposal.

The hon. Member for Luton North asked about agricultural policy reform. The Government remain committed to a policy of common agricultural policy reform that would see an end to the direct subsidy of production, a reduction in the external tariffs on foodstuffs, bringing them down to the same level of external tariffs that apply on other goods, and an end to the practice of dumping EU produce on the markets of developing countries, which undercuts those countries’ own farmers.

A number of hon. Members spoke about excess EU regulation. I know that both the Cabinet Committee on European Affairs, which I am a member of, and the Regulatory Sub-Committee of the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs will be keeping a very close eye on that issue. Excess EU regulation comes not only from Europe itself. Too often, there is gold-plating in Whitehall of European legislation, which is something that we are also determined to guard against.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone said one thing that I will quarrel with him about—in a good-humoured manner—and it was about EU enlargement. I disagree with him on this issue. I think that the enlargement of the EU has entrenched political stability, the rule of law and democratic institutions in Spain, Portugal, Greece and in central and eastern Europe. It is actually a tremendous achievement on the part of the EU. If one contrasts the picture today in those parts of our continent with what we saw in those same countries in the 1920s and 1930s, I think that the advantages and the strengths of the EU’s approach are demonstrated.

My hon. Friend rightly said that many people in Europe are frightened, angry and disillusioned. That is why we need to push forward a positive British agenda, to get European people back to work, to free up markets, to enhance free trade with the rest of the world and to demonstrate an advance towards a cleaner and greener European economy. At the same time, we need to champion vigorously the interests of the UK within the EU, to increase accountability to the British people and to increase the democratic legitimacy of the decisions that Ministers take in Europe, ensuring that it is the people who can take the final decision on any future transfer of power from this country to European institutions.

General Affairs Council and Foreign Affairs Council

David Lidington Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

The General Affairs Council and Foreign Affairs Council will be held on 14 June in Luxembourg. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will represent the UK with the Secretary of State for International Development at the respective sessions of Foreign and Development Ministers. I will also attend.

The agenda items are as follows:

Foreign Affairs Council (FAC): Foreign Ministers

Iran

Ministers will discuss EU sanctions as part of the dual-track strategy of engagement and pressure, in light of the likely passage of a UN Security Council resolution in week of 7 June. Ministers may also discuss developments in Iran following the anniversary of last year’s June elections.

Western Balkans

Foreign Ministers will discuss the western Balkans, in the light of the Sarajevo high-level meeting on June 2 between EU and western Balkan Foreign Ministers, which the Foreign Secretary attended. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Chief Prosecutor Brammertz is expected to brief Ministers ahead of his six-monthly report to the UN Security Council. Ministers are likely to review the issue of ratification of Serbia’s stabilisation and association agreement with the European Union.

Somalia / Piracy

Ministers will receive an update from the High Representative on her visit to Kenya, Tanzania and Seychelles of 18 to 21 May. Ministers’ discussions are likely to focus on support to regional counter-piracy efforts and strengthening capability for prosecuting pirates.

Middle East Peace Process

Ministers will discuss recent developments on the middle east peace process, the Gaza flotilla incident and international efforts to improve the situation in Gaza. This may include discussions of an independent investigation of events and how restrictions on access might be lifted. Ministers will also discuss the wider peace process, including the American-led proximity talks and their progress.

Sudan

Ministers will discuss the situation in Sudan, particularly with a view to the January 2011 referendum on self-determination for south Sudan as part of the 2005 comprehensive peace agreement (CPA). The Council will also discuss the conflict in Darfur. Ministers will focus on the EU’s engagement on Sudan going forward to support peaceful completion of the CPA, whatever the decision of south Sudan in the referendum. The Council is also likely to stress that efforts must continue to find a political solution to the Darfur conflict and the importance of improving security and humanitarian access in Darfur.

Child labour

Ministers will discuss Council conclusions on the Commission staff working document on combating child labour. The conclusions set out a number of measures the EU should take to combat child labour, including through political dialogue and multilateral affairs; corporate social responsibility; public procurement; and trade incentives.

Corfu Process

The OSCE-led initiative on European security might be discussed in the light of the joint Merkel-Medvedev proposals on strengthening the EU-Russia security policy relationship.

Cuba

Ministers will discuss the annual evaluation of the EU common position on Cuba, and assess progress made in the EU-Cuba political dialogue. Ministers will also agree Council conclusions on Cuba which will centre on the continuing relevance of the common position, and may call on the Cuban Government to do more to improve the human rights situation in Cuba.

Haiti - Disaster response lessons learned

Ministers will discuss the EU’s response to Haiti. The meeting may also generate further debate on EU disaster response structures and resources.

Any Other Business: Georgia

Georgia is on the agenda at the request of Lithuania. Ministers may discuss the recent local elections (30 May), which the OSCE/ODIHR observation mission noted marked “evident progress towards meeting OSCE and Council of Europe commitments”. There may also be discussion of Georgia’s relations with the EU: a visa facilitation agreement will be signed this month; negotiations on an association agreement are due to start in July; a review of the Georgian action plan for engagement with Abkhazia and South Ossetia; and the European Union monitoring mission’s (EUMM) mandate is due for renewal in the autumn.

FAC: Development Ministers

EU Development Ministers will discuss the following agenda items:

Somalia / Piracy

As with Foreign Ministers, Baroness Ashton will brief on her visit to the region of 18 to 21 May. The discussion is likely to focus on taking a comprehensive approach to all of Somalia’s political, security and development challenges and enhancing co-ordination with the wider international community.

Millennium Development Goals

Ministers will be asked to agree conclusions on a common EU position on the millennium development goals (MDGs) ahead of the UN high-level review meeting on the MDGs in New York in September 2010. Ministers are likely to discuss some of the key issues in the conclusions, most notably levels of official development assistance (ODA) commitments. The UK is committed to supporting an action-orientated and ambitious outcome at the UN Summit.

Gender Equality and Development

This is likely to be a general discussion, focused on the “Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Development, EU Plan of Action 2010-2015” which will be attached as an annex to the Council conclusions on the MDGs. The UK has been involved in the drafting of the action plan, which seeks to establish a practical framework to accelerate the achievement of the MDGs, especially MDG 3 (gender) and MDG 5 (maternal health).

General Affairs Council (GAC)

The GAC will present and discuss the draft Council conclusions for the June European Council (JEC) on 17 June which will focus on the European economy, financial regulation in advance of the G20 Toronto summit, millennium development goals and climate change. Economic issues are likely to dominate the European Council: the presidency will be seeking to finalise the Europe 2020 strategy and leaders will want to discuss reforms to economic governance in the wake of recent turbulence.

The Council is expected to endorse conclusions of the 3 to 4 June JHA Council by welcoming progress in implementing the European pact on immigration and asylum. The GAC will also consider potential external items for discussion at the JEC including possible EU sanctions on Iran, following a new UN Security Council resolution.

Strategic Report on the Implementation of Cohesion Policy Programmes

The Commissioners for Regional Policy and Employment and Social Affairs will present the strategic report on the implementation of cohesion policy programmes, published on 31 March 2010. As this is a new requirement for the 2007-13 period, the presidency initiated Council conclusions on the report which are to be adopted. The conclusions invite the Commission to explore possibilities for a better co-ordinated and simplified policy and note that cohesion policy will need to support the Europe 2020 strategy and should continue to foster competitiveness, innovation, employment and economic, social and territorial cohesion in the European Union.

European Citizens’ Initiative

There will be a discussion of the Commission’s dossier on the European citizens’ initiative. The Government remain concerned that no impact assessment has been carried out with which to better inform the proposed regulation.

2010 Forum for Outermost Europe

The Commissioner for regional policy will present the results of the 2010 forum for outermost Europe to the GAC. Following an initiative of the Spanish presidency, Council conclusions on the outermost regions are likely to be adopted. The conclusions encourage a renewal of the strategy for the outermost regions and a consideration of the role of the outermost regions in EU policies, in particular Europe 2020.

European Affairs

David Lidington Excerpts

Thursday 3rd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I thank the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for his welcome to me on my first appearance in my new ministerial capacity in a European Union debate. If he looks at the repeated comments of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in opposition and since we came to office, he will see that, although we have said that we hope for a better relationship with Russia than has been the case in recent years, we do not regard it as something to be entered into lightly. We certainly expect Russia to abide by her international obligations, and events such as the occupation of territory, which is legitimately part of Georgia, are unacceptable. We are all too aware of the implications of the Litvinenko case and Moscow’s refusal so far to respond. Although our approach to Moscow will be positive—we hope for Russia’s co-operation on important global issues, such as counter-terrorist efforts and countering the threat of nuclear proliferation from Iran and other countries—it will also be cautious.

The hon. Gentleman will be all too aware of the complexities of the dispute in Cyprus, but the Government are intent on being energetic in supporting the relevant parties in seeking an agreement leading to the reunification of the island. That would be the best thing for both communities.

[Ms Gisela Stuart]

What is the British Government’s position if the United Nations says that Cyprus is a European problem and we need to sort it out?

[Mr Lidington]

With respect to the hon. Lady, we are not in that position yet. Talks have resumed between the Government in Nicosia and the representatives of the Turkish Cypriots, and I greatly hope that they have a more positive outcome than has been the case in the past couple of years.

I am with the hon. Member for Rhondda on Macedonia. It is important that we get a resolution to the dispute between Skopje and Athens. From our point of view, the sooner that Macedonia can be seen to be clearly on the path towards full EU membership, the better.

The hon. Gentleman needs to be careful when giving lectures about referendums and seeking popular consent. It is fair knockabout for him to say when responding to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) that he detected some illogicality in the Government’s approach. There is complete logic in his approach to referendums: he does not want any, in any shape or form, on anything to do with the European Union’s future powers. That makes his position different from that which the two coalition parties have adopted and embodied in their agreement. We believe that power resides ultimately with the people, who should have the final say on any further initiative to transfer powers from the House and the British Government to Brussels.

[Mr Davidson]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I must press on.

There were 15 maiden speeches and I compliment all those colleagues and Opposition Members who spoke for the first time today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) demonstrated early on that he aims to copy the independent streak of his immediate predecessor. He will be a doughty champion for his constituents, but he also spoke wisely about the economic advantages that he sees his constituents gaining from this country’s continued membership of the EU.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby) spoke about the ups and downs of the Anglo-French relationship over the centuries. Like many hon. Members on both sides of the House, he gave us a kind of Cook’s tour of the best tourist sites in his constituency. I felt I was getting the benefit of a top-quality travel documentary programme condensed into a parliamentary debate.

The hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) spoke of the importance of European trade to businesses in her constituency. What came through above all in her speech was her sense of pride in, and affection for, the area where she grew up and that she now represents. I was delighted to hear from her that Harold Wilson could be said to have started his career in her constituency. Of course, when he became Prime Minister, he fell so in love with Chequers and Buckinghamshire that he ended up retiring to Great Kingshill just outside my constituency. It is something of a habit for former Labour leaders. Clem Attlee did exactly the same thing—when he accepted an earldom, he took the secondary title of Viscount Prestwood, in honour of the village in Buckinghamshire where he lived—and now Mr Tony Blair has also decided to make his home in that most conservative of counties. The estate agents in my constituency scan the post every morning for the envelope postmarked Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) spoke of the sense of public disaffection from the EU. Awareness of that is very much driving the Government’s policy towards the Europe Bill, which we hope to introduce later in this Session. He also said that he wanted the Government to be proactive, positive and a friendly partner within Europe. With the addition of the words “clear-eyed and hard-headed,” that is exactly how the Government intend our policy to be. It is customary to say that we hope to hear from those who have made their maiden speeches frequently and in the near future. With the lavish praise that he bestowed upon the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), my hon. Friend can be fairly confident that he will be called again before too long.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) spoke of the need for jobs and investment in the north-east, and made a very wise paean for her local media, which I am sure will ensure that her speech gets the coverage in her region that she hopes for.

The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) spoke about the importance of Nissan, jobs and economic growth in her constituency, but also warmly of Chris Mullin, a former colleague whom we all miss. He had no airs and graces—probably very few ex-Ministers, when penning their memoirs, would actually write about an incident in which officials forgot to remove a post-it note that they had inscribed, “This is a very low priority. Perhaps we could pass it to Chris Mullin.”

My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) spoke about the diverse community in his constituency and the diverse recreations in which they take part. However, if I may say, I thought he was hiding his light under a bushel. I feel that a man who has rowed the Atlantic could surely emerge in next year’s Atherstone ball game at 5 pm holding the ball—he will probably be the only one remaining upright in Atherstone village. I look forward to him telling us of that achievement in future years.

The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) spoke with great passion about what led her into politics. I suspect that she and I will have many disagreements, but anybody who listened to her speech, whatever their political view, will have felt encouraged and inspired that they too might one day be able to make a difference. Her determination and perseverance are things that all of us can admire, and she is very welcome here.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) spoke of the urgency of tackling the United Kingdom’s deficit in public finances. The hon. Member for Rhondda was unfair to my hon. Friend, because he reminded us that it is possible for someone to feel that they are culturally part of Europe—to feel an affinity with everything that European civilisation has produced—but also to feel that they do not want further political integration within the European Union. We need to accept that Europe is now united and at peace, but also that it is diverse. The trick for Europe is to recognise that diversity as well as its unity.

The hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) spoke in particular about the importance of education to his constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) set some sort of record by managing to work in references to both Iron Maiden and the Carry On films in the course of a single speech.

The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) enticed us with visions of the beaches of east Durham, but spoke seriously about the need for more employment and investment in the north-east of England. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) explained to me finally what lies behind the big brown signs that say “Historic Dartford”, which have baffled me every time I have visited friends in his constituency. When I am commuting between London and Brussels, I will think of my hon. Friend as the train passes through Ebbsfleet, and I shall know exactly whose constituents I am close to.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) spoke about a particular constituency case. I can tell him that consular staff at the Foreign Office have visited his constituent and they have been in touch with the family. We think that in the first instance it is for Mr Shaw’s lawyers to come to our officials with the evidence that gives rise to their concern that the trial was unfair so that we can consider their case and determine how we might take it forward. It would be most appropriate for the judicial proceedings to run their course first, and for any direct intervention from the British Government to follow once those have been concluded—

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I suggest to my hon. Friend that, rather than intervene—as I am very short of time—he could perhaps have a meeting with me or the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who is responsible for south Asia, to discuss the case in more detail. We will be happy to listen to his concerns.

Finally, but not least, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) spoke with great eloquence and warmth about the glories of his constituency. He reminded us that he would not let us get away with ignoring the problem of coastal erosion. I can see that he, too, will be a formidable champion for his constituents. All 15 maiden speakers are welcome and all have had a successful first outing today. We look forward to hearing from them again.

In view of the lack of time, I propose to write to those hon. Members who have raised specific questions, especially the former Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, and let them have a considered response, instead of half a sentence now. On the Government’s approach to Europe generally, we see no contradiction between being vigorous in defending and asserting the national interests of the United Kingdom, and playing an active and activist role within the European Union, in pursuit both of our national interests through the institutions of the European Union and the common advantage of European countries, where our interests coincide.

I believe that part of a successful European policy will be to demonstrate to our own people, here in the United Kingdom, that the decisions taken on their behalf by British Ministers in the institutions of the European Union will be more accountable. That is why we will press forward with our referendums Bill and look to improve dramatically our efforts to scrutinise European legislation in the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of European affairs.

Christopher Rochester

David Lidington Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on securing this debate. When I received the detailed briefing earlier today, it became clear that he has been the doughtiest champion imaginable for his constituents. I have totted up that he has written nearly 40 letters, not only to the Foreign Office but to a number of other Government Departments and to the Greek authorities, on behalf of the Cummings family. It is greatly to his credit as a constituency representative that he has stood up for the interests of his constituents in what, for them, must have been the most appalling experience imaginable. I am particularly grateful to him for his kind words about the staff at the British embassy in Athens, and about two Foreign Office officials in particular. I will certainly ensure that those compliments are passed on to the two members of staff he named.

Christopher’s family lost a son in the most tragic circumstances. I am conscious that, while I want again to express my personal sympathy and that of the Government to the family for their loss, there is nothing that any of us in the House can say that will heal the pain that they felt at the time and that they must still feel 10 years on, given that the truth about their son’s death remains unknown.

When a tragic death occurs overseas, the cultural differences, the differences in the legal systems, and the different approaches that the foreign authorities employ can be difficult to comprehend. That can make the grief felt by the family all the more acute, and I am conscious that the family’s pain as a result of Christopher’s death has been compounded by the challenges that they have faced in their pursuit of justice against those whom they see as responsible, and by the confusion over the fate of Christopher’s left kidney.

After a series of court cases, the Greek and United Kingdom authorities now agree that Christopher might have survived if he had received adequate medical treatment following his fall. This was confirmed following the retrial in Rhodes on 5 February 2008 of the medical staff who had been treating Christopher before his death. The court found one of the medical assistants guilty and sentenced him to 15 months imprisonment, suspended for 3 years. The other two accused were acquitted by the court.

When Christopher’s body was repatriated, the post-mortem examination here in Britain revealed that his body had been returned without his left kidney. At the family’s request, our consulate in Rhodes helped to arrange the return of that organ to the UK. It was after the organ had been returned here that the DNA testing of the kidney requested by Christopher’s family revealed that the wrong kidney appeared to have been sent by the Greek hospital. I can only begin to grasp the additional distress that this must have caused to Christopher’s mother and to other members of his family.

As a result of this apparent error in repatriating Christopher’s kidney, we are continuing to challenge the Greek authorities’ identification of it. There was a long impasse between the authorities in this country and those in Greece. On the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Durham and of Christopher’s family, the Greek authorities finally agreed to an independent DNA test to be carried out in a third country. That test is due to be carried out in the National Institute of Criminology in Belgium.

In order to complete this test, the Greek authorities have told us that three samples of tissue are required. Two have already been obtained, and the Greek authorities say that the third needs to come from Christopher’s remains. Despite our representations to explain his family’s distress at this request, the Greek authorities have maintained this stance. It is a testimony to the strength and perseverance of Christopher’s family that, despite their quite understandable misgivings, they have agreed to the exhumation of Christopher’s body.

I have been informed that the Greek Ministry of Justice has more recently, through mutual legal assistance arrangements, requested the help of our Home Office to enable this work to be done. Very recently, the Home Office received confirmation from the Greek Ministry of Justice that its request had been made in order to assist with a criminal investigation, and I have been advised that the Home Office is now in discussions with our Ministry of Justice as to how this request can be taken forward.

Although I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that we are awaiting further news from those two Departments about the next steps they intend to take so that the sample can be taken and then sent to the Belgian laboratory for testing, I can assure him and the House that the Greek request is being treated by those two Departments as a priority. I shall ensure that this debate, the hon. Gentleman’s words and the continuing distress of Christopher’s family are drawn to the attention of my colleagues in both the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice so that due urgency really is given to this case. The family have waited for far too long. I also plan to write to the Greek Minister of Justice to explain the situation described by the hon. Gentleman and to ask him what further action he and his colleagues can undertake on behalf of Christopher’s family to speed up the conclusion of this case.

In closing, I would like to thank again the hon. Member for North Durham for raising what is undoubtedly a very difficult and tragic case. I am deeply sorry that the Cummings family have suffered such an appalling loss. For any of us, and particularly for any of us who are parents, the death of one’s child seems an almost unimaginable trauma. I hope that the actions now under way will finally begin to provide Christopher’s family with some degree of clarity, comfort and an understanding of the truth of what happened to their son.

Question put and agreed to.