OSCE Ministerial Council

David Lidington Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I represented the United Kingdom at the 22nd Ministerial Council meeting of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), held in Belgrade, Serbia on 3 and 4 December 2015 and hosted by Serbian Foreign Minister and OSCE Chairman-in-Office Ivica Dacic. The Council is the top decision-making body of the OSCE and was attended by Ministers from across its 57 participating states.

The Council took place in the final month of a year when the OSCE has continued to be at the centre of the international response to the Ukraine crisis. In my intervention in plenary on 3 December, I expressed deep concern at the ongoing situation in eastern Ukraine and Crimea and repeated our strong support for Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. I underlined the Russian Federation’s responsibility for the present situation and stressed that Moscow’s illegal annexation of Crimea would not be recognised. I called on Russia to implement its commitments under the Minsk protocols, by withdrawing military personnel, equipment and weapons and using its influence with the separatist leadership. I commended the work of the OSCE’s special monitoring mission in the face of considerable challenges to its security and emphasised the need for it to have free and unimpeded access to all areas of Ukraine.

While this subject dominated the Council, a number of other important issues were discussed. In my intervention, I also noted the importance of updating political-military confidence and security building measures, including the Vienna document and the need to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, which remain under challenge in a number of OSCE states.

I agreed the need to address other pressing issues, particularly terrorism and migration, while focusing on areas where the OSCE has a distinct role to play and can add value in co-ordination with other international actors.

Grave concern about Ukraine was expressed in plenary by many participating states including by US Secretary of State Kerry, German Foreign Minister Steinmeier, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Klimkin and EU High Representative Mogherini among others. Deep divisions meant that even a limited declaration on the OSCE’s role in, and support to, Ukraine could not be agreed despite the vast majority of OSCE states’ desire to do so.

While negotiations before and during the Ministerial Council made progress in a number of areas, divergent approaches limited the scope to reach consensus on a number of proposed declarations. Decisions or declarations were however reached on terrorism, on countering violent extremism and radicalisation leading to terrorism, on drugs and youth and security, as well as a statement on the negotiations in the Transnistrian settlement process. It was disappointing that despite the best efforts of the UK and other states, attempts to make progress on confidence and security-building measures in the OSCE region failed primarily due to further Russian obstructionism.

I and others expressed our strong support for the work of the OSCE’s autonomous institutions and I met Michael Link, Director of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and Dunja Mijatovic, the Representative on Freedom of the Media, during my visit.

In parallel, Wolfgang Ischinger, Chair of the Panel of Eminent Persons, launched under the 2014 Swiss Chairmanship, presented their final report on “European Security as a Common Project” at a side-event during the Ministerial Council.

A copy of the UK intervention can be found online on the gov.uk website:

https://www.gov.uk/government/world-location-news/uk-statement-at-the-plenary-session-of-the-22nd-osce-ministerial-council-3rd-december-2015-belgrade.

[HCWS398]

Foreign Affairs and General Affairs Council

David Lidington Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend the Foreign Affairs Council on 14 December and I will attend the General Affairs Council on 15 December. The Foreign Affairs Council will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini, and the General Affairs Council will be chaired by the Luxembourg presidency. The meetings will be held in Brussels.

Foreign Affairs Council

Eastern Partnership

Ministers are expected to exchange views on recent developments in the Eastern Partnership States (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, and Ukraine) and the future direction of the Eastern Partnership initiative following the publication of the European Neighbourhood Policy review on 18 November.

Counter-Terrorism

Following the attacks in Paris on 13 November, Ministers will discuss the need to maintain a strong, unified international focus on countering the threat from Daesh; reiterating support for the global counter-ISIL coalition and affirming the commitment to working towards a long term political solution in Iraq and Syria, achieved through a comprehensive strategy. The Foreign Affairs Council is likely to reflect elements of these discussions in its conclusions. Ministers will also discuss broader counter-terrorism work by the EU, in line with its existing strategies.

EU-Turkey

Ministers will be joined for lunch by the Foreign Minister of Turkey, Mevlut Qavusoglu. Turkey remains a key partner for the EU across a range of important issues, including regional security, counter-terrorism, energy, trade and migration. The FAC provides an opportunity to continue to develop a strategic partnership between the EU and Turkey, building on the EU-Turkey summit of 29 November. The UK will seek to reinforce that sense of partnership by encouraging discussion on a broad range of issues that reflect the breadth of the EU’s relationship with Turkey.

Iraq

Ministers will exchange views on the political and security situation in Iraq. They will discuss how EU activity and resources, particularly those under the EU’s ISIL/Syria/Iraq strategy, can support the objectives of the global coalition to counter ISIL and longer term security, stability and prosperity in Iraq.

Libya

The FAC will be briefed by UN Libya special representative, Martin Kobler, on the latest developments in the UN-led political process. The UN has played a vital role in bringing the Libyan parties closer together. It is essential we continue to demonstrate our full support. The UK Government welcome the UN special representative’s urgent pressure for a deal, and recognises the important role for the EU in providing immediate support to a Government of National Accord.

General Affairs Council

The General Affairs Council (GAC) on 15 December is expected to focus on: preparation of draft conclusions for the European Council on 17 and 18 December 2015; the inter-institutional agreement on better regulation; the presidency Trio programme; the European semester; and the enlargement and stabilisation and association process.

Preparation of the December European Council

The GAC will prepare the draft conclusions for the 17 and 18 December European Council, which the Prime Minister will attend. The December European Council agenda is expected to include: migration; economic issues (including economic and monetary union and the single market); the UK’s renegotiation; and external relations issues including Russia/Ukraine.

Inter-institutional Agreement on Better Regulation (IIA)

The GAC will receive a further update on the progress of the IIA negotiations following the recent tripartite talks between the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council. The Council may also discuss the amended IIA text following political tripartite negotiations, depending on the progress made ahead of the Council.

18-month programme of the Council

The GAC will discuss the Trio programme of the forthcoming Netherlands, Slovakia and Malta presidencies of the Council of the European Union. We expect one of the key priorities of the Trio to be a focus on delivering stronger economic growth and improving competitiveness.

2016 European Semester Annual Growth Review

The GAC will receive a Commission presentation of the 2016 annual growth survey (AGS) which was released on 26 November. The AGS marks the beginning of the 2016 semester process and focuses on the key themes in President Juncker's investment plan. Within the AGS, the Commission recommends three main pillars for the EU’s economic and social policy in 2016: boosting investment, pursuing structural reforms to modernise European economies and pursuing fiscal responsibility. There is no specific commentary on the UK, however the UK supports the Commission’s headline priorities.

Enlargement and Stabilisation and Association Process

The General Affairs Council will discuss the Commission’s annual enlargement package, published on 10 November, and agree conclusions on the enlargement strategy and the Western Balkans countries and Turkey. The December GAC is the annual opportunity for the Council to take stock and give direction to the EU’s enlargement strategy and pre-accession reform priorities for individual countries.

The Government’s views on the package were set out in my explanatory memorandum of 12 November 2015. We will broadly welcome the Commission’s new approach in this year’s package with improved metrics in the Country reports and a five year as opposed to annual strategy. We will reiterate our continued firm support for future EU enlargement on the basis of firm but fair conditionality, with countries moving forward on merit as they meet the conditions. We will also take the opportunity to reiterate the importance of maintaining the credibility of the enlargement process and the need for the EU to improve its approach to strategic communications in order to underline the benefits of the accession process. We will reinforce the importance of rule of law reform and economic governance to accession countries and welcome the centrality of these issues in the package.

[HCWS388]

Subsidiarity and Proportionality

David Lidington Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2015 General Committees

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset has said, today’s debate stems from two European Commission annual reports relating to 2014, the first on the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and the second on the Commission’s relations with national Parliaments.

Those questions of subsidiarity and proportionality go to the heart of the debate that we, and national Governments and Parliaments across Europe, are now having on reform of the European Union. Those principles are about determining whether it is appropriate for legislation to be introduced at the EU level and, if so, how and in what detail. The concept of subsidiarity, in particular, is at the core of the idea that the EU must respect the layers of government that are closest and most accountable to European citizens.

There is a balance to be achieved between taking action at EU level when it is clearly in the collective interests of member states so to do and recognising when it is better for decisions to be made at national, regional or local government level. The Government’s view is that too often the right balance has not been struck. The gap between the EU and its citizens is growing. While that is felt acutely in the United Kingdom, the concerns are not limited to us, as can be seen in polling from such organisations as the Pew Research Center and Eurobarometer.

More than a decade ago, at Laeken, European leaders pledged to reform the European Union so as to avoid

“a creeping expansion of the competence of the Union”,

but that ambition remains unfulfilled. That is why resolving the long-standing questions of sovereignty is an important pillar of the Government’s wider programme of EU reform, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out in his letter to President Tusk earlier this month.

Recent messages from the Commission suggest that it is taking subsidiarity and proportionality seriously and that it is alive and receptive to the UK’s reform agenda. That is encouraging. In particular, the Commission work programme for 2016 refers to a “renewed commitment” to dialogue with national Parliaments on draft proposals, and it commits the Commission to ensuring that national Parliaments have a strong voice in European policy making.

For his part, President Juncker has been clear about his personal commitment to strengthening the role of national Parliaments, which he believes will help to address the democratic deficit felt by so many EU citizens. In his 2015 state of the Union address to the European Parliament, he made a specific reference to the UK’s ambition in that area, an ambition that he said he shares and that wants to work with the Prime Minister to achieve.

Members of the Committee will appreciate that the Better Regulation agenda is closely linked to the debate on subsidiarity. It is positive to note that the Commission has taken a leading role in minimising unnecessary burdens in EU legislation. Last month 19 member states, including the United Kingdom, collectively called on the Commission to go even further by setting burden-reduction targets, and we reiterated our belief in the principle that the EU should not take action at all where better outcomes could be achieved at the national or sub-national level.

We understand, too, from working-level discussions that the Commission is looking at creating new ways for national Parliaments to feed their views into the legislative programming process. That is important, because the EU needs to focus on areas where it can genuinely add value. I believe that we and other national Parliaments need to capitalise on that positive momentum and ensure that we secure and implement real reforms.

Of course, it is incumbent on all participants in EU regulation and legislation to ensure respect for subsidiarity and proportionality, and to make full use of existing checks and balances. Impact assessments, for example, are already meant to assess subsidiarity and proportionality impacts. In addition to the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament are under an obligation to assess the impact of their changes to proposals. Member states, too, have a role to play in ensuring that they hold the Commission to account when proposals and amendments breach those fundamental principles.

The focus of the reports we are debating today is the mechanisms available to national Parliaments to uphold subsidiarity through the yellow and orange cards, and to influence Commission proposals through political dialogue. In 2014 national Parliaments submitted 21 reasoned opinions on subsidiarity to the Commission, covering 15 different proposals. That was 76% less than the 88 issued the previous year, and a significant reduction from what was already a fairly low baseline. It is true that the reduction should be seen in the context of the appointment of a new Commission and the European parliamentary elections in 2014, which meant that fewer legislative proposals were produced. However, it might also reflect a growing disengagement on the part of national Parliaments.

The tight time limit of only eight weeks from the transmission of a proposal to the deadline for a reasoned opinion is challenging for national Parliaments, particularly when a proposal is complex, or at certain times of the year—most obviously during parliamentary recesses. It does not allow much time for national Parliaments to share information with one another, which was crucial in the triggering of the first yellow card in 2012. The scope and threshold of reasoned opinions required to trigger a yellow card are also factors. Normally, a yellow card is triggered when reasoned opinions represent at least a third of national Parliaments—19 votes—and that threshold has only been reached on two occasions, with the second, as my hon. Friend said, being in 2013, on the European public prosecutor’s office.

The way in which the Commission responded to that second yellow card, which was to proceed with the original proposal without replying to the concerns expressed by national Parliaments or adding any evidence, highlights the shortcomings of the current system. It is no wonder that national Parliaments might feel disengaged from the current system. That demonstrates the urgent need for us to go faster and further in implementing reforms to the roles of national Parliaments in the European Union, and why the Government are asking for a new arrangement whereby groups of national Parliaments working together can stop unwanted legislation. Furthermore, we want the promise on subsidiarity made by all Heads of Government at Laeken to be fully implemented, and clear proposals to be in place to do that.

It has also been encouraging to see progress made on the so-called green cards, which would enable groups of national Parliaments to establish a more positive dialogue with the Commission, through which new legislation could be proposed or existing laws amended or repealed. I note that national Parliaments gave green cards a ringing endorsement at the COSAC plenary meeting in Luxembourg last week. I am supportive of that work and will continue to follow discussions on the subject with great interest.

I hope that the Committee is reassured that the Government are serious about reforms in this area and are determined to secure them. The Prime Minister’s letter to President Tusk made that clear, and the subject of today’s debate is very much at the heart of our EU reform agenda.

[The Chair]

We now have until 5.35 pm for questions to the Minister on his statement. I remind Members that questions should be brief. It is open to a Member, subject to my discretion, to ask related supplementary questions, but there is also an opportunity for these in the subsequent debate.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I would like to ask the Minister one or two questions about his statement. He referred to the letter that the Prime Minister sent, on 10 November, to the President of the European Council. It was a long letter, in which he said:

“I want to enhance the role of national parliaments, by proposing a new arrangement where groups of national parliaments, acting together, can stop unwanted legislative proposals. The precise threshold of national parliaments required will be a matter for the negotiation.”

Will the Minister say a little more about what the Government are pressing for on that question of national Parliaments? The Government talk about the development of a red card—I apologise, Mrs Main, for the multi-coloured cards we always refer to in these discussions. What exactly would the powers of that card be and how many Parliaments would have to come together to wield it? I ask the same question with regard to the green card, which is designed to be a proactive rather than a reactive measure: how many Parliaments would have to come together to wield it? Furthermore, is the development of the green card as much a priority for our renegotiation as that of the red one?

Finally, to complete the colours, I will ask about the use of the yellow card, which the hon. Member for North East Somerset said had been wielded very little. When it was wielded over the European public prosecutor’s office, the proposal was not substantially amended or withdrawn. What proposals do the Government have to strengthen the use of yellow cards, given that this is an unwieldy process and that when Parliaments come together in this way they ought not to be ignored?

[Mr Lidington]

I will try to respond as fully as I can within the constraints of time to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East.

As the Prime Minister said in his letter, the level of a threshold to trigger a red card that would amount to a block on legislation would be a matter for the negotiation itself. I cannot pre-empt those detailed discussions, but we envisage that at a certain point what is currently a power for national Parliaments to require the Commission to review a particular initiative should become an outright bar to further progress.

As for the yellow card, to my mind a change that would be particularly welcome would be an extension of the timeframe allowed beyond the eight weeks permitted under current law. That would enable national Parliaments to consider proposals more closely and to co-ordinate with one another. I would also like to see such a change to the yellow card take into account the very creative proposal from the Dutch Parliament for what it termed a “late card”, so that in the event of a legislative measure changing significantly during its progress through the various institutions it would be possible for national Parliaments to come back and have another look at it, because at the moment that opportunity is forbidden to them regardless of how far-reaching any amendments might be.

Finally, the Government support the green card, but it is also an initiative that is actively being taken forward by national Parliaments at the moment. Yes, we support it, but if it can be achieved through Parliaments working together in COSAC, persuading the institutions to take that change on board, then we are happy simply to support the work that the Parliaments themselves have initiated.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

May I ask the Minister a bit more about the red card? Is it fair to assume that the number of countries that would be required to send in a red card would be lower than the number required to vote against it in the Council of Ministers to provide a blocking majority under qualified majority voting?

[Mr Lidington]

The difference between the two arrangements, as my hon. Friend knows, is that to assemble a blocking majority in the Council of Ministers one has to assemble that majority on the basis of weighted votes, with the most populous countries having greater weight, in the calculation of a majority or minority, than the smaller member states, whereas in the case of the yellow card system each parliamentary chamber in the EU has a single vote. I suppose that it operates a bit like the way that the US Senate operates, with no regard to the relative populations of the different countries.

The answer to that question would therefore depend very much on what the comparator was in terms of the blocking minority among member states. I certainly envisage that a red card would have to involve a higher threshold than a yellow card would, since it would be a more far-reaching measure.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. However, could the red card serve any useful purpose if it were harder to get than a qualified majority vote against a proposal coming from the Commission, because all Governments are responsible to their Parliaments, and therefore to make it a workable proposition, the assumption would have to be that a matter had a qualified majority in favour but the Parliaments sought to stop it?

[Mr Lidington]

Having served as a Minister both in the last Parliament and this one, I have to say that I do not think that Governments can automatically assume that they have the majority in Parliaments, particularly on European matters. So, while the circumstances that my hon. Friend describes would be unusual, it would nevertheless be worth while to have that democratic back stop. Also, a strongly expressed parliamentary view would perhaps, in the case of a number of member states, put greater backbone into a Government resisting a measure to which their Parliament had declared itself opposed.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The very idea that Governments will have backbone in the face of Europe is a novel one, but I hope that we might see it one day.

Moving on to yellow cards, does my right hon. Friend think that part of the reason for the number of cards going down, apart from the lower number of proposals coming forward, is that once the decision was given about the EPP, Parliaments thought there was little point? The Commission did absolutely nothing regarding that important proposal. What is the purpose of this House or any other Chamber passing resolutions if they are just ignored?

[Mr Lidington]

As I said in my opening remarks, that might be part of the explanation. One would have to go back and talk to parliamentarians from the 27 other member states to have a clear analysis. I suspect that with some countries the lack of yellow cards might be down more to domestic political circumstances—perhaps a general election and a change of Government—than to anything happening at the EU level.

It is also fair, however, to take account of the changeover of the Commission. The Juncker Commission’s track record of launching many fewer new initiatives than the Barroso Commission, even in its first term, inevitably reduces the number of targets for national Parliaments. That too is part of the explanation. Frankly, if the Commission is going to stick to that approach and take account, in advance, of what national Parliaments and national Governments would regard as the right priorities, that is a change we should all welcome.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

On that very point, the Commission has tended to respond even when a majority has not been reached, but it has often been pretty stubborn in pushing forward with its proposal anyway. Indeed, in one of the documents we can even see that it wanted to bring forward a more ambitious proposal rather than sticking with the one it already had. To date, therefore, the yellow card has not been hugely successful, as far as one can tell. Does the Minister accept that? Does he also accept that the time limit he mentioned, which it has been argued ought to be extended, can be extended only through treaty change? Is that part of the Government’s intended renegotiation?

[Mr Lidington]

I agree that although there is innovation in the Lisbon treaty—which was an advance, and better than not having any such process—it has not been particularly successful so far. It has certainly taken time for the culture of the Commission leadership to respond to what is necessary. The fact that someone such as First Vice-President Timmermans, who has been an elected politician in a country that has given a high priority to the opinions of its national Parliament, is now a key authority within the Commission has been an important contributing factor to the change we have seen on the part of the Commission in the past year and a bit.

Whether treaty change is needed is something that we are addressing in the course of the detailed negotiations. The technical talks that took place over the summer between UK officials and the secretariats and legal services of the institutions have, on that issue and on the others on which we seek reforms, fleshed out a menu of legal and procedural options for leaders to select from, depending on what deal leaders eventually succeed in negotiating. It would be wrong of me to go further than that, when those negotiations still lie ahead.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful for that because footnote 16 on page 12 of the document gives the Commission’s view that the deadline is enshrined in the treaty and therefore would require treaty change, but the Commission can err, so I hope the Government are right.

Finally—although I may have two questions on this point, depending on the Minister’s answer—I want to ask about the green card issue. Are the Government supportive of a situation in which the Commission loses its exclusive right to propose legislation?

[Mr Lidington]

That is not part of our set of proposals and it would probably be very hard to negotiate that. My word of warning to my hon. Friend is that if that issue were opened up, we would probably see a lot of institutional pressure from the European Parliament to have a right to initiate legislation, and that there would be quite a lot of national Governments around Europe, particularly those of smaller member states, that would be quite attracted by that idea.

As for my hon. Friend’s earlier point—alas, I have lost my thread, so perhaps he could just remind me.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Prior to the green card issue, I asked about the treaty change and the Minister answered me.

[Mr Lidington]

That is right, and if I have not satisfied my hon. Friend, at least I have replied to him. I will rest it there, Mrs Main.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am a bit puzzled by the Minister’s last answer. I thought the whole point of the green card was to give a group of member states the ability to propose changes to, amend, alter or even repeal EU legislation. Now, if it is not giving them the right that is otherwise the exclusive right of the Commission, I do not see what it is doing and whether it serves any purpose.

[Mr Lidington]

The distinction is this: the green card proposal would permit the national Parliaments acting collegiately to propose changes and to seek reviews, but it would leave it then for the Commission, having reviewed the matter, to decide whether to bring forward particular amendments.

That is perhaps analogous—not exactly the same as, but analogous—to the European Parliament’s powers to propose an own-initiative report, which can put forward ideas either for new legislation or the amendment or repeal of existing legislation but which cannot bind the Commission to act in a particular way. What one has found in practice, however, is that the Commission has taken very seriously those reports and frequently acted upon them. I hope that if we got a green card accepted, we would find that the Commission responded in the same way to well-evidenced, well-argued proposals from national Parliaments.

I now recall the point on which I was going to respond to my hon. Friend earlier. He expressed doubt as to whether, in the absence of treaty change, having a red card would mean anything. Of course the Commission, while it has the sole right of initiative, can always choose whether to initiate or to persist with a particular piece of legislation, so it faces a certain political choice when it is in receipt of objections from national Parliaments.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

You are being very generous today, Mrs Main; I promise that this is my last question. Is the Minister therefore saying that the democratic deficit will be addressed by the good will of the Commission when it feels like listening to national Parliaments?

[Mr Lidington]

What I am saying is that the democratic deficit needs to be addressed by a number of different and complementary reforms. Those will include some in the culture of the institutions, which we are starting to see, such as a focus on a rigorous selection of limited priorities where the European Union can genuinely provide value-added to all its members from European-level action, rather than leaving it to member states.

I believe that our proposals on national parliaments are not a panacea, which I have never claimed for them, but will help to reconnect electors with what the European Union is doing on their behalf. Obtaining some kind of mechanism for turning the Laeken commitment into institutional reality in the EU would be a further way in which to bridge the democratic deficit.

At the end of the day, bridging the democratic deficit will be about cultural change as much as about legislative and institutional change. It will be about the EU and its institutions demonstrating through their choice of actions that they are attuned to the policy priorities that matter to the people—the citizens whom they claim to represent.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Committee takes note of European Union Documents No. 10651/15 and Addendum, a Commission Annual Report 2014: Subsidiarity and proportionality, and No. 10663/15 and Addendum, a Commission Annual Report 2014: relations with national parliaments; recognises the importance of the principle of subsidiarity and the value of stronger interaction between national parliaments and the EU institutions; welcomes the Government’s reform agenda and efforts to ensure that the Commission responds to future objections under the yellow card scheme by substantially amending or withdrawing the proposal that has been put forward; calls on the Commission to respond to the request of 29 national parliament chambers to establish a working group to consider reforms to strengthen their role; is encouraged by the Commission’s announcement of its intentions to forge a new partnership with national parliaments; and calls on the Commission to set out its plans to do this.(—Mr Lidington.)

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I thank the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset for their contributions, and I will try to respond to their points. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East for referring to President Tusk’s letter, which was published today and states a need to assert the importance of national Parliaments. It is an objective that President Tusk feels is shared by other Governments of member states.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the degree of support that we have among other member states for strengthening the role of national Parliaments. My truthful answer is that the greatest support comes from member states that have vigorous national parliamentary systems. Countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark, whose Parliaments have come forward with ideas to strengthen the accountability of EU decisions to national Parliaments, are perhaps more naturally inclined to have regard to this question than other countries that historically have had weaker national parliamentary systems and have seen European institutions as the guarantors of liberties and the rule of law.

Clearly, different member states have different views that sometimes depend on whether they feel that their own scrutiny arrangements, which may reflect a mandate system rather than a system such as ours, would be affected by some of the changes that we would like to be made. As President Tusk’s letter makes clear, the ideas that we have put on the table have had a broadly positive response from our partners.

Let me turn to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset. I do not think that I have ever pretended in the five and three-quarter years that I have been doing this job that European institutions are perfect or that, were I to be asked to take a blank sheet of paper and draft a new scheme for European co-operation, I would commence with the treaty of Lisbon and the current institutional framework. However, the political reality that we, as parliamentarians, must all confront is that that is the system we have at the moment. It is the product of decisions taken by our predecessors over the years. The key principle that we need to bear in mind in debating the question before us this afternoon is, in the words of the Prime Minister of the Netherlands:

“European where necessary, national where possible.”

That is the principle that should animate our policy and that I would like to be read, learned, marked and inwardly digested by the institutions of the EU.

I am not someone who habitually goes around lauding the work of the European Commission—it is an imperfect body, like all human institutions—but I thought that my hon. Friend was a wee bit unfair to it, because it is the United Kingdom that has often looked to the European Commission to champion work on the single market and on free trade agreements between Europe and other countries, and it is the Commission that has used its powers to challenge protectionist interests in other member states—member states that would have blocked proposals that we and successive British Prime Ministers have judged to be in the best interests of our country. After all, that was why Margaret Thatcher, when Prime Minister, introduced the Single European Act. I think I am still correct to say that was the biggest move towards qualified majority voting in the history of the European Communities or the European Union.

There are flaws in the present arrangements and improvements that we should seek, but we should ponder carefully before throwing aside an institutional framework and a habit of countries working together that over the years have brought some significant benefits, both economic and political, to the people of the United Kingdom. The right way forward is to secure a set of ambitious reforms that change the working culture of the European Union to make it more competitive, more flexible and, yes, more democratic than it is today. The measures before us have enabled us to debate one particular aspect of that reform agenda.

Question put and agreed to.

Foreign Affairs Council (Defence) and General Affairs Council

David Lidington Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attended the Foreign Affairs Council on 16 November. My right hon. Friend, Minister of State and Deputy Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Howe attended the Foreign Affairs Council (defence) on 17 November. I attended the General Affairs Council on 17 November and Rory O’Donnell (counsellor regions, agriculture and fisheries) represented the UK at the General Affairs Council (cohesion). The Foreign Affairs Council and Foreign Affairs Council (defence) was chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini. The General Affairs Council was chaired by the Luxembourg presidency. The meetings were held in Brussels.

Foreign Affairs Council

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

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/fac/2015/11/16-17/

The Foreign Affairs Council (FAC)

The Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) was overshadowed by the Paris attacks of 13 November. The meeting covered middle east peace process (MEPP), migration and Syria. There were also moments to reflect on the Paris attacks. The discussions on the Eastern Partnership and Libya were postponed to the December FAC.

MEPP

In the presence of EU Special Representative Fernando Gentilini, the Council discussed the situation in the middle east in the light of the increased violence, particularly in East Jerusalem, the west bank and Gaza, focusing on the peace process. member states agreed that the EU should explore what it could do on the ground to help preserve the two-state solution.

Migration

The Council discussed migration, following up on the high-level conference on the western Balkans route held on 8 October and the Valletta summit held on 11 and 12 November. Ministers discussed the follow-up to the decisions already taken on the central Mediterranean route and on the western Balkans. The Foreign Secretary raised the importance of Turkey as a strategic partner with whom the EU should engage across a broad agenda including migration, foreign policy, security and counter-terrorism, and business.

Syria

Over lunch, Ministers discussed Syria with UN Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura. They discussed the latest developments, taking into account recent diplomatic efforts, including the discussions in Vienna on 23 October and 14 November.

Ministers agreed without discussion a number of measures:

The Council adopted conclusions on Burundi;

The Council adopted conclusions on Sri Lanka;

The Council adopted conclusions on the EU’s support to transitional justice;

The Council adopted conclusions on Yemen;

The Council adopted conclusions on the special report entitled: “Report by the European Court of Auditors on the EU police mission in Afghanistan”;

The Council extended the mandate of the European Union special representative (EUSR) in Kosovo until 28 February 2017.

The Council reviewed the restrictive measures in view of the situation in Tunisia in light of the information forwarded by the Tunisian authorities concerning the latest developments in the ongoing judicial proceedings in Tunisia against 48 persons listed in Council decision (CFSP) 2015/157. The Council concluded that no changes needed to be made to these designations.

The Council amended the restrictive measures in view of the situation in Afghanistan to implement the decision of the UN Security Council Committee on sanctions against the Taliban, adding one person to the list of individuals, groups, undertakings and entities subject to restrictive measures.

The Council amended the restrictive measures in view of the situation in Somalia to reflect the de-listing by the UN of one deceased person.

The Council adopted the EU’s position on the eighth review conference of the convention on the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of biological and toxin weapons and on their destruction (BTWC) taking place from November to December 2016.

The Council added Albania to the list of beneficiaries of funding activities to reduce the threat of the illicit spread and trafficking of small arms and light weapons (SALW) and their ammunition in south-east Europe.

The Council adopted the EU’s position for the second meeting of the EU-Georgia Association Council.

The Council adopted the position of the EU on the draft declaration of the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) ministerial conference on the blue economy.

Foreign Affairs Council (Defence) and European Defence Agency (EDA)

The Foreign Affairs Council (Defence) was dominated by discussions about the terrible attacks in Paris on 13 November 2015. At the meeting the French Defence Minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, confirmed that France was calling for bilateral support from member states under article 42.7 of the Lisbon treaty—the mutual assistance clause. Minister of State and Deputy Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Howe, confirmed the UK’s continuing support to France, noting that bilateral contact between our two Governments was already under way. All of the other 27 EU Defence Ministers were unanimous in offering their political support and expressing their readiness to provide practical assistance. In his address to the FAC (D), NATO Secretary-General, Jens Stoltenberg, emphasised that NATO stood in solidarity with France, while underscoring the importance of greater EU-NATO co-operation.

Minister of State and Deputy Leader of the House of Lords welcomed the European Commission’s defence action plan that proposed to brigade existing Commission instruments together under a single plan, but expressed caution towards new initiatives, emphasising the need to implement those already agreed. In discussion, the UK also emphasised support for ongoing work on “Capacity Building for Security and Development”, given its potential to strengthen a genuinely comprehensive EU approach.

The EDA steering board discussion initially focused on the reform work EDA had undertaken to date, including the presentation of its three-year planning framework. The High Representative and Vice-President of the Commission, Federica Mogherini, then sought Defence Ministers’ agreement on the EDA’s future programme of work and the 2016 EDA annual budget. The UK noted that it could not agree to any increase in the EDA’s budget for next year, but encouraged the EDA to continue with important reforms with a view to reviewing the 2017 budget.

General Affairs Council

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

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/gac/2015/11/17/

The General Affairs Council (GAC) on 17 November discussed: preparation of the agenda for the European Council on 17 and 18 December 2015; the rule of law; the inter-institutional agreement on better regulation; the 2016 Commission Work programme; and the European semester.

Preparation of the December European Council

The GAC prepared the agenda for the 17 and 18 December European Council, which the Prime Minister will attend. The December European Council is expected to focus on: migration; economic and monetary union; the single market; the UK’s renegotiation; and external relations issues, likely to include Russia and Ukraine.

In light of the attacks in Paris, I highlighted the importance of further discussion of counter-terrorism issues following the extraordinary Justice and Home Affairs Council on 20 November.

On migration, I stressed the urgent need to make progress on implementing the action plan agreed at the Valletta summit on 11 and 12 November.

On the UK’s renegotiation, I underlined the areas where the UK wanted to see reform as set out in the Prime Minister’s letter to the President of the European Council on 10 November.

Rule of Law

The Council held the first annual dialogue on promoting the rule of law in the European Union. The theme of this year’s dialogue was “rule of law in the age of digitalisation” and member states were invited to present examples of good practice and challenges at national level.

I highlighted the need to tackle online extremism and set out the successes achieved in the UK through the work of the counter-terrorism internet referral unit and the voluntary participation of online service providers. This has enabled the UK to ensure regular and swift removal of extremist material without the delays and concerns over extraterritoriality that would hamper attempts to achieve the same results through enforcement of legislation.

First Vice-President Timmermans also updated the GAC on October’s human rights colloquium, hosted by the European Commission, on combating anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred.

Inter-Institutional Agreement on Better Regulation (IIA)

The GAC received a presentation from the Luxembourg presidency updating Ministers on the progress of the IIA negotiations, including the recent political talks between the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council.

2016 Commission Work Programme

The GAC discussed the 2016 Commission Work programme (CWP): “No Time for Business as Usual” published on 27 October. The UK welcomes and looks forward to working on the Commission Work programme—a step towards a more effective EU.

Annual Growth Survey and Road Map for the European Semester 2016

The Commission outlined that the publication of the annual growth survey (AGS) had been delayed until 25 November. The AGS will mark the beginning of the European semester process and is due to be published alongside the alert mechanism report, the joint employment report and the Commission draft budgetary opinions on eurozone member states. The AGS sets out broad EU level economic and social objectives for the year ahead and is expected to contain a focus on euro area level priorities, as set out in the European Commission’s 21 October communication on steps towards completing economic and monetary union.

The GAC received a presentation from the Luxembourg presidency and incoming Dutch presidency on the newly revised European semester road map focusing on the implementation of country specific recommendations (CSRs) and sharing of best practice between member states.

General Affairs Council (Cohesion)

The session of the GAC on 18 November was dedicated to cohesion policy. Ministers agreed Council conclusions on: the contribution of the European structural and investment funds to support the transition to a low-carbon economy; European territorial co-operation (or Interreg) programmes; and steps that might be taken to simply the implementation and administration of European structural and investment funds.

[HCWS345]

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lidington Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)]

6. What steps the Government are taking to encourage voter participation in the EU referendum.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

Our immediate priority is to ensure that the European Union Referendum Bill passes into law, so that those who are eligible to vote can do so. The Government are, however, also committed to supporting efforts to maximise registration, and the Electoral Commission plans to launch a national public awareness campaign in the run-up to the referendum.

[Steven Paterson]

Given that even the unelected House of Lords is now calling for the voting franchise to be extended to 16 and 17-year-olds, and given the change in public attitudes, will the Government reconsider, and legislate for the extension of that franchise?

[Mr Lidington]

On three occasions, this House—the elected House—has voted against lowering the voting age to 16 for the referendum, and the Government will propose to overturn the latest amendment from the Lords. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that it is a bit rich for him and his party to carp about the franchise, given that they voted against having a referendum at all.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Will the Minister assure the House that following the completion of the Prime Minister’s renegotiations there will be more than sufficient time before the referendum itself to air arguments both for and against remaining in the EU?

[Mr Lidington]

I can assure my hon. Friend that there is going to be ample time for those arguments to be aired both in this House and outside.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

May I press the Minister a little further on the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds? The other place passed its amendment on this by a big majority on 18 November. There are rumours of disagreements within the Government and within the Cabinet on how to respond. The Prime Minister has so far left the door open to change in the questions he has been asked previously about this. We know that 16 and 17-year-olds are capable of understanding the issues and we know they are interested and want to take part, so why will the Minister not agree to the amendment and give 16 and 17-year-olds a proper say in the future of our country?

[Mr Lidington]

There are hon. Members in various parts of the House who champion the cause of reducing the voting age to 16, but I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the right time to debate that issue is during discussions on proposed legislation where such a change would apply to the franchise for all elections and referendums and not as a one-off tacked on to a Bill for a particular referendum.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

7. What recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in the EU Foreign Affairs Council on the refugee crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

9. What discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the proposals for EU reform in the Prime Minister’s letter of 10 November 2015 to the President of the European Council.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has had productive rounds of talks with every European leader and with the Presidents of the European Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission. The Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor and I also maintain regular contact with our counterparts right across Europe.

[Holly Lynch]

Will the Minister go further and confirm that the Government will not seek to tear up hard-won employment rights as part of this renegotiation with the European Union?

[Mr Lidington]

We believe that our flexibility opt-out from the 48-hour week under the working time directive is important for keeping employment levels in this country high, compared with the tragic levels of unemployment in many other European nations, and we shall certainly be fighting very hard to ensure that we keep that opt-out.

[Wayne David]

Will the Minister confirm that no treaty changes will be secured before the referendum?

[Mr Lidington]

I set out the position on that in my statement and my subsequent answers a week ago. It is important that we secure a package of changes that will be seen by all as irreversible and as legally binding.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The Government used to complain about Tony Blair giving the UK’s rebate back to the European Union, so why did the Prime Minister not ask for a reduction in our EU membership fee in his letter? Are the Government now happy that we gave up our rebate, or has the Prime Minister asked only for the things that he has already had agreed by the European Union, so that he can tell us that his negotiations have been a success—on the basis that if you ask for nothing and get nothing, it looks like a success?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend would do well to do as he has done before, and to applaud the Prime Minister’s success in getting the first-ever reduction in the EU’s multi-annual budget. I can assure my hon. Friend that the negotiations will be tough and, at times, difficult, but I am confident that they will end with a better set of relationships between this country and the EU.

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

But surely it is the case that the very modest proposals set out in that letter are the only ones that the Government believe the rest of the European Union are prepared to agree to. That is why an end to free movement, which so many British people want to see, is not even going to be discussed.

[Mr Lidington]

We have made it clear that we want the freedom of movement for workers to be just that, and not a freedom to select the best welfare system anywhere in Europe. In our approach to this subject, we must also take into account the fact that hundreds of thousands of British citizens are able to work, study and live elsewhere in Europe.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Further to the previous question, will the issue of freedom of movement—the principle, not the detail—be discussed or not?

[Mr Lidington]

I have to ask the hon. Gentleman to re-read the letter that the Prime Minister sent to Donald Tusk last week. It makes it clear that, while we accept the principle of freedom of movement for workers, we want to secure changes to ensure that we can reduce the pull factors exerted by elements of our welfare system, which add to the migration into this country.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Following on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said, if the bar is so high and so tough, what are the difficulties? What is the Prime Minister really going to fight for? What is the thing that is holding him back? Where is it? Come on! The bar is so low that this negotiation is just a joke.

[Mr Lidington]

I perhaps look forward to the day when my hon. Friend is able to join me at ministerial meetings in Europe, where he will see that the task of negotiating is not quite as easy as he made out in his question. I cannot give a running commentary on ongoing negotiations, but I remind him that President Tusk said that the British requests are tough and that it would be

“really difficult to find an agreement”.

That indicates that we have a real negotiation in front of us.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

10. What steps he plans to take to ensure that potential breaches of international humanitarian law by the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen are investigated.

--- Later in debate ---

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

T10. What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to ensure that genuine law-abiding refugees leaving Syria are not locked out of the asylum process as a result of border measures being introduced across the EU after the brutal attacks in Paris?

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

Clearly it is a matter for each member state of the European Union and other European countries to determine their own border controls. The way forward has to be for asylum seekers to be properly assessed and screened at the first safe country they go to and for us to tackle the problem in the camps in the near east, so that people get some assurance of a decent life and opportunities for education for their children there rather than hazarding this appallingly dangerous voyage to Europe.

[Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)]

T4. I gather that I have been successful in securing a debate next Monday on Britain’s role in the middle east. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that in order that we play a constructive role in dealing with ISIS and other instabilities in the region we need a comprehensive strategy towards the middle east as a whole, not just Syria?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

We are right not to be part of Schengen, and we are right to call for reform, but does not the invoking of the EU mutual defence clause remind us why we have to be part of a reformed EU as well as part of NATO?

[Mr Lidington]

What France has done by invoking that article in the treaty is ask other member states—and crucially not the European institutions—to come to its assistance in all possible ways, to react to the terrorist onslaught on Paris the other week. It is important that we bear in mind that that treaty article refers to the need for the EU always to co-ordinate its work with that of NATO.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary will be aware that the former Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, was robust in his support of self-determination for the people of the Falkland Islands. Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity when Mr Trudeau visits this week to emphasise how grateful we are for the Canadians’ support for the Falkland Islands, and to ask whether the policy will remain the same under this premiership?

European Councils

David Lidington Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend the Foreign Affairs Council on 16 November. My right hon. Friend, Minister of State and Deputy Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Howe will attend the Foreign Affairs Council (Defence) on 17 November. I will attend the General Affairs Council on 17 November. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise will attend the GAC cohesion discussion on 18 November. The Foreign Affairs Council and Foreign Affairs Council (Defence) will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini, and the General Affairs Council will be chaired by the Luxembourg presidency. The meetings will be held in Brussels.

Foreign Affairs Council

Middle East Peace Process (MEPP)

Ministers are expected to discuss the recent heightened tensions and violence in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. The High Representative will brief Ministers on her recent meetings with President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Syria

Ministers will have an exchange of views on Syria, following the international meeting in Vienna on 30 October. Ministers will discuss how the EU and member states can further support the resumption of a Syrian political process, based on the principles of the Geneva Communique of 2012.

Eastern Partnership

Ministers are expected to exchange views on recent developments in the six Eastern Partnership states: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, and Ukraine.

Migration

The FAC will discuss the outcomes of the Valletta summit on migration which will take place on 11-12 November, and the conference on the Western Balkans route which took place on 8 October. The UK places high importance on working with EU and international partners on migration and will encourage rapid implementation of the action plan due to be agreed at Valletta in order to tackle the causes and consequences of irregular migration.

Libya

The FAC will possibly consider latest developments in the UN-led political process. At a UK/UN co-hosted Senior Officials meeting in London on 19 October, all international partners, including the EU, agreed to co-ordinate their assistance to Libya under a UN lead, using a draft structure to be agreed with a Government of National Accord (GNA). The UK will encourage the EU to maintain momentum by urging the House of Representatives and Libyan parties to reach agreement and establish a GNA.

Foreign Affairs Council (Defence)

Ahead of the FAC (Defence), the European Defence Agency (EDA) steering board will focus on the EDA budget and preparatory action on Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP)-related research. The EDA will present its three-year planning framework, including possible new projects, contribution to hybrid threats and incentives to encourage greater defence co-operation. The FAC (Defence) will focus on three main agenda items: the Commission’s work to develop and implement a European action plan to ensure that the European defence market is ready to meet future security needs; capacity building for security and development (CBSD) to build capacity in third countries to manage crises; and current operations, with a focus on the naval operation to interdict people smugglers in the Mediterranean and the mission in the central African Republic.

General Affairs Council

The General Affairs Council (GAC) on 17 November is expected to focus on: preparation of the agenda for the European Council on 17 and 18 December 2015; Rule of Law; the inter-institutional agreement on better regulation; the 2016 Commission Work programme; and the European semester.

Preparation of the December European Council

The GAC will prepare the agenda for the 17 and 18 October European Council, which the Prime Minister will attend. The draft December European Council agenda covers: migration; economic and monetary union; the single market; the UK’s renegotiation; and external relations issues, likely to include Russia and Ukraine.

Rule of Law

The presidency will host the first annual dialogue on promoting the rule of law in the European Union at the GAC. The Luxembourg presidency has outlined ‘rule of law in the age of digitalisation’ as the theme which member states will discuss. First Vice-President Timmermans will also report on October’s human rights colloquium, hosted by the European Commission, on combating anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred.

Inter-institutional agreement on better regulation (IIA)

The GAC will receive a presentation from the Luxembourg presidency updating Ministers on the progress of the IIA negotiations, including the recent political talks between the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council. We expect the discussion to be focused on the anticipated amended IIA text on Chapter 3 (better regulation) and 4 (legislative instruments) of the existing draft text.

2016 Commission Work Programme

The GAC will discuss the 2016 Commission Work Programme (CWP): “No Time for Business as Usual” published on 27 October.

We want a more effective EU—a dynamic, competitive, outward focused Europe, delivering prosperity and security for the benefit of all its members. A CWP focused on jobs, economic growth, trade, competitiveness and through the use of regulatory fitness and performance programme (REFIT) measures and withdrawals, a better regulatory environment for business is a step towards this goal.

Annual growth review and roadmap for the European semester 2016

The GAC will receive a Commission presentation on the 2016 annual growth survey (AGS), to be released on 18 November. The AGS marks the beginning of the European semester process and is published alongside the alert mechanism report, the joint employment report and the Commission draft budgetary opinions on eurozone member states. The AGS sets out broad EU level economic and social objectives for the year ahead and is expected to contain a focus on euro area level priorities, as set out in the European Commission’s 21 October communication on steps towards completing economic and monetary union.

The GAC will also receive a presentation from the Luxembourg presidency and incoming Dutch presidency on the timeline and next steps in the 2016 European semester process.

General Affairs Council cohesion

The 18 November GAC will focus on issues relating to the EU’s cohesion policy. The presidency plans three discussions, with Council conclusions agreed on each; first on the contribution of the European structural and investment funds to support the transition to a low carbon economy; second, on European territorial co-operation (or Interreg) programmes; and third, on steps that might be taken to simply the implementation and administration of European structural and investment funds.

[HCWS305]

Europe: Renegotiation

David Lidington Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

With permission, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s EU renegotiation.

As the House knows, the Government were elected with a mandate to renegotiate the United Kingdom’s relationship with the EU, ahead of an in/out referendum to be held by the end of 2017, and since July, technical talks have taken place in Brussels to inform our analysis of the legal options for reform. Today, the Prime Minister has written to the President of the European Council to set out the changes we want, and we have laid a written ministerial statement, including a copy of that letter, hard copies of which are available in the Vote Office.

I would now like to offer the House further detail. The Prime Minister’s speech at Bloomberg three years ago set out a vision for the future of the EU. Three years on, his central argument remains more persuasive than ever: the EU needs to change. Increasingly, others, too, have recognised this. Only a fortnight ago, Chancellor Merkel said that British concerns were German concerns as well. The purpose of the Prime Minister’s letter today is not to describe the precise means, including the detailed legal amendments, for effecting our reforms—that is a matter for the renegotiation itself; what matters to us is finding solutions. The agreement must be legally binding and irreversible and, where necessary, have force in the treaties.

We are seeking reform in four main areas. The first is economic governance. Measures that the eurozone countries need to take to secure the long-term future of their currency will affect all EU members. These are real concerns, as demonstrated by the proposal we saw off this summer to bail out Greece using contributions from non-euro members. As the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have set out, any long-term solution should be underpinned by certain principles and should include a safeguard mechanism to ensure that these principles are respected and enforced. The principles should include recognition that the EU has more than one currency; that there should be no discrimination or disadvantage for any business on the basis of currency; that taxpayers in non-euro countries should never be financially liable for supporting eurozone members; that any changes the eurozone needs to make, such as the creation of a banking union, should never be compulsory for non-euro countries; that financial stability and supervision should be a key area of competence for national institutions, such as the Bank of England, for non-euro members, just as those matters have become a key area of competence for eurozone institutions, such as the European Central Bank; and that any issues affecting all member states must be discussed and decided by all member states.

Secondly, we want an even more determined focus on improving Europe’s competitiveness. Unemployment, especially youth unemployment, in Europe is still too high. Unless Europe can raise its game on competitiveness, the challenges we all face from global competition and digital technology will pose a serious risk that the next generation of Europeans will not be able to afford the living standards, social protections or public services that our citizens take for granted. We therefore welcome the European Commission’s focus on competitiveness. The number of legislative proposals has been cut by 80%, while more regulatory proposals have been taken off the table this year than ever before. Progress has been made towards a single digital market and a capital markets union, as well as in last month’s Commission trade strategy. But we need to go further. The burden from existing regulation remains too high. Just as we have secured the first-ever real-terms cut in the EU budget, so we should set a target to cut the total burden on business. This should be part of a clear strategic commitment that brings forward all the various proposals, promises and agreements on European competitiveness.

Thirdly, we come to sovereignty. As the Prime Minister said at Bloomberg and as we have stressed many times since, too many people in the UK, and in other member states too, feel that the EU is something done to them. In his letter, my right hon. Friend makes three proposals to address this. First, we want to end the United Kingdom’s obligation to work towards an ever closer union as set out in the treaties. For many British people, this simply reinforces the sense of being dragged against our will towards a political union. Secondly, we want to enable national Parliaments to work together to block unwanted European legislation, building on the arrangements already in the treaties. Thirdly, we want to see the EU’s commitment to subsidiarity fully implemented, with clear proposals to achieve that. We believe that if powers do not need to reside in Brussels, they should be returned to Westminster. As the Dutch have said, the ambition should be “Europe where necessary, but national where possible.”

Fourthly, I want to turn to the issue of welfare and immigration. As the Prime Minister made clear in his speech last November, we believe in an open economy, which includes the principle of free movement to work, and I am proud that people from every country can find their community here in the United Kingdom. But the issue is one of scale and of speed. The pressure that the current level of inward migration puts upon our public services is too great, and also has a profound effect on those member states whose most highly qualified citizens have emigrated.

The Prime Minister’s letter again sets out our proposals to address this. We need to ensure that where new countries are admitted to the EU, free movement will not apply until their economies have converged much more closely with existing member states. We need to crack down on all abuse of free movement. This includes tougher and longer re-entry bans for fraudsters and people who collude in sham marriages, and stronger powers to deport criminals to stop them coming back and to prevent them from entering in the first place. It also includes dealing with the situation whereby it is easier for an EU citizen to bring a non-EU spouse to Britain than for a British citizen to do the same.

We must also reduce the pull factor drawing migrants to the UK to take low-skilled jobs, expecting their salary to be subsidised by the state from day one. We have proposed that people coming to Britain should live here and contribute for four years before they qualify for in-work benefits or social housing, and that we should end the practice of sending child benefit overseas. The Government are open to different ways of dealing with these issues, but we do need to secure arrangements that deliver on our commitments to fair and controlled migration.

Let me say something briefly about the next steps. There will now be a process of formal negotiation with the European institutions and with all 27 European partners, leading to substantive discussion at the December European Council. The Prime Minister’s aim is to conclude an agreement at the earliest opportunity, but his priority is to ensure that the substance is right. It is progress on the substance in this renegotiation that will determine the timing of the referendum itself.

The Government fully recognise the close interest from Members on all sides of the House. We cannot provide a running commentary on an ongoing negotiation, but we will continue to engage fully with the wide range of parliamentary inquiries, now numbering, I believe, 12 across both Houses of Parliament, into the renegotiation. Documents will be submitted for scrutiny in line with normal practices, and the Foreign Secretary, other Ministers and I will continue to appear regularly before the relevant Select Committees. Of course, the European Union Referendum Bill will return to the House before long.

The Prime Minister has said and he repeated this morning that should his concerns fall on deaf ears, he rules nothing out, but he also believes that meaningful reform in the areas that I have described would benefit our economic and our national security, provide a fresh settlement for the UK’s membership of the European Union, and offer a basis on which to campaign to keep the United Kingdom as a member of a reformed European Union—and it is that which remains the Government’s objective. I commend the statement to the House.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for updating the House, and for giving me advance sight of his statement.

The decision on whether or not the United Kingdom will remain a member of the European Union is the biggest decision that the country will make for a generation. Labour Members are clear about the fact that Britain is a more powerful, prosperous and secure country as a result of its membership of the EU, and we want to see it play a full role in shaping a reformed and better Europe that deepens its single market in areas such as digital and services, offers more hope and jobs to its young people, uses its collective strength in trade with the rest of the world, and stands together to combat the urgent security problems that we face. We do not stand for the nationalism that says that we would be better off out, or for a Brexit that would see Britain weaker in power and influence, and diminished in the eyes of the world.

In his speech this morning and in the letter to the President of the European Council, the Prime Minister set out his negotiating agenda. As we have already heard in comments from his own Back Benchers, the problem that the Prime Minister faces—and, in fact, the reason he has been so reluctant to put his position down on paper until now—is that there is nothing he can renegotiate that will satisfy the large number of right hon. and hon. Members sitting behind him who want to take Britain out of the European Union at all costs. They are desperate to be disappointed, and they are here in the House today. Their only role in this debate is to push for demands that they know will not be met.

The agenda that was published today raises important issues including some that were in our own election manifesto, such as protection for the rights of non-eurozone countries and those of national Parliaments. It also includes other ideas which are already in train. May I now ask the Minister to respond to some specific questions?

It is right that we press for guarantees for non-eurozone members in the future. Our manifesto argued for that, and it is in our economic interests. Does the Minister agree, however, that it would be a mistake for Britain, in so doing, to volunteer or embrace some kind of second-class or associate membership of the EU, while still paying the full costs of membership? Would not such an outcome weaken Britain rather than strengthening our position?

Why is there so little in the agenda about jobs and growth for the future, given that the problem with which Europe has been struggling for some time has been low growth and high unemployment? The Minister has talked of reducing the burden on business. Can he guarantee that nothing in this agenda will reduce the hard-won employment rights that have been agreed at European level over the years, including rights to paid leave, rights for part-time workers, and fair pay for temporary and agency workers? Does he accept that it would be a huge mistake to try to build support for a reformed European Union on the back of a bonfire of workers’ rights?

We note the retreat from earlier statements and hints from the Prime Minister that he would seek an emergency brake or an end to the principle of free movement. Is the Prime Minister set on the four-year timescale for access to in-work benefits, or is that subject to negotiation at the European Council? Will the Minister also tell us specifically whether it would mean a change in EU legislation, or a change in the way in which the system works here in the UK?

Does the Minister agree that it is for those who wish to reject the agenda as too little—many of whom are sitting behind him, and who are determined to take Britain out of the EU—to state clearly to the British people what being out would mean for our jobs, for our trade, for our investment, for our employment rights, and for our national security?

Of course the European Union faces big challenges in recovering from the eurozone crisis, offering more hope for the future, and dealing with the urgent and immediate refugee crisis that it faces, but we believe that those challenges will be best met if Britain plays a leading role in the future of the European Union, and if we use our power and influence with others to overcome them.

There is a broader case that goes far beyond those four points about Britain’s place in the world and the EU, and that case has to be made. Our history is not the same as that of many other member states, and perhaps we will never look at these issues through precisely the same eyes, but that is not the same as wanting to leave. Reform is essential. It should be an ongoing process, not a single event, and Labour Members will keep arguing for a Britain that is engaged with the world, using its power and influence to the maximum and not walking away from a partnership that we have been members of for 40 years and which has brought many benefits to the people and the economy of this country.

[Mr Lidington]

The right hon. Gentleman asked four specific questions and I will deal with them in turn.

On relations between EU and non-EU members, we do need to have, as part of this negotiation, safeguards against any risk of caucusing by eurozone countries, who if they chose to act as a caucus could command an automatic qualified majority within Council of Ministers meetings. There are clearly going to be some issues that derive directly from a currency union where eurozone countries quite legitimately will want to talk among themselves, and it is going to be important that we have a deal that allows the eurozone to do the work of integration it is going to need to do, but which properly safeguards the integrity of the single market of 28 members and decision making across the board in terms of the EU responsibilities in respect of the 28.

The right hon. Gentleman teased me a little about the views of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I have to say that when I have appeared before some of the Committees of this House, I have encountered Opposition Members who are equally committed to British withdrawal from the EU. The truth is that this is a matter—[Interruption.] Indeed, I am reminded that the Labour party leader, the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), has not been renowned for his enthusiasm for British membership of the EU. This issue has legitimately cut across party divisions for as long as EU membership has been a concern in the UK. People within both parties hold honourable, principled views both for and against British membership, and I think that that is likely always to be the case.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the challenge of low growth. I think that not only what the Government are saying in this renegotiation, but what they have led and helped to shape within the EU ever since 2010, demonstrates the seriousness with which we take this issue. I know the Prime Minister was personally involved in the negotiation that clinched the deal on an EU-Korea free trade agreement, something that is now proving of immense value to British industry. It is the British Government who have helped to energise the debate towards a digital single market across Europe, something that will give small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as large companies, increased opportunities.

No Conservative Member wants to make, in the right hon. Gentleman’s words, a bonfire of workers’ rights, but we also need to have in mind the reality that other countries that have chosen to go for a much more regulated approach to the employment market have often, tragically, suffered much higher levels of unemployment than we have in the UK. Keeping the UK’s opt-out from the working time directive, for example, is something we will fight very hard to make sure is entrenched by this renegotiation.

On freedom of movement, the Prime Minister made his view very clear: our objective is to better control migration from within the EU. There are obviously different ways in which we could achieve that. We think we can do that by reducing the incentives offered by our welfare system, which is why my right hon. Friend set out proposals in November and repeated them today. Others in the EU have concerns about this, and that is why we say to them, “If that’s what you think, put forward alternative proposals that deliver the same result.” It is the outcome of the measures—controlled, fair and properly managed migration—that is the end that we seek.

Finally, on the question of what is meant by “out”, the Prime Minister said again this morning that he did not think either the Swiss or Norwegian models would be right for the UK. The question of what “out” might mean will be a key element in the forthcoming referendum debate.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the big issue that will be settled in this forthcoming referendum is how best this country is to protect its national interests and security in the modern world and how best to enhance our prosperity for the next 30 or 50 years? Will he seek to ensure that we do not lose sight of that when we address current events?

While our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is embarking on very important negotiations—and I wish him success on competitiveness in particular—will the Minister for Europe ensure that when we are negotiating the benefit rights of those foreign nationals who work alongside British people in employment in this country, we remember the interests of the 2 million or so British nationals who live and work in the EU and do not wish to see those Governments start to discriminate against our nationals in their tax and benefits systems?

[Mr Lidington]

The answer to my right hon. and learned Friend’s second point is certainly yes, the interests of British people are always at the heart of this Government’s thinking about any area of policy, and we will certainly continue to treat the national, economic and security interests of the UK as the core objective of every aspect of this European negotiation.

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for making an oral statement to the House and for forward sight of his statement.

What a difference a year makes: just last year Scots were being told that if we voted yes to independence we would be getting chucked out of the EU, and now, frankly, we could not be closer to the exit.

The Minister said earlier that there would be a process of formal negotiation with the Europeans. Will he make a commitment to us today to consult the devolved Administrations as a formal part of that negotiation? He also said, quoting the Dutch:

“European where necessary, national where possible.”

Will that include devolving the powers, where appropriate, to the devolved Administrations? Finally, will the Minister tell us what on Scotland’s agenda for reform has been included in this statement today?

[Mr Lidington]

Of course, we were voting to give additional devolved powers to Scotland only yesterday in this House. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I spoke to Minister Fiona Hyslop this morning, and the question of the reform and renegotiation is now on the agenda as the first item at every meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee on Europe which I chair and which includes Ministers from all the devolved Administrations. I am visiting Edinburgh tomorrow when I will have further conversations with the Scottish Government of the type the hon. Gentleman urges upon me, and as I said to Ms Hyslop this morning, I remain open to listen to the views of, and make sure the UK Government take full account of the interests of, all three devolved Administrations as we take this negotiation forward.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The Minister is, if I may say so, not correct in thinking that the legal mechanisms for delivery of these proposals are not part of the solution. Does he not accept that treaty change is needed for virtually every proposal and, furthermore, that treaty change is not on offer, so how are the so-called legally irreversible changes going to be made when even the legal expert from the European Commission says that the Danish and Irish precedents are not valid? How is he going to be able to sell this pig in a poke?

[Mr Lidington]

Some but not all aspects of the package of reforms that we are seeking will need treaty change. We are certainly looking at different models, including those that have been used by Denmark and Ireland in the past. The technical talks that have taken place in Brussels involving senior British officials have also involved representatives of the institutional legal services, so we are working closely alongside the current heads of the legal services of the institutions. We believe that we will be able to find an appropriate way forward on every one of the issues that I listed in my statement.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Further to the question from the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), will the Minister acknowledge that other EU citizens living here contribute far more through their taxes than they receive in services or social security payments? The problem with social security is not the EU; it is the fact that, almost uniquely, we in the UK have lost the contributory principle from our system. The answer is to start to reintroduce that principle.

[Mr Lidington]

I would certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that in the debate about migration controls, it is important that we do not stray into stigmatising people from elsewhere in Europe, or from any other part of the world, who are here obeying the law, working and contributing to life in this country. He mentioned the contributory principle, but that point could also apply to policy pursued under successive British Governments of all political stripes. I draw his attention back to article 153 of the treaty, which makes it clear that it is for member states, rather than the EU, to define the fundamental principles of their social security systems. I believe that it would contradict that treaty provision if we were to say that only one model for social security was compatible.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

The Minister has described different legal mechanisms for achieving our objectives. Will he tell us what they are?

[Mr Lidington]

No. That is a matter for the detailed negotiations that are now under way. The technical talks have given us a menu of options to help us determine, in respect of particular reforms, whether we would be able to rely on secondary legislation, on treaty change, on protocols or on political commitment. That menu of options will now be available to the Heads of Government as they embark on the political negotiations. The purpose of the technical talks has been to ensure that leaders are informed about the legal and procedural solutions that are available, so that they do not have to start that work from scratch when they are in a leaders’ meeting.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

We believe that if powers do not need to reside in Brussels, they should be returned to Westminster. Will the Minister tell us which treaty provision he intends to use for that purpose, and if he does not have one, will he negotiate a new one?

[Mr Lidington]

In my statement, I described the areas in which we are seeking change. If the right hon. Lady looks at what the Prime Minister said in his speech this morning, she will see that he spoke of making the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality more of a reality, and of establishing an agreed mechanism within the EU system to ensure that we not only look at new proposals coming out of the Commission but have a means of reviewing regularly the existing exercise of competences and deciding which competences that are currently exercised at EU level no longer need to be exercised at that level.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Do we not have to control our own borders in order to fulfil the popular Conservative promise to cut net migration by more than two thirds during this Parliament? Should not we decide what the rules are, and apply them fairly to the whole world, rather than distinguishing between Europe and non-Europe?

[Mr Lidington]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been completely consistent in saying that he accepts the basic principle of freedom of movement for workers, but that that should not become a freedom to choose the most attractive welfare system in the European Union. On our estimate, something like 40% of the people who are here from elsewhere in the EU are receiving benefits or tax credits of some kind, and action on that front will have a significant effect on the pull factor that our welfare system exercises at the moment.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of his statement. He has already set much store by treaty change, but the Council of Ministers and the European Commission constantly break their own solemn word, and their treaties, in matters that are fundamental to them, so why should we put our faith or our trust in any changes that they might agree to?

[Mr Lidington]

When matters are made the subject of treaty change, they become binding in European and international law. There have been occasions, particularly in regard to the development of the single market, when British interests have been safeguarded by the existence of treaty provisions relating to discrimination against a country’s products in the single market. For example, we went through the European process in order to secure the lifting of the beef export ban. There is a stronger element of protection there than the hon. Gentleman might think.

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

Further to that point, does my right hon. Friend agree that the creation of a single market for services would be a big prize for British business, and that it would create many jobs? Does he also agree that that can be achieved only by being within the European Union?

[Mr Lidington]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. We have a single market for goods, and it is working pretty well, but the single market for services is woefully underdeveloped, despite the fact that in every European economy, it will be the services sectors from which the new jobs and the new growth will come. We need to seek determined action in that area.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)]

The Prime Minister has paid the usual lip service to the EU’s crisis of competitiveness, but, rather like what happened under his predecessor, Tony Blair, 15 years ago, nothing has changed. The Minister’s own officials are growing weary of initiatives that fail to tackle Euro-sclerosis. What exactly is going to be different this time? Will the Minister spell out the details of the plans that will magically make the EU more competitive?

[Mr Lidington]

If there is one thing that does not change, it is the nature of the hon. Gentleman’s interventions on this subject. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Business Secretary and I have spoken frequently on the agenda on competitiveness, and I would be happy to send the hon. Gentleman a sheaf of speeches if he would like me to. Broadly, this is about three things. It is about cutting the cost of unnecessary red tape and regulation on all businesses, particularly on small and medium-sized enterprises. It is about deepening the single market, particularly in digital and in services, where it is underdeveloped at the moment. And it is about forging ambitious new trade agreements with other countries and other regions of the world, for their benefit and ours. These are the opportunities that British business has urged us to take, and this Government are determined not to follow but to lead on these matters in the European debate.

[Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend avoid using up his limited bargaining power to obtain purely symbolic changes such as removing the words “ever closer union”, given that they have never been invoked by the European Court against Britain or used to require any other member state to move in an integrationist direction? They have even been dropped from the constitutional treaty. Will he instead focus on getting back any powers that are not required to run a common trading area, so that we in this Parliament can make more of our own laws and hold our lawmakers to account?

[Mr Lidington]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has always said that he is seeking a deal on reform that is substantive. That will be challenging to negotiate, and I do not want any Member to think that these reforms will somehow fall easily into our lap. There will be some tough negotiations ahead.

The importance of the words on “ever closer union” is that they encapsulate the fact that the EU at the moment is insufficiently flexible, still thinking of a single destination on integration for all its member states. As the Prime Minister said in his speech this morning, we need to see a much greater acceptance of the diversity of Europe at the moment. We need to see a readiness to live and let live, accepting that some countries will want to integrate more closely but others will wish to stand apart from that and that the decisions of each group should be properly respected.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister said that the agreement must be legally binding and irreversible. Will he clarify what he means by “irreversible”? Does it mean what happened in the case of the John Major opt-out on the social chapter, which was then reversed by the Tony Blair Government? Does it mean that no future democratically elected Government would be able to reverse a decision taken at this time by this Government?

[Mr Lidington]

Obviously, as Parliament is sovereign, not least in the fact that EU law has direct effect in the UK only because of Acts of Parliament—decisions of this House—the irreversibility of any decision any Government take on anything is limited. To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, we are keen to avoid a repeat of the sort of thing that happened over the European financial stabilisation mechanism earlier this year, when, in the heat of a crisis in the eurozone, a deal that had been solemnly agreed by all 28 member states in December 2010 suddenly appeared to be at risk and came up for discussion in a meeting where only 19 member Governments were gathered together. That is not the way in which we can do business in Europe in the future.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend must know that this is pretty thin gruel—it is much less than people had come to expect from the Government. It takes out a few words from the preamble but does nothing about the substance of the treaties; it deals with competition, for which the European Commission itself has a proposal; and it fails to restore control of our borders. It seems to me that its whole aim is to make Harold Wilson’s renegotiation look respectable. It needs to do more; it needs to have a full list of powers that will be restored to the United Kingdom and to this Parliament, not vacuously to Parliaments plural.

[Mr Lidington]

The problem with the idea of a unilateral national parliamentary veto, which my hon. Friend advocates, is that it would mean that, for example, the most protectionist Parliament in any one member state could veto every deregulatory and every single market measure that the United Kingdom believed was profoundly in the interests of our people and our prosperity. Such a unilateral veto would be incompatible even with the arrangements that Norway and Switzerland have with the European Union. I just say to him that if he had had the privilege and responsibility of sitting at Council of Ministers meetings in Brussels, a responsibility that he may well indeed enjoy at some future stage of his career, he would be less sanguine about what he terms the unambitious nature of what we are proposing. What we are proposing is going to require some very tough negotiating indeed.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

It is ridiculous that the Prime Minister is putting the referendum to the British people but he cannot explain what the British people are voting for. If they are voting out but they are not voting for the arrangements Norway or Switzerland have, what is it that the British people are voting for?

[Mr Lidington]

That will be a question for those who are campaigning for out to make clear when the referendum comes. A number of studies have been published on what various options for British engagement with Europe would look like. As for the Government, we are relentlessly focused on securing a successful outcome to this negotiation and delivering the reformed Europe that the British people want.

[Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)]

Removing the commitment to “ever closer union” will be nothing more than a rhetorical gesture unless it is backed by a radical shake-up of the way the EU takes its decisions. Does the Minister agree that most EU legislation is stitched up between the Commission, the European Parliament and member states behind closed doors, in the impenetrable process known as “trilogue”, and is currently acting as an integrationist ratchet? What specific proposals do the Government have for halting and reversing that ratchet?

[Mr Lidington]

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his speech this morning, we certainly think we need a new mechanism in the EU’s system for working that guards against that ratchet and provides for the opportunity to review and reallocate powers that do not need to be exercised at a European level. The pamphlet recently published by my hon. Friend provides some constructive and imaginative suggestions as to how we might take that forward.

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

The Prime Minister, in his letter, welcomes last month’s new EU trade strategy. Will the Government first carry out an assessment of how these trade deals would be affected by his wider demands for economic reform? Will the Minister confirm that it is his understanding of the recent remarks by Michael Froman, the US trade representative, that if the UK were to leave the EU, we would not be able to negotiate an independent trade deal with the United States?

[Mr Lidington]

I heard what Mr Froman said. Obviously, he is a senior official in the current US Administration, so one has to take what he says seriously. On the general point the hon. Lady makes, we see further moves forward in free trade deals as an important element in securing the reformed European Union that we want. The potential deal with the US is the most ambitious and most far reaching in its consequences of any of those, but I welcome the fact that the Commission’s trade strategy is also talking about forging new trade deals with some of the emerging economies and also with our good allies and partners in Australia and New Zealand.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

In this year, as we mark the 750th anniversary of the first English Parliament—some of our continental partners are rather newcomers to this concept—may I suggest to my right hon. Friend that unless we return powers to this Parliament, this exercise will not be worth while, for it is in this Parliament that authority ultimately should reside, on behalf of the British people? Can he therefore explain to us how on earth this new arrangement, whereby groups of national Parliaments acting together can stop unwanted legislative proposals, is going to work?

[Mr Lidington]

I share my hon. Friend’s love of English history, but I caution him against seeing Simon de Montfort as a true-born Englishman. The direct answer to his question is that the treaties already provide for a mechanism whereby a group of national Parliaments can demand and secure a review by the Commission of a measure the Commission is bringing forward. We think one option we should be looking at is turning such an arrangement above a certain threshold into an outright veto—a red card rather than a yellow card.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

Speaking as the chair of the parliamentary Labour party’s pro-EU group, which has more than 210 members, including the whole of the shadow Cabinet and the leader of the Labour party, I can tell the House that we are united behind staying in a Europe which is reforming and progressive. The Minister has said that if the Prime Minister does not get his own way, he rules nothing out, so if we leave Europe, what does that mean for the UK?

[Mr Lidington]

Clearly, when the negotiations are over the Government will make their assessment and their recommendation clear, setting out in detail their reasons for coming to that view, including their assessment of what alternative options there might be and the Government’s view on those. I do not think therefore that the hon. Gentleman has anything to fear. Our focus remains on a successful outcome to these negotiations, which we believe will deliver a reformed Europe—that is what the British people want to see.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

The clarity and ambition of the reforms that the Minister have outlined demonstrate that there is a big job of work to do. They also remind us just how important British leadership of the European Union has been. I am referring here to the introduction of the single market in the 1980s under Margaret Thatcher and the extension of that market, hopefully soon, because of the conclusion of those reforms. Does the Minister agree that our real ambition is to restate Britain’s leadership of the European Union in conjunction with other nation states so that we can bring about an innovative, modern and responsive economy that will benefit us all?

[Mr Lidington]

I agree with my hon. Friend. If we look back at the European Union’s history, we can take pride in the fact that two of its greatest achievements—building a single market across Europe and enlarging the European Union to embrace the new democracies of eastern and central Europe—were very much brought about by British leadership and, in particular, by the personal drive of Margaret Thatcher. What he says is important and the Government very much share the spirit in which he posed his question.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I am relieved that the Prime Minister has finally outlined his negotiating stance, and I wish him every success with it, because I want him to be able to bang the drum enthusiastically for our EU membership. Will the Minister confirm that, if meaningful reform is secured, the Prime Minister and the European Union will not have to deliver fully on all the fronts set out in the Prime Minister’s letter, including on in-work benefits, for the Prime Minister to be able to campaign vigorously in favour of the UK’s continued EU membership, the benefits of which were clearly set out in the EU’s balance of competences review?

[Mr Lidington]

We will need to have a satisfactory outcome that meets our requirements on all four of the areas of policies that I have described. Our position on welfare and migration remains as the Prime Minister set out in November and as he repeated this morning.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I note the constraints suggested by the Prime Minister that the free movement of peoples is not working and will never work. Even Sweden and Germany are realising that today. Would not a visa system for all be fairer and safeguard our borders?

[Mr Lidington]

The Home Office always keeps our visa arrangements under review, but I ask my hon. Friend to think about the consequences for the way in which both business and tourism operate between us and our neighbours in other democracies in Europe were there to be individual visas of the sort that he has described. It would certainly have to apply in reverse to British tourists and business visitors as well.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and for early sight of it. In his statement, he used the phrase “salary to be subsidised by the state.” How will the Government differentiate legally between salaries subsidised by the state for foreigners and tax credits to hand out to UK citizens?

[Mr Lidington]

Those are all matters that will be addressed during the course of the negotiations.

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that ensuring full permanent access to the single market without joining the euro is a key objective for our future economic health and would be a key sign that our continued membership of a reformed European Union gives us the best of both worlds—prosperity and flexibility?

[Mr Lidington]

My right hon. Friend put that very well, and getting that best of both worlds is exactly what the Prime Minister is seeking to do.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I was very pleased to hear in the Prime Minister’s letter that he hopes to be in a position to campaign with all his “heart and soul” to keep Britain in the European Union, but any negotiation requires priorities. What are the Prime Minister’s priorities?

[Mr Lidington]

The Prime Minister’s priorities are the four policy objectives that he set out this morning, and that I repeated in my statement today.

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

After all the statements made by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Europe, the Foreign Secretary, and the former Foreign Secretary about being in Europe and not being run by Europe, and after all the pledges to restore the primacy of national Parliaments and to get an opt-out from the charter of fundamental rights to restore our borders, is that it? Is that the sum total of the Government’s position in this renegotiation? Is not the onus on those who advocate that we should stay in the European Union to explain why we should put up with being a second-tier country in an increasingly centralised European Union, paying more and more, and losing more and more control?

[Mr Lidington]

Just on the charter of fundamental rights, the Prime Minister did refer to that in his speech this morning. It is an issue that we will be seeking to address through the forthcoming British Bill of Rights. I think that my hon. Friend underestimates how demanding and how far reaching the proposal that we have made will be. The Danish Prime Minister said this morning that what the Prime Minister proposed was

“a good basis for concrete negotiations”

but that “it will be difficult”. I hope that we succeed because we need a strong UK in the European Union.

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

How will the Minister ensure that investment will not be impacted by the uncertainty that will precede an EU referendum, bearing in mind that Northern Ireland is in a unique situation, with a land border with a south of Ireland that will continue to be part of the European Union?

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Lady is right, and it is one reason why I regard it as an important responsibility on my part to keep in very close contact with what the three devolved Administrations—in this case the Northern Ireland Executive—are thinking. At the moment, there are no signs that the flow of foreign direct investment is drying up. In fact it is still the case that the United Kingdom gets a bigger share of third country direct investment into the European Union than any other member state.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

Given that my right hon. Friend has conceded that several elements of the Prime Minister’s letter will require treaty change, will he tell the House what is his best estimate of the length of time that that change will take, even if it were miraculously to be immediately agreed?

[Mr Lidington]

I do not blame my right hon. Friend for asking what is a legitimate question, but that is something that we will be talking about in the context of the negotiations. Clearly, it is true—this is what I think lays behind his question—that each member state will have its own constitutional arrangements for ratifying any new treaty.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Has the Prime Minister told the Minister of State the date by which he will make up his mind and tell us which way he will go in this referendum? If we are voting to leave the EU, why has he not set out exactly what we are voting for?

[Mr Lidington]

The Prime Minister will make his position clear at the end of the negotiations. It would seem slightly odd to embark on a process of negotiations and declare at the beginning what the outcome was going to be.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Will the Minister tell us whether we or Europe should decide on how many migrants come to the UK?

[Mr Lidington]

We are seeking a situation in which we have tougher rules against the abuse of freedom of movement by criminals, fraudsters and others. We also want to reduce significantly the pull factor that our welfare system provides at present.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister referred to working together to block unwanted European legislation. Our fishing industry has been subject to some of the most unwarranted European legislation, giving us more red tape, more bureaucracy, fewer fishing boats and fewer jobs. Our fishing sector just wants control over local fishing waters; it does not want the EU to have that control. Will the Minister tell us what has been done to help our fishermen?

[Mr Lidington]

I think that we have demonstrated, through our actions as well as our words, our support for the UK fishing community. I am talking about the reform of the common fisheries policy that British Ministers helped to secure last year. That has led to a ban on the practice of discarding, which is something that British Governments of all colours have been trying to achieve for decades, and a shift towards more local and regional management of fisheries than was the case in the past.

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

What has not been included in the statement is far more important than what has been included. There is nothing about regaining control over our trade deals with the rest of the world, nothing about regaining control over farming, fisheries, regional aid or state aid and nothing about ending the free movement of people. Does my right hon. Friend agree that today will be looked back on as the day when it became clear that the renegotiation amounts to no more than tinkering around the edges, and fundamentally on great areas of policy this country will still finish up being told what to do by the rest of the EU?

[Mr Lidington]

No, I do not, on two counts. First, my hon. Friend understates the significance of the reforms that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has proposed. Secondly, this is a matter in the end for the British people, not me, the Prime Minister or any other Member of the House, and if they decide to stay in a reformed European Union, the responsibility of this and any future British Government will be not to be passive but to lead the debate within Europe and secure outcomes that benefit the security and prosperity of the British people.

[Stuart Blair Donaldson (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (SNP)]

As the Minister did not answer my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), can I ask again what specifically from Scotland’s agenda for EU reform has been included in the Government’s negotiations?

[Mr Lidington]

The last time I talked to Scottish Ministers about their proposals, they were very keen on measures to deepen the single market in services and digital, which would provide major benefits to Scotland, and to take forward new free trade deals with countries around the world. I remind the hon. Gentleman that greater access to foreign markets for the Scotch whisky industry is something that the United Kingdom Government consistently put at the forefront of our own input into the Brussels discussions.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

If the result of the EU referendum is to be enduring, it must not be on the basis of a false prospectus. Will my right hon. Friend therefore give us an assurance that any changes that are agreed will be properly legally binding and not subject to a fudge when the referendum is over?

[Mr Lidington]

The Prime Minister has made it very clear that we need to have outcomes that make sure that whatever package of reforms can be achieved, assuming that the negotiations are successful, they are legally binding and irreversible, for exactly the reasons that my hon. Friend gives.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

There has been a lot of speculation about an early referendum. Without a running commentary, will the Minister set out the essential steps and the timetable necessary to make it possible to hold a referendum next year?

[Mr Lidington]

We need to have the European Referendum Bill on the statute book and to have concluded the European negotiations. When both those criteria have been fulfilled, we need to allow time for secondary legislation that appoints a specific date to go through both Houses of Parliament, and after that we need to allow for a campaign period of a minimum of 10 weeks.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Europe’s economies will eventually return to growth, so is it not in the national interest of our continental European partners to support the Prime Minister in seeking to reduce in-work benefits and in turn to reduce the brain-drain out of Europe?

[Mr Lidington]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is quite a tragic predicament to find many highly qualified, very well-educated young men and women who feel that they have no option but to take an unskilled, low-paid job in another European country because they cannot find work at home. The long-term answer to that challenge must in large part lie in the ability of national Governments and the European Union to generate resurgent economic growth and add to opportunities for employment.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Can I cheer up the Minister by assuring him that pro-EU, pro-reform Members on this side of the House warmly welcome his statement today? What would be the Government’s position in the event of an out vote? Members on these Benches remember the ‘90s, and we do not want to see this Prime Minister marching out into the rose garden and inviting the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) to put up or shut up. We want the Prime Minister to tell us where he stands; we do not want that lot dictating what happens in the event of an out vote.

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s kind thoughts, but I always strive to continue to be cheerful in this job. The result of the referendum will be regarded by the Government as binding. This is a sovereign decision for the British people as a whole to take, and I am proud that it is my party and a Conservative Government that are finally giving the British people the right to take that decision.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

It has never been a matter of no immigration; we want controlled immigration. What evidence is there that reducing access to benefits will have any real effect on the number of people coming into this country?

[Mr Lidington]

A number of factors give rise to migration, but the fact that roughly 40% of people from elsewhere in the EU who live in the UK are in receipt of benefits or tax credits of some sort indicates that that is one of the major contributors to the pull factors.

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

In his speech this morning the Prime Minister announced his intention to scrap Labour’s Human Rights Act. Is he opposed to the Act because it was a Labour Government who finally implemented it, or is he opposed to human rights on a more fundamental level?

[Mr Lidington]

I am sorry if the hon. Lady was shocked by that sentence in the Prime Minister’s speech, but it was in the Conservative party manifesto back in May. She is obviously entitled to defend the Blair Government’s Human Rights Act, but this country enjoyed a long tradition of respect for human rights well before that legislation was enacted, and I am confident that the United Kingdom will continue to have such a tradition when it has been replaced.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I will be proud to walk through the Division Lobby in support of the Government’s European Union Referendum Bill. Does my right hon. Friend think that most of the Opposition parties completely lack credibility, first, because they fought the right of the British people to have a say on our EU membership, and secondly because they now seem to be fighting the concept of reform?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is right. Some Opposition Members grossly underestimate the sense of resentment among many men and women in this country at having seen treaty after treaty go through, changing the balance of powers in Europe, with the British people never being asked to have their say.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

It is said that Christopher Columbus, when he set out, did not know where he was going; when he got there, he did not know where he was, and when he got back, he did not know where he had been. Is there not a serious danger of the Prime Minister facing exactly the same situation with his holographic negotiation strategy? Is the Minister not concerned that in personalising this, as he did in his statement, as the Prime Minister’s renegotiation, he creates a fundamental point of weakness in that we will have a Prime Minister’s referendum on a question that people view as somewhere between a figment and a fig leaf?

[Mr Lidington]

The entire Government were elected on a manifesto of renegotiation, reform and referendum. I enjoyed the joke, but Christopher Columbus is remembered for his achievement in navigation and discovery and for symbolising the opening of a new age. I hope that this renegotiation is the start of a new age of greater flexibility, democracy and competitiveness for Europe.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Some minutes ago I think I heard my right hon. Friend explain that the Bill of Rights would deal with our obligations under the charter of fundamental rights. Do the Government intend to legislate notwithstanding our obligations under the EU, or do they have some other plan, as yet unannounced, to deal with our voluntary subjection to the European Court of Justice?

[Mr Lidington]

In many cases involving trade and the single market, the European Court of Justice has produced judgments that have been very much to the advantage of British interests. It is true that if there is a single market, some kind of independent judicial arbiter is needed to settle disputes. My hon. Friend will need to contain his understandable impatience a little longer. My right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary intends in due course to announce details of the way forward on replacing the Bill of Rights and the implications of that policy.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the statement. The Minister has set out some very reasonable things to the House. May I assure him that there are many on the Opposition Benches who will work constructively with him and the Government to get the best for the UK and to face down some of the abuse that he has received from his own side on the statement today? There are people who would recklessly leave the EU, regardless of the cost to this country.

[Mr Lidington]

For five and a half years now I have had the pleasure of vigorous and sometimes robust discussions with my right hon. and hon. Friends, as well as with Opposition Members. There are passionately and honourably held differences of view across the House in all parties about the United Kingdom’s relationship with Europe. I hope we can continue to take this debate forward in a spirit of mutual respect for people whose views may differ from our own.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

The debate on whether the British people should vote to remain in or leave the EU has been characterised by some in terms of the certainty of remaining against the uncertainty of leaving, but does my right hon. Friend agree that with the current uncertain situation in Europe, particularly on the eurozone and the impact of the migrant crisis, voting to remain is as much a leap in the dark as voting to leave?

[Mr Lidington]

I advise my hon. Friend to wait until the conclusion of the negotiations, because we will then have much greater clarity over the nature of the choice that the British people will have to make.

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that the Financial Secretary promised to negotiate at EU level to achieve a zero rate of VAT on feminine hygiene products. He did not commit to a timetable, however, nor did he say that this would be placed alongside the Prime Minister’s other demands. Can the right hon. Gentleman reassure the House that women’s rights are not a second-class issue on this Government’s European agenda, by making those commitments today?

[Mr Lidington]

My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary made a very clear pledge to the House from this Dispatch Box, and the Government will pursue that.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Part 1 of the letter on economic governance states:

“There are today effectively two sorts of members of the European Union”—

those in the euro and those outside. Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of the countries currently outside the euro other than ourselves are likely to remain in that position for many, many years to come, and that therefore it is in the wider interests of the whole EU that the European Union accepts that reality and enters into our negotiations on this point with an understanding of that fact?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. For as far ahead as I can see, some EU member states will be part of the single currency and a significant number, not only the United Kingdom, will be outside it. I believe that those in the eurozone will need to integrate their fiscal, economic and, to some extent, political arrangements more closely. The stability of the currency union is in the interests of the United Kingdom, even though we are not going to join it, so getting that relationship right between euro-ins and euro-outs is an important strategic challenge, and it is a central feature of our negotiation for that reason.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

The Minister’s statement understandably consisted largely of significant chunks quoted from the Prime Minister’s letter to President Tusk. One section that the Minister did not repeat, though, was the Prime Minister’s closing remarks, in which he said:

“I am ready to campaign with all my heart and soul to keep Britain inside a reformed European Union”.

Why did the Minister not include that? Is it because, instead of campaigning with his heart and soul with his own party leader, he intends to campaign with the leader of UKIP?

[Mr Lidington]

Despite the challenges ahead, I remain confident of a successful outcome to these negotiations and of joining enthusiastically with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in favour of continued British membership of a reformed European Union on the basis that my right hon. Friend set out in his speech this morning.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement to the House today. I am pleased to see that “rule nothing out” still features large in everything that is said and heard. What vexes me, and I am sure many right hon. and hon. Members, is the best way to achieve that deal and the aims that he has advanced today, which are both welcome and laudable—free trade, immigration and benefits control, sovereignty of Parliament, independent economic governance and the removal of ever closer union. Does he agree that the best way to achieve these aims is very simple—that is, to vote to leave?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I let the hon. Gentleman blurt it out because I did not wish to stop him in mid-flow, but the question, which was more a list, suffered from the disadvantage of being too long, and it would be good to avoid that in future. I say that to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman and to the House.

[Mr Lidington]

No, I agree rather with the Prime Minister when he said that we would get the best of both worlds by continued membership of a reformed European Union which provided us with amplified power for our own economic and security objectives for international work, but which was also a Europe more committed in the future than now to democratic accountability, to acceptance of its own diversity and to economic competitiveness.

[Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)]

Yesterday the Irish Prime Minister, the Taoiseach, was in Downing Street, where he spoke of his concerns about the impact that a UK exit would have on British-Irish relations. Does the Minister accept that those concerns are shared by many people in Britain? What do the Government propose to do to address them?

[Mr Lidington]

We have a very close relationship with Ireland and it is true that the reconciliation in Northern Ireland has in part been brought about in the context of the fact that the United Kingdom and Ireland have worked very closely together as partners within the European Union. We will certainly be listening to all our friends across Europe, as well as to the views of leaders in Northern Ireland, but at the end of the day this is a matter for the people of the United Kingdom to decide, just as the Irish people have voted many times on whether or not to accept new European Union treaties.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for making the statement, and I commend him on the way he goes about making statements and engages with the House. I very much welcome the evolution of the themes and policies in the statement. My constituents will probably make up their mind based on two things—whether we can control our own borders, and the ability to trade widely with the world. With the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership bogged down in a politically correct quagmire in the European Union, what is my right hon. Friend’s assessment of the ability of the European Union to conclude future free trade deals?

[Mr Lidington]

It is indeed complex and challenging sometimes to get an agreed negotiating position across 28 different countries and give the mandate to the Commission to negotiate collectively on our behalf, but the weight—the leverage—that derives from negotiating as a marketplace of 500 million people is very significant indeed. It makes other Governments, even of large countries, more willing to endure the political hassle that they themselves face with their own business interests in order to bring about free trade agreements which, I believe, are a win-win for both sides.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Given that the Government have repeatedly rejected the principle of a double majority in the referendum, will the Minister accept the result if England votes narrowly to leave, but is outvoted by the rest of the UK voting to stay in? More importantly, will his Back Benchers, who have barely asked a single supportive question, accept that result?

[Mr Lidington]

It is the United Kingdom that is the member state of the European Union. I remind the hon. Gentleman that his party in May this year was against giving the people of Scotland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom the chance to vote on their future in Europe.

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

I respect my right hon. Friend very much indeed, but does he seriously believe that Timmermans’ grudging enjoinder, “Europe where necessary, national where possible”, iterated in the Tusk letter and reiterated in his speech today, is a sufficiently ambitious lodestar for the UK’s negotiations?

[Mr Lidington]

It is one important and significant element in the negotiation, but it is not the whole story.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, which is an important step on the journey towards fundamental reform in the EU. Given the current unsustainable migration flows, does he agree that it is vital to ensure that visitors from the EU must first reside here and also contribute before they qualify for in-work benefits and social housing, and will he make this an urgent priority?

[Mr Lidington]

Indeed; that is exactly the objective that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out in his speech today.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is in both our and the EU’s interests to trade more freely with the high-growth-potential Commonwealth economies, and that if the EU continues to move glacially on this issue, we should build more free trade agreements with the Commonwealth on our own?

[Mr Lidington]

The Commonwealth countries, important though they are, account for only 17% of global GDP, taken all together. I agree with my hon. Friend’s emphasis on the need to forge free trade agreements with emerging economies as well as with developed economies, but I caution against thinking that it would be quicker and easier to strike such a deal if the United Kingdom, with 65 million people, were negotiating rather than the European Union, with a 500 million-strong market.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

At this time of renegotiation, those who have their minds set on what they are going to do are almost irrelevant. However, will my right hon. Friend send a message to Europhiles like the political scientist Professor Hix, who gave evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee and felt that no matter what the renegotiations achieved, the dangers lie in those who believe that this country would vote to stay in if nothing is achieved? The default position at the moment, as I read the Prime Minister’s statement, is that if nothing changes we will opt to leave.

[Mr Lidington]

The Prime Minister is very clear that he believes that serious reforms are essential if the British people are to believe that their future lies in membership of the European Union.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

If we vote to leave the European Union, how long will a legally binding exit take—days, weeks, months or years?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is understandably inviting me to speculate about a post-referendum outcome when the Government are focused on what happens during a referendum. I suggest that he might like to study article 50 of the treaty on European Union, particularly subsections (2) and (3), which will give him a lot more detail on the matter.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that it is in the Library if the hon. Gentleman is not fully conversant with it already. I expect that the Minister of State could reproduce it backwards in Sanskrit, and probably did so when he won “University Challenge”.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and the fortitude he is showing in answering so many questions. Does he agree that the crisis in the eurozone means that the eurozone countries need to move together and agree a single fiscal policy for their single currency, but the key for our negotiations has to be that for the non-euro countries, Europe needs to do less and do it better?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend puts the point well and succinctly, and I agree with his comments.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

As hon. Members have said, the EU is very slow at concluding important free trade deals around the world, and that can harm our international competitiveness. Are the Government still committed to negotiating a means to fast-track important free trade deals in Europe?

[Mr Lidington]

We believe that Europe needs to take forward with much greater energy and determination the work in securing free trade deals with other countries and regions of the world. The trade strategy recently published by the Commission demonstrates a new and raised level of ambition that we very much welcome, but we want this agenda to be turbocharged.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that when we, as a sovereign Parliament, find ourselves in the position where we cannot even reduce the level of VAT on women’s sanitary products, the European Union has far too much power? Will he join me in criticising those who naively say that they would stay in Europe at any price, thereby undermining our renegotiations because without a walk-away position there can be no meaningful renegotiation?

[Mr Lidington]

The Government are clear that we need some very clear agreed reforms in order to make the recommendation to the British people that the Prime Minister said that he wishes to make, but also the British people will need to see serious reforms if they are to be persuaded to vote in favour of continued British membership. Beyond that, Europe as a whole would benefit from the sort of reforms that we are advocating because there are too many jobless young people in Europe who need greater European competitiveness, and in very many European countries we are seeing a sense of dissatisfaction and alienation from the way in which decisions are currently taken in Brussels.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend rightly said at the beginning of his statement that we have a mandate to renegotiate thanks to our securing an outright Conservative victory at the general election. Does he agree that the reforms need to be permanent and irreversible as well as sufficient, because otherwise residents in my constituency and elsewhere will simply vote to leave?

[Mr Lidington]

I agree with my hon. Friend.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the referendum at the end of these negotiations must be final and that there can be no question of second chances or further renegotiation if people choose to leave the European Union?

[Mr Lidington]

Yes. The decision that the British people make will be binding. As the Prime Minister said, this is probably the most important vote for the future of this country that any of us who are of voting age will take part in during our lifetimes. The idea that one can then somehow go away and think again is at odds with reality and at odds, too, with the procedure spelled out in the treaties.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Bone]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

May I thank the excellent Europe Minister for making this statement, and for his long tenure in office and the way in which he has managed to change position so many times? On occasion, I almost believe him. I thank the Prime Minister for his honesty today in coming forward with a renegotiation package that makes it clear that if the package is successful, we will still be in a political union and still have free movement. That allows Eurosceptics to say, “No longer do we have to pretend there’s going to be a substantial renegotiation—we can get on with campaigning to come out.” Will the Minister pass on my thanks to the Prime Minister?

[Mr Lidington]

I am always happy to pass on compliments from my hon. Friend. I have to confess that I would have been somewhat surprised had almost anything I said been enough to satisfy him, but I am sure we will continue to have these debates in future.

EU Renegotiation

David Lidington Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

In his statement to the House on 19 October, Official Report, column 656, following the October European Council, the Prime Minister said that he would be writing to the President of the European Council to set out the changes the Government wished to see in reforming the UK’s relationship with the European Union. A copy of that letter can be found online at:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2015-11-10/HCWS303/

[HCWS303]

Renegotiation of EU Membership (Devolved Administrations)

David Lidington Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) on securing this debate.

I, too, want to avoid reprising the greatest hits from today’s ministerial statement in the House, but it would be remiss of me if I did not start by putting it on the record that today the Prime Minister wrote to the President of the European Council setting out four key areas on which he seeks reform: on sovereignty and subsidiarity; on competitiveness; on eurozone governance; and on migration and welfare. Anyone who examines the Prime Minister’s speech this morning or the text of his letter to Mr Tusk, which was released slightly later, will see that many areas in which we are seeking reform match the views often expressed by members of the devolved Governments of the United Kingdom.

The Scottish Government have published their agenda for reform, which includes calls for greater focus on competitiveness; deepening the European single market, and particularly for the creation of a Europe-wide digital single market; and progress on an internal energy union. The United Kingdom Government have embodied all those things in their approach to European reform. Our proposals for smarter, less burdensome and less complex regulation will be particularly welcome in Northern Ireland, which is overwhelmingly a small and medium-sized enterprise economy.

If we look at previous economic reforms, we find that the EU-South Korea free trade agreement, for example, is worth up to £500 million a year to the British economy. That agreement is already bringing advantages to sectors such as whisky and financial services, which are important in Scotland and in the two other devolved parts of this country. The Scottish Government’s agenda for reform also mentioned a stronger role for national Parliaments and the need to secure a stronger focus at European level on subsidiarity and proportionality—those ideas are meant to be written into the DNA of the way in which the EU operates.

I was asked why certain other matters were not included in the Prime Minister’s letter. Of course, the Government have already delivered quite a lot of effort on securing reform on some of those issues. Earlier, in the House, I mentioned the Damanaki proposals on fisheries reform, which have delivered things such as the ban on discarding, which successive British Governments have sought for many, many years and which have led to a shift towards greater local and regional management of fisheries. It is no secret that British Ministers would have wished to go further, and I am sure there will be an opportunity to return to the charge; but in the meantime, the real priority in fishing is to ensure that we implement those reforms in full.

Similarly, a measure of reform was achieved in the last common agricultural policy round, but, of course, the timing of the agricultural reviews matches that of the multi-annual financial framework, so the next opportunity to seek more thorough reform of agriculture will be in a few years’ time, as we approach the review of the MFF.

Many contributions to today’s debate focused on the negotiation process. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is leading a clear process to secure reform, which is now well under way. He has already met the leaders of all the other 27 member states, as well as the President of the European Commission and the Presidents of the European Parliament and the European Council. In parallel, talks on technical issues have been taking place in Brussels to inform our analysis of the legal options for reform. There will now be a process of negotiation involving all 28 member states leading up to the European Council in December, which will be the next time that Heads of Government will substantively discuss these issues.

We attach great importance to our engagement with the devolved Administrations on this issue, as we do on others. Having said that, all hon. Members will be aware that foreign policy issues, including the United Kingdom’s membership of international organisations, are reserved matters and that relations with the EU are the responsibility of the Parliament and the Government of the United Kingdom as a whole. Of course, Scottish National party Members have a mandate from their electors in Scotland to hold the United Kingdom Government to account for the policies that we adopt on those reserved matters, so the hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen from the SNP who spoke this afternoon are doing precisely what it is constitutionally right for them to do on behalf of the people of Scotland.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Lidington]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I would like to make a bit more progress. I will try to give way, but I am conscious of the time and wish to try to respond to the points made in the debate.

We try to involve the devolved Administrations as directly and fully as possible in decision making on EU matters that touch on devolved areas. We have held discussions with representatives from the devolved Administrations throughout the renegotiation process, and I will be continuing those discussions when I visit Edinburgh tomorrow. I am actively looking for dates to visit Cardiff and Belfast in the near future. The UK’s renegotiation is now also a standing agenda item at meetings of the Joint Ministerial Committee on Europe, which I chair. The renegotiation will also be an issue for discussion at the next meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee chaired by the Prime Minister and involving the First Ministers of the three devolved Administrations, which is next due to meet in January.

It has been implicit in a number of speeches this afternoon that it will not be enough simply to rely on a series of formal meetings at set intervals. If the consultation process is to work effectively, it will rely not only on UK Ministers arranging meetings or conversations, but on devolved Ministers getting on the phone when an issue arises that concerns them or when they wish to express a particularly important point of view to a British Minister, so that view is registered and can be taken into account in framing the UK position. That, after all, is how we now work in respect of EU policy generally. There is an agreed position across the Government that every Department, before it seeks collective agreement within the UK Government on a negotiating position in relation to a European issue, should analyse whether that question touches on devolved responsibilities and, if it does, should consult the devolved Administrations. In their written submission to fellow UK Ministers, Departments should summarise the views and interests of the devolved Administrations, so that we can take them into account when making our decisions.

As the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) said, we are one United Kingdom. There will be one in/out referendum, which will be decided on a majority of those who vote. It is the UK that is the member state of the EU, so it is right that the electorate of the member state as a whole has a say on continued EU membership.

I was also asked about the Government’s approach to involving the devolved Administrations in EU business, and I strongly maintain that we always try to ensure that the interests of the devolved Governments and the people of all parts of the UK are defended and advanced. The Scottish Fisheries Minister, Mr Lochhead, is in north America this week, and our embassy in Washington has been active in arranging meetings for that visit. Our officials in the United States have been active in seeking benefits for Scottish business of the kind sought by Mr Lochhead, such as the lifting of the US ban on the import of haggis.

We have a system under which we welcome devolved Ministers to join delegations in Brussels, and I have welcomed a Welsh Minister to meetings of the General Affairs Council more than once when we have been due to discuss cohesion policy, which is of particular importance to the Government and people of Wales. All three devolved Administrations sent Ministers and officials to the fisheries talks, where collectively they usually far outnumbered the UK delegation.

Human Rights (Eritrea)

David Lidington Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) on securing this timely debate, and on speaking with such eloquence and passion.

The debate is timely because later this week, as the House will know, European and African leaders will gather in Malta to discuss how we can work together to reduce the number of people risking their lives in perilous journeys across the Mediterranean. This year alone more than 32,000 Eritreans have made that crossing, and others have lost their lives in the attempt. More Eritreans still are living in refugee camps in Ethiopia and Sudan, so the question has to be, as the hon. Gentleman asked, why are so many leaving and what can be done to improve the situation within Eritrea?

A large part of the answer, as the hon. Gentleman argued, relates to human rights. The Government, like the hon. Gentleman and others who spoke this evening, are well aware of the shockingly bad human rights record of the Government of Eritrea. That is why the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s most recent human rights report listed Eritrea as a priority country and made it clear that its Government fell short of their international human rights commitments. I could give the House a very long list, but because of the time constraints I will confine myself to saying that we have concerns, for example, about allegations of widespread arbitrary detention, shortcomings in the rule of law, and a lack of respect for fundamental human freedoms.

We are troubled also by the United Nations commission of inquiry’s findings that widespread human rights violations had been committed in Eritrea. It is unfortunate that the commission has so far been unable to visit Eritrea to see the situation at first hand. In July this year at the UN Human Rights Council, the United Kingdom supported an extension of the commission’s mandate so that it could further investigate these allegations. We have made it clear to the Government of Eritrea that they must co-operate with the UN commission, including allowing its members to visit Eritrea to see matters for themselves, and that they must co-operate also with other UN human rights bodies.

[Jim Shannon]

I want it recorded in Hansard, please, that this year marks the eighth anniversary of the illegal removal of Patriarch Antonios from his position as head of the Eritrean Orthodox Church, the country’s largest religious community. Does the Minister agree that it is unacceptable that the patriarch, an octogenarian with severe diabetes, has been under house arrest since 2007?

[Mr Lidington]

Yes, I do. I hope that the attention the hon. Gentleman has drawn to the case will be noticed in the Eritrean embassy and that there will be some relenting in the position that the Government have adopted hitherto.

At the UN Human Rights Council and in our bilateral discussions, the British Government have set out very clearly to the Eritrean authorities the other steps we believe the country needs to take to improve its human rights record. They include expecting the Government of Eritrea to commit to doing something as apparently straightforward as implementing its own constitution, to release all those who have been arbitrarily detained, and to hold responsible the people who ought to be accountable for various violations and abuses of human rights. We shall continue to press those matters on the Eritrean authorities bilaterally and through our multinational work in Europe and elsewhere.

Alongside the very real concerns shared by everyone in the House this evening, we should not ignore any signs of progress, even small ones. I welcome the fact that Eritrea took part in the UN universal periodic review process at the Human Rights Council and in article 8 dialogue with the EU. Last year, Eritrea ratified the convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and voted in favour of a global moratorium on the use of the death penalty. I also welcome its co-operation in efforts to tackle the human trafficking and smuggling that puts people’s lives at risk. These are indeed small steps, but they are steps in the right direction. The test now is for the Eritrean Government to follow through on their commitments with concrete action to improve the human rights situation on the ground, and the onus is on them to demonstrate progress.

A key part of that action should be to amend Eritrea’s system of indefinite national service. A system without a clear end date drives many young people to leave the country, and this needs to change. I welcome the fact that earlier this year the Eritrean Government made a public pledge to limit national service to 18 months, but Ministers here have been very clear when talking to the Government in Asmara that it is not enough for Eritrean officials or Ministers simply to make that pledge in Europe—the commitment needs to be publicised widely within Eritrea itself, and it should apply to all conscripts and not just those who have been enlisted recently.

As the House knows, the challenges that ordinary Eritreans face are not about human rights alone: they are also about a lack of economic opportunity. Eritrea is facing the effects of the El Niño weather phenomenon, which is now causing severe food insecurity across many parts of Africa. Many young Eritreans leave the country because they have no job, and no hope of finding one, to support themselves and their families. While we will all continue to work assiduously for an improvement in human rights in Eritrea, the fact will remain that if an educated young man in Asmara were to see his human rights situation improve but still be unable to find work to support his family, he might yet feel compelled to leave and put his life in the hands of unscrupulous criminal gangs that profit from people’s desperation.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) asked about the Home Office’s approach to asylum policy. In this country we have a proud history of granting protection to those who need it. All asylum claims are carefully considered on their individual merits in accordance with our international obligations, particularly the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees. The Home Office’s country guidance on handling Eritrean asylum claims was updated in September this year. It recognises that there are indeed persistent human rights challenges in Eritrea but stresses also the need to consider each claim on its individual merits. We take those international responsibilities seriously, and we grant protection to Eritreans in genuine need.

The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich raised a number of specific questions, and I will try to provide him with answers. He asked about the imposition of the expatriate tax. The levy of a tax on nationals living in a foreign country is not in itself illegal—in fact, many countries do it—but the UN resolution made it clear that using coercive measures to try to collect such a tax would be illegal. We have made it clear to the Eritrean embassy in London that coercive measures will not be accepted in the United Kingdom. We urge any such cases to be reported to the relevant police force without delay, so that an investigation can be made and action taken.

The hon. Gentleman asked about increased development assistance to Eritrea, including through the EU’s European development fund 11. That fund is still under discussion, and I completely understand the reasons behind the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. At the same time, however, we face the reality that Eritrea is one of the poorest countries anywhere in the world, and there is scope to help to improve and save the lives of Eritrean people. For example, Eritrea has begun to make some progress towards the health outcomes embodied in the millennium development goals. We should bear that in mind when we consider the pros and cons of a particular aid measure.

Aid does not mean providing funding to the Government of Eritrea. Greater EU assistance could, for example, be provided through United Nations agencies and international non-governmental organisations. I give a commitment that any further Department for International Development assistance will be carefully assessed against Eritrea’s commitment to its partnership principles, including on civil and political rights.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I want to press the Minister on how we can know, with a regime that has no financial accountability and does not let in international observers, that any development aid will be spent on health or economic outcomes, rather than on lining the pockets of party officials or the regime’s supporters.

[Mr Lidington]

That is precisely why aid is often best spent via reputable international agencies and NGOs with a track record of ensuring that help goes to those who are genuinely in need and which will shout very loudly if the Government of the recipient country try to interfere in that progress.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the Cotonou agreement. In my time in ministerial office, I have certainly approved a United Kingdom position for the Council of Ministers that supported the suspension of Cotonou agreement measures to more than one African country because of abuses of human rights or the suspension of the rule of law. As he said, those disciplines are available within the system that the EU deploys.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the UN arms embargo. Last month, the Security Council noted in resolution 2244 that, during the course of its current and previous mandates, the sanctions monitoring group had not found any evidence of the Government of Eritrea supporting al-Shabaab. I welcome that, but the resolution was also clear on what Eritrea needed to do if it wanted a serious discussion on the overall appropriateness of sanctions—that is, to deepen its engagement with the monitoring group and facilitate its entry into Eritrea.

I have to confess that I am not at the moment persuaded by what the hon. Gentleman urged in respect of mining companies, although I will report what he said to my colleagues in DFID and the Foreign Office. Despite all the problems in Eritrea, the mining companies provide one of the few sources of employment for people. It may be a matter of weighing up our wish to penalise the Government against the fact that we might inadvertently penalise people who are themselves suffering.

[Matthew Pennycook]

There are documented instances of forced labour at more than one mine, with compulsory military conscription being used. It is not a process whereby an international mining company goes in there legitimately. These sites are the sites of some of the abuses that I have talked about.

[Mr Lidington]

I will write to the hon. Gentleman after the debate with chapter and verse, but the advice I have received is that Nevsun, the leading international mining company in Eritrea, has a firm policy of refusing to accept on to its workforce people who have been conscripted in the way he describes. Undoubtedly, the Eritrean Government have tried to use conscripted labour in mines at various times.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the ongoing border dispute between Eritrea and Ethiopia. I agree that that needs to be resolved and that the responsibility for that lies with the two countries concerned. We will continue to encourage, bilaterally and through the European Union, Eritrea and Ethiopia alike to talk to each other and engage through the various appropriate international forums to overcome the current stalemate. We hope that progress can be made towards demarcation, in accordance with the decision of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission.

Overall, while there has been limited progress, there is a great deal more that the Government of Eritrea need to do to tackle human rights abuses. The problems of Eritrea are all interlinked. It cannot fulfil its potential without genuine respect for human rights. Efforts to improve economic opportunities in Eritrea must go hand in hand with improvements in human rights and the rule of law. We will not only continue to monitor the situation closely, but seek always to support improvements in our bilateral and multilateral work. It is by being clear and firm on the need for change, and about the advantages to Eritrea and its people of making that change, that we stand the best chance of securing some improvement in the lives of ordinary people living in Eritrea. That, I hope and believe, is a goal that all hon. Members in the House tonight will share.

Question put and agreed to.