Destruction of Historic Sites (Syria and Iraq)
Debate between David Lidington and Gareth Thomas(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) on securing this debate. Its quality has been hugely increased by both the long-standing interest and the long experience that he and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) bring to policies on archaeology and the trade in cultural antiquities.
The Government are deeply concerned by the destruction of cultural and religious sites in both Syria and Iraq, and particularly by the looting of historic artefacts and the illicit trade in them. In Syria, damage has been caused to all six UNESCO world heritage sites. As hon. Members have said, they include the old city of Aleppo, which houses souks going as far back as the 12th century, and Krak des Chevaliers, which has stood since the 11th century. We believe that all sides in the conflict have a responsibility to protect these sites of cultural importance. We are dealing not only with action by ISIL but, as has been said, with military tactics used by the Assad regime in Syria that have caused considerable damage, particularly to Aleppo, including air strikes, artillery and barrel bombs.
As was the case with the Taliban in Afghanistan and the terrorists linked to al-Qaeda in Mali, we are dealing with an extremist group in Iraq that is seeking to impose iconoclasm on any evidence of religious practice that does not conform to its extremely narrow and perverted interpretation of Islam. In Iraq, the Green Church, one of the oldest orthodox Christian churches in the middle east, and the Mosque of the Prophet Younis have both been deliberately obliterated by ISIL explosives. As my hon. Friends the Members for Newark, for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and for East Worthing and Shoreham have explained, the wanton destruction is not only a cultural crime, representing the loss of irreplaceable artefacts and manuscripts of times past, but something with profound consequences. It has an impact on diversity in the middle east, not just historically, but today and in looking forward to a middle east where, we hope, it will remain possible for people of different faiths or different origins to live together in peace.
The destruction is undermining the rich cultural heritage, history and sense of belonging of all communities in Iraq and Syria. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough was right to remind the House, as he did in 2008—I spoke in that debate as the then Opposition spokesman—and on a number of occasions since, about the traumatic situation faced by Christians in their daily lives in the middle east. In both Iraq and Syria, the destruction of heritage is placing an even greater strain on social bonds, which were already stretched to breaking point. Looking forward to the day when there is stability again in both Syria and Iraq, one consequence of the destruction of cultural monuments is that the opportunities for cultural tourism will be much diminished, which will harm the efforts of both countries to rebuild their economies and give their people opportunities.
Hon. Members asked what the Government are doing to raise such concerns with countries in the region. I can tell the House that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who has responsibility for dealing with the middle east, has already raised those concerns during meetings in Egypt and the Gulf, and he is doing so during his visit to Baghdad today.
The Government are concerned that the smuggling of historic artefacts is being used by terrorist organisations, including ISIL, to raise revenue. ISIL is the most abhorrent, brutal terrorist organisation that the world has seen—certainly in modern times—and we have all been horrified by the abuses it has committed against the people of Syria, Iraq and the wider region. It is worth reminding ourselves, however, that although we rightly speak and think about the threat to ancient Christian communities, Yazidis and others, the majority of ISIL’s victims are Muslims. ISIL has as little respect for the lives and safety of Muslims as it does for the lives and safety of others.
ISIL’s licensing of the wholesale looting of archaeological sites by criminal gangs is a further example of its cynicism. Our assessment is that ISIL is generating the majority of its revenue from oil smuggling and extortion, rather than from the illicit trade in antiquities. However, it is clearly our responsibility to ensure that we use all possible measures to deny ISIL access to funds and to constrain it from executing its brutal campaign.
The Government have been active on the international stage to discourage and disrupt smuggling, including of antiquities. UN Security Council resolution 2170, which was adopted during the United Kingdom’s presidency of the Security Council last August, prohibits all trade that assists ISIL. A further Security Council resolution due to be adopted today will oblige states to take steps to prevent the trade in Iraqi and Syrian cultural property illegally removed from those countries. The second resolution demonstrates for the first time the international community’s resolve to suppress the financing of ISIL through the illegal trade in cultural artefacts. As a co-sponsor of the resolution, we have played a key role in ensuring that this source of terrorist funding was addressed by the Security Council. We continue to work with our partners in Europe and beyond to ensure the rapid and full implementation of both Security Council resolutions, and to impose sanctions on individuals involved in ISIL’s financing networks.
We are engaging with our European partners to amend the EU Syria sanctions regime to put beyond doubt the principle that, under its terms, the trade in artefacts from Syria is illegal. We co-sponsored a resolution at the UN Human Rights Council last September, which highlighted and condemned the destruction of monuments, shrines, churches, mosques and other places of worship in Iraq, and encouraged the Government of Iraq to protect those sites.
Before I come on to the specific points made during the debate, I want to issue a word of caution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newark acknowledged, we must be realistic about what the United Kingdom can do on the ground to protect historic and religious sites in Syria and Iraq. We do not have a diplomatic presence in Syria, and we have no dialogue with the Assad regime. We are, however, aware of the ongoing destruction in that country—notably by that regime itself—and such attacks, while wreaking appalling cultural damage, also have a terrible human cost.
We remain committed to degrading and defeating ISIL so that it no longer poses a threat to the UK, the people of Syria and Iraq, or to that region’s cultural heritage, but we must recognise that this will be a long-term campaign. The Government continue to push for an inclusive political transition in Syria that will see the end of the Assad regime, and we continue to support the Iraqi Government’s efforts to push back ISIL, recover Iraqi territory, and meet the needs and provide for the safety of all Iraq’s communities.
We are assisting refugees and displaced people throughout the region with the provision of more than £800 million of humanitarian relief. When it comes to spending priorities, I think we are right to give priority to that humanitarian catastrophe and the millions of refugees—people who have been displaced within Iraq and Syria and those who fled to neighbouring states—over other forms of relief. We will therefore continue to prioritise our efforts to end the conflict in Syria and Iraq so that peace and stability can be restored, and cultural and religious sites protected.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham asked about the 1970 UNESCO convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit trade in cultural goods. That is generally accepted as the key point of reference for an ethical approach by museums to their acquisitions, leading to greater checking of the origin and provenance of items. The UK is party to that convention, and we supported the 1970 threshold as far back as 2000. As my hon. Friend knows, the Museums Association code of ethics published in 2002 includes that 1970 threshold, and we are open to trying to persuade other countries that have not yet signed up to that convention to do so.
My hon. Friend asked about the implementation by the United Kingdom of European Union and United Nations sanctions on cultural property. Sanctions orders are in place for both Syria and Iraq. The Syria regulation covers
“Syrian cultural property goods and other goods of archaeological, historical, cultural, rare scientific or religious importance,”
and prohibits their export, import, transfer or the provision of brokering services related to their export, import or transfer
“where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the goods have been removed from Syria without the consent of their legitimate owner or have been removed in breach of Syrian law or international law”.
The order applies to objects that have been removed from Syria on or after 9 May 2011. Exporting or importing such goods contrary to prohibitions under that order automatically became an offence and attracted penalties under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979—indeed, the order increased penalties for those offences. We believe that the Syria order provides an effective means by which to enforce EU and UN resolutions.
Comparable arrangements are in place for Iraq where we have the implementation of United Nations rather than European Union sanctions. The 2003 Iraq order prohibits the import or export of any item of illegally removed Iraqi cultural property, and requires anyone who holds or controls any such item to transfer it to a constable—there is a legal duty not only to refrain from participating in that trade, but if someone has such property, they must hand it over to the police without delay. The order defines illegally removed Iraqi cultural property as
“any other items of archaeological, historical, cultural, rare scientific or religious importance”
that have been illegally removed from any location in Iraq since 6 August 1990.
In terms of practical implementation, my colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have highlighted those orders with key stakeholders, including the art market, the police and museums. The Arts Council’s export licensing unit, which handles export licence applications for objects of cultural interest, has provided exporters with notices on the prohibitions applicable to cultural objects from Iraq and Syria. That guidance highlights the prohibitions and explains that when export licences are sought, the export licensing unit must be able to rule out the possibility that those items fall within the prohibited categories.
The Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003 makes it a criminal offence to deal dishonestly in tainted cultural property from anywhere in the world, and someone found guilty is liable on conviction in the Crown court to a prison sentence of up to seven years and/or an unlimited fine. If convicted in a magistrates court the maximum sentences are six months’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to £5,000. DCMS has issued guidelines for collectors, auctioneers, dealers and museums, and the Arts Council now runs a dedicated cultural property advice website aimed precisely at those who are collecting, buying and selling art and antiquities in the United Kingdom.
Let me respond to a number of specific points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark. I mentioned what the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is continuing to do in the middle east, but my hon. Friend also mentioned Germany, and hinted at other European countries as places where some of this illegal traffic is taking place. From my experience of dealing with the German Government, I think that they would wish to crack down, and be seen to crack down heavily, on such illicit trade. I am happy to ask our ambassadors and our consul general in Munich—my hon. Friend particularly mentioned that city —to speak with the relevant authorities there. It would be helpful if he could provide me with any detailed evidence that we could draw to the attention of the legitimate prosecuting and police authorities in those countries.
My hon. Friend also asked about turning the Hague convention into law. The Government’s position is that we remain committed to ratifying it by amendment to statute, although it has not yet been possible to secure the parliamentary time needed to pass the relevant legislation. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) slightly marred what was otherwise a constructive speech by trying to sound a little partisan. I have to remind him that the adoption of the second protocol, as far back as 1999, removed the objections that previous British Governments had had to adopting the original convention. It took the then Labour Government five years before they announced the intention to ratify in May 2004, and they then had another six years in office when they were unable to find the parliamentary time to do so. I am glad that there is cross-party support for putting this into statute and I think it best if we approach the issue in that fashion.
Mr Thomas
Will the Minister confirm whether there are any remaining blockages to the Hague convention on the protection of cultural property being implemented? Has the necessary parliamentary device been drafted, or do a series of consultations still have to happen? Are there any other blockages preventing it from happening?
Mr Lidington
It is just a matter of finding parliamentary time against other priorities for Government legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newark asked what work we would be doing with Iraqi museums to try to safeguard cultural properties. Again, this is a subject that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East will be raising in Baghdad during his visit. Our embassy has for some years worked to strengthen the links between the archaeological communities in the UK and Iraq. Between 2013 and 2014, the embassy funded a project run by the university of Manchester and the Iraq state board of antiquities and heritage, which involved initiation of a joint archaeological research and excavation project at a settlement near Ur in southern Iraq. It involved Iraqi scholars and practitioners in exploring the cultural heritage of their own country, giving them access to British expertise through a programme of joint research and publications. We continue to do what we can to promote best practice in Iraq and to help that country to safeguard its own cultural heritage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newark asked me if the Government could take a number of further steps. He talked about a commission to gather information on making what he described as “modest funds” available, and various actions to enhance the priority that the police and other counter-terrorist agencies give to dealing with the trade in antiquities. I am not at all unsympathetic to what he is saying, but I provide a word or two of caution. Given that the United Kingdom does not have access to the ISIL-controlled areas of either Iraq or Syria and that we currently have no diplomatic mission in Syria at all, I question whether the British Government are best placed to carry out the assessment that he has in mind. We are not seen by the Assad regime, in particular, as a neutral party. UNESCO or another international agency might be better equipped to tackle this matter.
Similarly, when it comes to requests for funds, whether it is the Government or the police, money spent on one item, however deserving, means money subtracted from another good cause, so there is a question of priorities. We would have to think through how such action would actually help the people on the ground—the curators, the brave defenders of cultural heritage that my hon. Friend described. Given the problems in gaining physical access or sending money and other resources out to Iraq and Syria, I would want to be certain that we were delivering a good outcome and not just indulging in gesture politics.
It might be helpful to my hon. Friend, interested colleagues and people from the museum and art world, if I arranged a meeting with me, the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) and representatives of the relevant Government Departments and agencies. We could sit down and thrash out some of these ideas together and discuss whether there are ways in which we can have the constructive effect that he and everyone who has spoken in the debate would wish.
I am grateful again to my hon. Friend for bringing this subject before the House this afternoon and for speaking with such passion and knowledge. I hope we can build on what the Government have already been doing and help in whatever way we practically can to safeguard what is the cultural heritage not just of Iraq and Syria, but of the human race throughout the world.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between David Lidington and Gareth Thomas(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lidington
We believe that it is in the interests of every family in the United Kingdom that this successful trade deal is concluded as soon as possible. Priority areas for us include the automotive industry, financial services, procurement, agriculture, and food and drink. There are tremendous opportunities for British business through a successful TTIP negotiation.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Would it not be sensible for the Minister to ensure that his boss is properly briefed on the benefits to Britain of a successful EU-US trade deal, perhaps before the Foreign Secretary is next tempted to go on the airwaves and talk up the possibility of a British exit from the European Union?
Mr Lidington
The entire Government, since we came into office in May 2010, have made it a priority to increase the prosperity of the whole of Europe, including the United Kingdom, through a commitment to free trade—a priority that was sadly neglected under the Government in whom the hon. Gentleman served.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between David Lidington and Gareth Thomas(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Speaker, as you know, the next British European Commissioner will have to face scrutiny from the European Parliament before the nomination can be confirmed. Would it not be more appropriate for the British people to scrutinise that appointment first, through this House?
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I am sure that whenever the Prime Minister puts forward the name of the man or woman whom the Government wish to fill that role, there will be ample opportunity for Members of this House to express their various views.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between David Lidington and Gareth Thomas(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lidington
The ban on the obscene practice of discarding and the shift of fisheries management back to local and regional level is a real achievement for United Kingdom MEPs working with colleagues from other countries and with the European Commissioner concerned. It is disappointing if some UK MEPs felt that there were more important calls on their time than to defend British fishing interests in the way that our MEPs did.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister promised us all that EU treaty change would happen by 2017 and that a major repatriation of powers would follow. Given that the French, the Germans and the Italians now, have all confirmed that this is not their priority, could that be why the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) thinks that the Prime Minister has made such a mess of winning back powers from the European Union?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between David Lidington and Gareth Thomas(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Given Chancellor Merkel’s confirmation that she does not support a fundamental reform of the European Union’s architecture, will the Minister for Europe update the House on when we may expect some clarity from the Prime Minister about what powers he wants repatriated to the UK?
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I was heartened by Chancellor Merkel’s strong words about her determination to work with the Prime Minister to secure a European Union that is significantly more competitive, more democratic and more flexible than it is today. I wish that, instead of carping all the time, the hon. Gentleman would join us in that great project of reform.
European Union (Referendum) Bill
Debate between David Lidington and Gareth Thomas(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lidington
No, I am going to make progress.
Amendments 5 to 7 and 84 propose arrangements for the referendum that would either duplicate or complicate arrangements that are set out clearly in existing primary legislation, namely the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
Amendments 16, 64 and 65—
Mr Lidington
No.
Amendments 16, 64 and 65 propose detailed rules on the conduct of the referendum.
European Union (Referendum) Bill
Debate between David Lidington and Gareth Thomas(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have evidence that the Foreign Secretary, possibly, and certainly the Minister for Europe, are not 100% committed to the 2017 date, and have already considered scenarios in which that supposed commitment could be scrapped.
Mr Lidington
I think the answer to the intervention is closely related to comments I want to make about the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), and by Opposition Members, which seeks to bring the date of the referendum forward from 2017, at the latest, to a date in 2014. In responding to those amendments, and accepting the good faith in which they were tabled—
Mr Thomas
I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. He was hiding at the back. His question to the Minister for Europe two weeks ago was extremely pertinent. He asked when the Prime Minister—or perhaps the Minister—would reveal which powers and competences the Prime Minister wants to repatriate to the UK as a result of the treaty change that is coming. Two weeks ago the Minister would not answer his hon. Friend, so perhaps he will give us an answer today.
Mr Lidington
Oh dear, dear, Mr Speaker. Labour Members cannot think of something new today, so they just put on the old record and try to repeat it again. I am tempted simply to refer the hon. Gentleman to remarks I made last time we debated this Bill. I pointed out to him achievements that the Government already have to their credit in terms of significant reform of the European Union, from the first ever budget cut, to reform of the fisheries policy of a kind that Labour said it wanted during 13 years in office but was never capable of achieving.
Yet again, the hon. Gentleman has failed this morning to spell out whether his party and leader are prepared to commit themselves to giving the British people a final say over the terms of our membership of the European Union. [Hon. Members: “Give way!] I am giving the hon. Gentleman the answer I believe he deserves. He may believe that the right approach would be for the Government to spell out in 2013 precisely what terms Ministers in a future Conservative Government would hope to put to the European Union after the 2015 general election. I say only that if that is the sort of naive approach to negotiation he currently endorses, it shows why the Labour party so signally failed to achieve much while in office.
Let me return to the points I was addressing to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, and others who want to bring the referendum forward to 2014. First, I ask them to consider British circumstances in 2014. We will already have an important referendum on the future of Scotland in the UK. I believe it would be an unnecessary complication to that debate to have a European referendum as well next year. Secondly, I suggest to the House that we should bear in mind the European timetable. Next year there will be elections to the European Parliament and the appointment of a new European Commission. That period will entail a break from normal European business, during which it would simply not be possible to engage in the serious work of reform and renegotiation that so many people on both sides of the House and millions of our fellow citizens want to see.
The choice that the British people deserve is a choice between membership of the European Union on reformed and renegotiated terms or leaving. That is the right choice. I do not believe it would be possible to come to an informed view about that choice as early as next year. It is that understanding of the European context that has led the Government to propose a 2017 date.
Mr Lidington
I will leave that to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South, if he wishes to respond as the promoter of the Bill. We have a clear example within the past two years of a referendum that has been conducted in the UK, including within Wales. I do not recall any instance in that context when people in Wales protested that the wording in the Welsh language was in any way misleading. That question was based on the use of the term “Welsh version” in the parent legislation.
With regard to Scots Gaelic, we are dealing here with a UK-wide referendum. We have, under specific legislation, provision for UK elections and UK referendums to include a Welsh language version of the questions or party names on the relevant ballot papers. There is no equivalent in UK legislation for Scots Gaelic, Irish Gaelic or any other language to be used in that way, so, again, the provisions in the Bill are completely in line with normal precedent as regards UK practice in legislation.
Finally, there is the important category of amendments on the wording of the question, which draw upon the Electoral Commission’s recent report. It is important to bear in mind how the commission went about its work and the tone with which it presented its report. It carried out 103 interviews with individuals and received representations from 19 individuals and organisations. On the basis of those consultations and its own analysis, it concluded that the Bill met most of the tests that it would normally expect any referendum question to meet. It did not put forward an alternative wording but, rather usually, suggested—I use the term deliberately—two possible alternative wordings. There was no suggestion anywhere in its findings that the question drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South was misleading or in any way designed to be unfair, but it suggested that Parliament might like to consider some alternative forms of words.
Mr Thomas
With all due respect to the Minister, the Electoral Commission’s view is crystal clear. It stated:
“We recommend that the wording of the proposed referendum question included in the European Union (Referendum) Bill should be amended to make it more direct and to the point, and to improve clarity and understanding.”
Surely he read that sentence.
Mr Lidington
If the hon. Gentleman goes back to the report, he will see that the commission stated very clearly that it believed that the question drafted by my hon. Friend met pretty much all the tests it would expect. There was a debate on the degree of clarity, and the commission drew attention to the fact that there were different views among the people they consulted and from whom they received representations about both my hon. Friend’s wording and the various options that the commission invited Parliament to consider.
European Union (Referendum) Bill
Debate between David Lidington and Gareth Thomas(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Thomas
I am following very clearly the Minister’s attempted explanation for why subsections (2) and (3) should be written into the Bill. Essentially, I am struggling to understand why he thinks there might be some problem with Gibraltan law preventing the smooth running of a referendum in Gibraltar. Is not the reference to the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 a bit of overkill?
Mr Lidington
No, it is not overkill. This is a sensible piece of legislative drafting designed to put it beyond the risk of any misunderstanding or misinterpretation that the underlying constitutional relationship would remain undisturbed, despite the specific and exceptional provisions of the Bill. I would say gently to the hon. Gentleman that if he looks back at the Committee proceedings, he will find that his predecessor as shadow Europe Minister, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), was among those arguing and tabling amendments to extend the franchise to people in Gibraltar through the vehicle of this Bill.
Mr Lidington
I am trying to respond to the hon. Gentleman. As I have said, I have reflected carefully on the points made in Committee by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Mr Lidington
No. I have consulted the Chief Minister and have concluded that I should give my support and endorsement to the new clause tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton South and for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). It ill behoves Opposition Front Benchers to try to retreat from a new clause that seeks to give effect to something that they themselves were proposing in an amendment, which was extremely technically deficient, in a debate in Committee.
Mr Lidington
No, I will not.
The hon. Member for Ilford South has tabled many different amendments. He acknowledged that they cover a wide range of issues, which are perfectly legitimate, about the extent of the franchise in the UK. He proposed in one amendment that the UK franchise should be extended to prisoners and in another that the franchise—
Mr Lidington
I am replying to the hon. Member for Ilford South. He proposed amendments that seek to—
Mr Lidington
I am responding to the hon. Member for Ilford South. I am sure that the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) will have a chance to catch Madam Deputy Speaker’s eye in a few minutes if he wishes to go over again the points that were made in Committee.
The hon. Member for Ilford South raised the question of extending the franchise for UK expatriates beyond the 50-year maximum, which would be the effect of at least one of his amendments. He also proposed altering the general election franchise, in effect, to include European citizens as well as UK and Commonwealth citizens. All those are legitimate questions for debate but the purpose of the Bill is to apply the UK’s general election franchise terms to the proposed referendum.
Mr Lidington
The serious work on the reform of the European Union is already under way. I know that my hon. Friend will be delighted by the successful reform of the common fisheries policy, the ban on discarding, the push towards local regional management of fisheries, the cut in the EU budget, and the moves on deregulation that this Government have already achieved, even in coalition.
Mr Thomas
The Minister is just talking about the past. What powers and competences does he think the Prime Minister wants to bring back? The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) asked a perfectly reasonable question. Will the Minister answer it? What has he got to hide?
Mr Lidington
What I would like to know from the hon. Gentleman and his party is whether they want to give the British people a say in our future in Europe or they are determined to deny them that say.
Given the reality of the debate that will take place, and given that the Electoral Commission would appoint umbrella organisations for yes and no campaigns, this well-intentioned new schedule is unnecessary because there is no need to specify organisations in that way.
The same is true of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) about religious holidays and potential clashes with other elections. These matters already have to be considered.
Mr Lidington
The amendments touch on matters that every Government already have to consider in looking at election dates. Successive Governments have taken a pragmatic approach to those matters, and it would be disproportionate to include them in the Bill.
Mr Thomas
Surely the Minister thinks that the British people are entitled to know what plan B would be if a referendum that the Prime Minister calls leads to a British exit. Why not, then, consult the CBI about the Switzerland option or the Norway option? Why will he not concede that possibility and the need for that consultation?
Mr Lidington
It is already open to the CBI and to any other such organisations to express their views fully and vigorously, and that is what they do at all times, in conversations with Ministers, in publications, and in debates and forums. I know that the hon. Gentleman has only just been appointed to this role, but he ought to wake up and see the debate that is actually going on rather than trying to invoke some kind of Aunt Sally.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between David Lidington and Gareth Thomas(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lidington
I am afraid that the Government rules on accepting hospitality are already strict and limit what Ministers can do. The key point is that the Sochi winter Olympics will provide an opportunity for people from this country, including journalists and editors, to meet and engage with Russians of all backgrounds and to stand up for the values in which we believe.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
As these exchanges have reinforced, there is concern on both sides of the House about the continuing detention of the British Greenpeace activists and journalists. Given the growing fears about the conditions in which they are being held—conditions condemned by the European Court of Human Rights last year, I understand—and the length of time they are likely to be incarcerated, can I ask the Minister gently what exactly it will take for the Foreign Secretary to persuade the Prime Minister to intervene on their behalf?
Mr Lidington
First, may I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities? Of course this is a return to European activity from the days when Tony Blair appointed him as one of his champions of the single currency in the Labour party. Having served his time in quarantine, he is now being allowed out again.
The hon. Gentleman may not have been here yesterday, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear at the Dispatch Box that he stood ready to speak to President Putin whenever that would best help the welfare of those who are being detained and lead to a satisfactory outcome for them. The search for a satisfactory outcome to this case remains at the top of the Government’s priorities, and it determines how we handle individual representations.
Hindi Radio Service (BBC)
Debate between David Lidington and Gareth Thomas(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) on securing this debate and on attracting such conspicuous and widespread support from both sides of the House this evening. As he said, the BBC Hindi service is not, after all, being completely discontinued. The World Service had announced that the shortwave broadcasts would be stopped, but that the FM and online service would continue. However, the World Service has now been able to identify savings from within its budget to postpone the cessation of the shortwave service. Like many Members who have spoken this evening or attested to their support for my hon. Friend through their presence in the Chamber, we welcome this recent decision by the BBC World Service board.
There is no doubt that the BBC World Service is a much-respected and much-loved British institution. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear on 26 January, it performs an invaluable role, reflecting British democratic values overseas and supporting British influence in the world. The services it provides are a beacon to many in some of the poorest and most insecure countries of the world.
It is also true that the World Service, like any other body funded by the taxpayer, must ensure that it is working on the right priorities and as efficiently as possible. Last October, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced that the World Service’s expenditure limits would be reduced by 16% in real terms over the next three years. There is no doubt that these cuts are challenging, but it is right that all parts of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office family should contribute to reducing the deficit inherited from the previous Government. As part of the settlement, and to provide a balanced package, the Foreign Office provides £13 million a year to help with the deficit in BBC pension funds and £10 million a year for new services in markets that we and the World Service have identified as priorities.
My hon. Friend touched on the division of responsibilities between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the BBC World Service, and the broadcasting agreement between the two sets out clearly the responsibilities of each. My right hon. Friend, together with the BBC, sets the objectives, priorities and targets for the World Service and gives his authority for the opening or closure of any foreign language service. Other changes fall under the managerial independence of the World Service and are its responsibility.
From 2014, the funding for the World Service will be transferred to the BBC under its licence fee arrangements—a development welcomed by the BBC Trust. I emphasise, however, that the Foreign Secretary’s oversight role will remain and that he will continue to be involved in the setting of priorities. His authority will still be required to open or close any foreign language service.
On 26 January this year, the World Service announced plans for working within its new budget, and it had to take some difficult decisions. Among the announcements made was the one about the cessation of the shortwave broadcasts in a number of languages, including Hindi. As my hon. Friend said, the Hindi service has a long and honourable history, having been established as far back as 1940. Many millions of people have grown up listening to its broadcasts, and its popularity has certainly been shown by the number of representations that we and the BBC have received and by the passion with which they were made. My hon. Friend cited a number of those representations in his remarks.
According to the World Service, the shortwave audience in India has been falling for some time. In 2007 there were 19.1 million listeners, but by 2010 the number had fallen to about 11 million. That is still a large audience, but it represents a reach of just over 1% of the population, although—as my hon. Friend made clear—the areas covered by the shortwave broadcasts include some of the very poorest parts of India. There is only a small audience for shortwave in any of the urban areas, and the service was broadcasting for only three hours a day.
Last week the director of the World Service told the Foreign Affairs Committee that it had intended to close the shortwave service eventually and concentrate its efforts on the rapidly growing parts of the Hindi media market: online, mobile and television. Its broadcasts on FM would not be affected. The Hindi service has a network of FM partners throughout India whom it supplies with programmes, but—as my hon. Friend said—because of the regulatory framework in India, those services cannot supply hard news programming.
We are aware that the Hindi service was approached with proposals for alternative funding models for the shortwave broadcasts, but needed time to explore whether those possibilities were practicable. In discussions between officials, we made it clear that any decision would have to be made by the BBC World Service within its budget allocation. However, we supported the approach by the Hindi service to continue its shortwave broadcasts.
I am pleased that the BBC World Service has been able to find extra funds in its budget to support the Hindi shortwave service for another year and give it time to establish whether any of the alternative funding proposals are viable. The Hindi service will continue to broadcast on shortwave, albeit for only one hour a day rather than three. The World Service has decided to reprioritise £170,000 of its transmission budget for that purpose. I believe that that is a sensible response not only to legitimate concerns, but to the pressure to explore viable alternatives to continue the Hindi service not just for one year but for much longer, on a sustainable basis.
My hon. Friend spoke of the continuing priority given by the Department for International Development to helping the poorest communities in India. I know that a number of questions have been asked in the House about why that Department could not fund the Hindi service or cover the shortfall in the World Service’s overall budget. Under the broadcasting agreement between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the BBC, funding for the World Service should come from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office rather than the Department for International Development. Members will have seen the announcement in which, on 1 March, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development clearly set out his priorities for the next few years. They did not include core funding for the BBC World Service, as it did not fulfil the criteria that he had identified.
That said, some World Service activity may count as official overseas development assistance. We are discussing with DFID and the OECD how BBC World Service expenditure may be reported as official development assistance. I understand that the World Service is discussing funding for specific projects with DFID, which already supports the BBC World Service Trust, the charitable arm of the World Service. The Government remain committed to an enhanced partnership with India.
Mr Lidington
There have been discussions at official level about the BBC decision to discontinue the Hindi service and about the pressure from the Hindi service for there to be a stay of execution while it explored other funding models. As far as I am aware, discussions between the Foreign Office and DFID about whether World Service expenditure can be classified as overseas official development assistance have been held largely at official level, although clearly if there were to be a major policy shift in this area the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), who is the Minister responsible for the World Service within the FCO, would be directly involved with his DFID counterparts.
Mr Thomas
With due respect, surely the Minister knows whether or not there have been ministerial discussions, and given the strength of concern in the House, surely a Minister from the Foreign Office could talk to DFID colleagues, or, potentially, to those who run the BBC World Service, to get some clarity about possibly at least extending the one-hour service back to the three-hour service.
Mr Lidington
The discussions that have taken place so far have been at official level about the decision the BBC took on the Hindi service earlier this year. The point I made a few moments ago is on a bigger issue: the extent to which expenditure on the World Service could qualify as official development assistance, and whether there were any problems in respect of the International Development Act 2002, which has to govern DFID’s expenditure. It is sensible that those conversations should initially take place at official level before advice is put up to Ministers, taking account not only of the views of the people in the two Departments, but also, as I mentioned, the opinions of the OECD, which has an authority in defining those areas of expenditure which count for ODA purposes and those that fall outside that definition.
There has been significant progress on building the bilateral relationship with India since the Prime Minister’s visit in July 2010, with increased co-operation across the full scope of activities in areas such as the economy, defence, counter-terrorism, climate change, science and innovation, and education. The presence of the World Service is one of many important elements in our ties with India, and we hope a solution can be found to the problems in respect of the Hindi service that demonstrates this value. Clearly, the World Service cannot be immune from public spending constraints or the need from time to time to reassess its priorities in the light of changing technologies and audience patterns.
European External Action Service
Debate between David Lidington and Gareth Thomas(14 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lidington
I know that my hon. Friend has adopted a position that is profoundly sceptical not only of the EEAS but of Britain’s membership of the European Union and of the EU as a whole, but I must tell him that the key difference between then and now is that the treaty of Lisbon has been ratified by all 27 member states of the EU, and it is therefore now in force as a matter of both European and domestic law. As our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear at the time when ratification was completed, that alters the terms of trade, and we as a party agreed while still in opposition that if we formed a Government we would work within that new basis established by the Lisbon treaty.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I too am a huge respecter of British ambassadors, but the last thing I would want them to do is design development programmes, which was at one stage the suggestion for the role of the EEAS. Negotiations shifted that position, but can the Minister give the House any further information now as to whether there is clarity yet about who will have responsibility for the programming of development spending?
Mr Lidington
Yes. In the division of duties set out in the decision we are debating this evening, the EEAS and the High Representative will have responsibility for strategic decisions about the priorities of the EU’s development programme, but the Development Commissioner and his team within the Commission will remain responsible for the design and implementation of particular development programmes.
For this to work effectively, there clearly needs to be a meeting of minds between the High Representative and the Development Commissioner. Certainly when I have discussed this matter both with Baroness Ashton and with the Development Commissioner—whom I met in Brussels last week—they were both very confident that the package that has been agreed provided for a sensible division of responsibility, and also that the transfer to the EEAS of a number of staff working in the Commission on development would give the EEAS the expertise in development policy to enable it to take those strategic decisions.
I have to say to the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), however, that this is one area where the British Government continue to have reservations about the final package. We would have preferred a slightly larger shift of people with development expertise into the EEAS to make certain that it had the required expertise, but the two people most directly responsible for implementing this policy seem to be satisfied with the measure in its current form.