Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Lidington and Stewart Malcolm McDonald

Wednesday 5th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point about the vital role that further education plays not only in equipping young men and women with the skills they need to give them good career opportunities, but often also in providing a passport to higher education at a later stage in their careers. The Augar review provides a blueprint for how we can make sure that everybody can follow the path that is right for them, and my hon. Friend is right to say that we need to study Augar’s conclusions carefully in the run-up to the forthcoming spending review.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

Police Scotland prepared a report for the Crown Office on extraordinary rendition flights stopping at Scottish airports. Counter-terrorism officers and the Lord Advocate have made it clear that they require full access to the unredacted Senate intelligence committee report from the United States Government, who have so far refused to provide it, and that is prohibiting them from determining whether a crime was committed. Given that intelligence sharing is supposed to underpin our relationship with the US, has anyone from the Government raised this issue with President Trump while he has been here? If not, will the right hon. Gentleman pledge to do so on behalf of Scotland’s law enforcement agencies before President Trump departs UK soil today?

[Mr Lidington]

Unsurprisingly, and in line with precedent under all Governments, I am not prepared to discuss security intelligence matters on the Floor of the House, but I will draw the hon. Gentleman’s question to the attention of those of my colleagues in the Government who are directly responsible for these areas of policy.

National Security Council Leak

Debate between David Lidington and Stewart Malcolm McDonald

Thursday 2nd May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

Appropriate contact is of course being made with our key allies, as my right hon. Friend would expect. He is absolutely right. I, like he, can recall discussions that involved not only material of the highest level of classification within the UK Government system but the sharing of information disclosed to us in confidence by key allies. Without going into detail—for obvious reasons—I should remind the House that among the subjects discussed at the National Security Council in the last year alone have been our analysis of and response to the chemical weapons attacks in Salisbury and our analysis and response to the civil war and conflict in Syria. I think that Members on both sides of the House will appreciate the importance of these discussions remaining confidential at all times and of all participants having full confidence that that will continue to be the case.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

This is a most disgraceful episode from the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson). Fair play to the Prime Minister for acting as swiftly as she did, but I am afraid that it is not in her gift to say that the matter is closed. Indeed, the fact that we are here shows that it is far from closed. The fourth paragraph of the Prime Minister’s letter states that all the Cabinet Ministers interviewed

“answered questions, engaged properly, provided as much information as possible”,

yet the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman was not “of the same standard”. What was his conduct? What exactly did he avoid answering?

What is the purpose of this investigation? Surely to God it was not set up only to determine who the leak came from. Surely once that has been determined there must be a more severe consequence than just someone losing their Cabinet position. If the integrity of the Government—what is left of it—is not to be further shot to pieces, there must be more severe consequences. Does the right hon. Gentleman who has been sacked have a future in the Conservative party, or will he be suspended from it? Will he be eligible for future candidacy within the Conservative party, and will he have his CBE removed by the Government? Finally, will the Minister stand at the Dispatch Box and answer a clear question? Has the Official Secrets Act been broken—yes or no?

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman’s final question is not a judgment that I or any other Minister in any Government can make. Whether a criminal offence has been committed is a matter for independent prosecution authorities, and ultimately for the courts. I said earlier that I would not go further into the details of the investigation and its conclusions than had already been set out in the Prime Minister’s public statement.

Members across the House will recognise the history of the close working relationship between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), and that ought to persuade the House that the Prime Minister would not have taken such a decision were there not compelling evidence and no credible alternative explanation for what happened. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Prime Minister stated in her letter that during the investigation the conduct of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire and his team was in contrast with the full co-operation received from other ministerial members of the NSC and their teams, and the Prime Minister came to the decision that she announced last night.

On the hon. Gentleman’s request for further punishments, honours are not a matter for a ministerial decision but for an independent committee in any case, but I would just say that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire has lost a job that he loved and to which he was utterly committed, and I think that should stand.

UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Debate between David Lidington and Stewart Malcolm McDonald

Thursday 14th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I am not going to give way again for a while, Mr Speaker, because when I spoke in the Chamber about a week ago, you gently chided me for having gone on for too long, and when I looked at Hansard it was because I had perhaps taken too many interventions. I think I have given way a fair number of times already today.

I want to put on the record—because I think this will help to clarify the nature of the choice for hon. Members on all sides of the debate—that article 50 of the European treaties does say, in terms, that the treaties “cease to apply” to the departing member state

“from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification”

of triggering article 50. In other words, it is the sooner of the conclusion and entering into force of the withdrawal agreement, and the two-year deadline. Logically it therefore follows that, were an extension of any length to be negotiated and agreed, it would always be possible for the House and the other place to bring about an earlier conclusion to that extension than the specified deadline by agreeing to a withdrawal agreement at that earlier date.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

No, I am not giving way again for a while.

I hope that the factual document that the Government published this morning, coupled with the latest statement from the President of the European Council, Mr Tusk, will have convinced right hon. and hon. Members that the choice I have described is not one that has somehow been invented for political ends but rather one that this House must face up to and confront.

I want to take a moment to set out to the House the reasons why the choice is so binary. That means explaining in a bit of detail the interaction with the European Parliament elections. Those elections will take place across the EU on 23 to 26 May, and the new European Parliament will meet for the first time on 2 July. As the Father of the House said, it is a fundamental requirement under the EU treaties that EU citizens are represented in the European Parliament. That derives from article 9, which says,

“Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship”,

and from paragraph 2 of article 10, which says:

“Citizens are directly represented at Union level in the European Parliament.”

The subsequent legislation that the European Union has passed is founded on those key principles set out in the treaties—the primary law that every member state of the European Union has to comply with and which has primacy over any domestic law to the contrary.

It flows from that that the new European Parliament would not be properly constituted if any member state did not have MEPs, and that for it to be improperly constituted would put all that Parliament’s actions, and the proper functioning of the EU’s institutions and its legislative process, at risk. There is no legal mechanism by which the UK could return MEPs to the new European Parliament other than by participating in the elections. The upshot is that the longest extension that we could propose without holding the elections is until the end of June, and if we did that, it would not be possible to extend again, because, as I said in response to an earlier intervention, to do so without having elected MEPs would compromise the proper functioning of the EU’s institutions and its legal process. In the absence of a deal, seeking such a short and, critically, one-off extension would be downright reckless and completely at odds with the position that this House adopted only last night, making a no-deal scenario far more, rather than less, likely. Not only that, but from everything we have heard from the EU, both in public and in private, it is a proposal it would not accept.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I have not seen that particular item, but my understanding is that the legal service of the European Parliament has made it very clear that it does not see that an extension is possible beyond the date of the first plenary meeting of the new Parliament on 2 July, in the absence of treaty change.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Can I take the deputy Prime Minister back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) when he said that it was a matter of law that the UK can revoke article 50 in its entirety? Should there be a member state that does not agree to an extension—for example, Hungary or Italy—would it not therefore be a matter of political reality that the revocation of article 50 should be exactly what the Government do? If that happens, will they revoke article 50?

[Mr Lidington]

It would be a decision for the House to take were that to happen. It was open to the hon. Gentleman to table an amendment to that effect today had he wished to do so. These are matters for the House as a whole.

Business of the House

Debate between David Lidington and Stewart Malcolm McDonald

Thursday 20th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman knows that the 0.7% target is calculated by reference to the OECD’s definition of overseas development expenditure. That definition is confined not purely to expenditure programmes controlled by the Department for International Development, but to Government spending that meets the OECD criteria. I can assure him that, if the Government are re-elected, there will continue to be a strong United Kingdom commitment to an active and generous policy of international development. It is right that we continue to help the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world. It is also right that we contribute towards the better governance and long-term stability of countries at risk, because that helps us to tackle some of the broader international problems that we in the United Kingdom and our European neighbours face.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

It is good to follow our answer to Arthur Scargill, Mr Speaker—with a bit of Glasgow finesse no less.

It has been some two years since I was elected to this Parliament. I have to say that at the start of it I did not think that, two years in, we would have left the European Union and I would be on my second Prime Minister. Hopefully, in a few weeks’ time, I will be on my third Government. They say a week is a long time in politics. Over the time that the right hon. Gentleman has been Leader of the House I have asked him about many issues, but for the past six months I have consistently raised the issue of jobcentre closures in Glasgow. Given what he has said to other colleagues with regard to other Government announcements, would I be right in thinking that he expects Glaswegians to go to the polls not knowing which jobcentres his Government intend to close?

[Mr Lidington]

Since the hon. Gentleman is wishing for a change in Government, he is confirming that his party wishes to prop up the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) as the leader of a putative coalition or minority Government. It is good to have that confirmation on the record.

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the provision of jobcentres in Glasgow, as he has heard me say before, Glasgow has a greater concentration of office space for jobcentres than any other major city in Scotland. We have seen proposals from the Department for Work and Pensions to rationalise the estate in Glasgow so that his constituents and others in Glasgow can have a better-quality service. All necessary expert staff will be concentrated in a smaller number of locations, which will be fully accessible to his constituents.

Business of the House

Debate between David Lidington and Stewart Malcolm McDonald

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman and his parliamentary colleagues have been demanding, week after week, that the Prime Minister seek a new electoral mandate from the people of the United Kingdom in order to deliver our exit from the European Union. She is doing just that, and if the hon. Gentleman is to be consistent, he might welcome that, rather than complain.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), the Leader of the House is right to say the general election will be about clarity. Does he, like me, look forward to the clarity that the TV debates will give us, and does he agree that any attempt by any political leader, especially one from the Government Benches, to shirk from those invitations would be wholly unacceptable?

[Mr Lidington]

Ahead of tomorrow’s debate it is somewhat premature to speculate on what the broadcasters will decide to propose with regard to the allocation of time for general election coverage, but I will take the hon. Gentleman’s comments as a representation.

Business of the House

Debate between David Lidington and Stewart Malcolm McDonald

Thursday 16th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

Of course, it was a Conservative-led Government that outlawed exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts. Although we keep a close watch on this—I am sure it is one of things that Matthew Taylor’s review will want to look at—it remains the case that fewer than 3% of the workforce see a zero-hours contract as their main job, and roughly 70% of those people say that they are happy with the number of hours that they work.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

The Leader of the House is of course no philistine, so he will know that this year is the bicentenary of the birth of the eminent Scottish architect Alexander “Greek” Thomson. Will he join me in congratulating the Alexander Thomson Society on putting together a whole year of events to remember the architect’s work, and may we have a debate on his contribution to Scottish-built heritage?

[Mr Speaker]

This is the question that the hon. Gentleman would have asked if he had been present for his question at Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions. He was not, so he did not, and he is therefore doing it now. I just thought I would make that by way of a public information statement.

Business of the House

Debate between David Lidington and Stewart Malcolm McDonald

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue about media ownership. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has to act in a quasi-judicial manner when making decisions about any proposed merger. It would therefore be wrong of her to express any kind of view in advance of a formal notification. If formal notification is made, she will make whatever decisions fall to her by law.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

Anyone who has a love of musicals, Judy Garland and Bette Davis, and who can begin a sentence with the words, “As Lana Turner once said to me,” is positively sound in my book. Although I did not know Gerald Kaufman well, there is clearly much admiration for him, particularly among Labour Members. I send his family, friends and colleagues on the Labour Benches my sincere condolences.

On 24 March, it will be exactly one year since the shopkeeper Asad Shah was killed in my constituency by a man called Tanveer Ahmed. Members may know that the newspapers today cover a “celebration”—I hate to call it that—of Asad Shah’s death and the veneration of his murderer in Pakistan. Mr Shah was one of the most gentle and kind people ever to own a shop anywhere in the United Kingdom. He was loved by many people in the south side of Glasgow. Will the Leader of the House join me in condemning the horrifying display that we can see in newspaper and online coverage? Will he also do something to ensure that what we remember is the kindness of this wonderful man and his wonderful family, not the demagoguery of the man who took him from us?

[Mr Lidington]

I willingly join the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure the entire House, in expressing unreserved revulsion at and condemnation of the event he describes. It is, frankly, sickening to hear that human beings could be prepared to behave in such a fashion. I remember, from reading and seeing news reports just under a year ago, the sense of shock and genuine grief on the part of people in the south side of Glasgow. People from very different ethnic and religious heritages felt that they had lost a friend and a devoted champion of community life. That is how we should remember.

In a sense, the best tribute would be for people in Glasgow in particular, and all of us, to redouble our resolve to eradicate from our society this scourge of bigotry, whether it is based on racial, religious or any other grounds. I hope very much that the Pakistani high commission in London, which I think will have been equally appalled by these news reports, will have taken note of the words that the hon. Gentleman has spoken this morning.

Business of the House

Debate between David Lidington and Stewart Malcolm McDonald

Thursday 12th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

We are providing an enormous amount of support—almost £2.5 billion—to ease the humanitarian crisis in Syria and neighbouring countries. That is helping people in the region, including Yazidi refugees. Our resettlement schemes are also giving as much priority as possible to people who have been victims or who are at risk of sexual abuse, and to women and children who are particularly vulnerable. Clearly we always look actively at other ways in which we can help those people. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who has responsibility for the middle east, is sitting alongside me on the Front Bench and he will have heard the points made by the hon. Lady.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

There cannot be much that cheapens the honours system more than dishing out gongs to people who have been found by a UN committee to have breached human rights, including those of disabled people. I am talking not of a despotic regime, but of two senior civil servants at the Department for Work and Pensions. With that in mind, will the Leader of the House facilitate a debate on how we can reform the honours system?

[Mr Lidington]

No. The Government have already made it clear that we regard the report from that particular UN committee as a grotesque misrepresentation of the state of affairs in the United Kingdom. For one thing, it took no account of our very successful record in getting a record number of disabled people into work, or of the support programmes for disabled people who are in work.

Business of the House

Debate between David Lidington and Stewart Malcolm McDonald

Thursday 15th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I think we all accept that with the growth of online sales all retailers, but in particular small high street shops, face a challenging environment. That makes it all the more welcome that Sea View Street in Cleethorpes has won this award. I would like to add my congratulations to all the retailers there who have clearly worked extremely hard, and in an innovative fashion, to ensure they still pull in customers.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

Last week, the Leader of the House failed to tell me how far it was from Castlemilk to Newlands, which I am surprised about, given that when the Department for Work and Pensions calculated the distance, it did not use any of the great resources at its fingertips; instead, it used Google Maps. That is how it calculated its decision to close eight of Glasgow’s 16 jobcentres. Here we are, however, eight days on from the announcement, and still the consultation is not on the DWP website—so that is at least eight days by which it will have to extend the consultation. Will the right hon. Gentleman help me to facilitate getting it put on the website today, and will he convey our frustration to Ministers at the way they have handled this whole sorry affair?

[Mr Lidington]

The central point is that there will no change in the level of service that jobcentres offer people in Glasgow. The DWP is merging a number of smaller offices into bigger sites as leases come to an end so that we can save taxpayers, including Scottish taxpayers, money without changing the service offered. The Government have already consulted on the plans, but there will be further consultation in areas where people have to travel more than three miles or for longer than 20 minutes to reach a jobcentre.

Business of the House

Debate between David Lidington and Stewart Malcolm McDonald

Thursday 8th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

There is a balance to be struck in any consultation period between allowing sufficient time for representations and ensuring that the timetable allows decisions to be taken and policy to be brought forward. The hon. Lady’s suggestion that we should simply write off two weeks over Christmas and the new year seems to me to be somewhat extraordinary. The two timetables that she described allow in each case for several weeks well apart from the Christmas and new year period. At a time when postal services are perhaps not running normally, all these consultations invite responses online, so it is not at all difficult for people to make representations without having to rely on the post.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

The Government’s announcement on jobcentres yesterday will take Glasgow’s jobcentres down from 16 to eight, and there will be consultation only on two of those closures across the city. Members of Parliament had to read about this in the press, and it took seven hours after that story breaking before a Minister bothered to contact me. Given that, does the Leader of the House agree that we need a statement? If he is so confident about accessibility as between closing jobcentres and remaining jobcentres, will he tell me how far it is from Castlemilk to Newlands, and how long the journey would take him on a bus?

Business of the House

Debate between David Lidington and Stewart Malcolm McDonald

Thursday 17th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The position is that CETA has to be ratified by all 28 member states of the European Union. Under our system, that means that the treaty—for that is what this is—must be laid before Parliament under the terms of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 and that can, if Members so wish, provide the trigger for a debate.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

How many more times do the Government expect to end up in court? Not only have they been taken to court over the article 50 shambles, but they lost their appeal against the Terence Higgins Trust and are now compelled to provide PrEP—pre-exposure prophylaxis—anti-HIV drugs to those who badly need them. Given that, can we have a debate in Government time on the commissioning of this treatment, which will make a massive difference to rolling back the tide on the spread of HIV across the United Kingdom?

[Mr Lidington]

We welcome the clarity that the recent court judgment on PrEP provided. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there was a genuine difference between the view of the NHS and the view of local authorities as to where legal responsibility ought to rest, and we now have that clarity. Over the years, Governments of every political shade have got used to being taken to court by way of judicial review or other challenge. That is what living in a free society under the rule of law is about.

Business of the House

Debate between David Lidington and Stewart Malcolm McDonald

Thursday 21st July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I thank the hon. Lady for her welcome, but she is misconstruing the Government’s intention, which is to put the information before Parliament. She would have had much more cause for grievance had Ministers withheld this information, which instead is being made available. The opportunity is now there for all Members to look at the announcements being made in those written ministerial statements, to come to a considered view about them and then to return to the fray in September ready to question and challenge Ministers on the basis of some time for analysis and reflection.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

Another fine ending, Mr Speaker! I confess that when the right hon. Gentleman was Minister for Europe, I used to feel sorry for him, given that he was sent out here like a lamb to the wolves every so often. I still do, because he has left behind the finest salons of Europe to come here every Thursday to fend off requests for debates on Southern bloody rail, which I am fed up with hearing about. None the less, I welcome him to his position.

This week, the Transport Committee heard evidence from Vauxhall about the fact that despite recalling almost 300,000 vehicles, almost 300 have spontaneously burst into flames, putting families and consumers in danger. We have also had the Volkswagen scandal over the past 12 months. May we therefore have a debate on the car industry, so that we can push it to get its act together and stop conning consumers, putting people’s lives at risk and endangering public health, and so that we can urge the Government finally to get their finger out and bring this industry to book?

[Mr Lidington]

The right sequence of events would be for us to see the report from the Transport Committee, which will doubtless make recommendations to the Government and to other parties, and then to have the benefit of the Committee’s findings and the evidence it has taken when the House comes to debate this subject. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are opportunities during the parliamentary year for Select Committee reports to be debated, either on the Floor of the House or in Westminster Hall. If there is a strong body of support for this report to be so debated, that seems to be a good opportunity. Finally, I say to him that although I thoroughly enjoyed the time I spent serving in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, it is to this House that I sought election in the first place and I regard having been asked by the Prime Minister to serve as Leader of the House of Commons as an enormous privilege and an enormous opportunity. I have no regrets whatsoever. It is amazing after one is elected to this place on behalf of one’s constituents, but to be asked to serve as Leader of the House is a privilege indeed.

Government Referendum Leaflet

Debate between David Lidington and Stewart Malcolm McDonald

Monday 11th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I do not think anything that I say or that the Government might publish could persuade my hon. Friend on this matter, given his track record in this debate. He has been absolutely consistent in his views and I respect that, even though I disagree vehemently with him. He made a serious point about the timing of the distribution and the fact that the Government’s leaflet was not going out at the same time as the leaflets from the remain and leave campaigns. We would have preferred to circulate the Government’s leaflet later in the campaign. The statutory rules under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which prohibit us from making such communications in the final 28 days of the campaign, did not apply during the 1975 referendum period. We accepted the advice of the Electoral Commission that it would be wrong for us to distribute the Government leaflet in a way that interfered with the national elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is why we have aimed to have the distribution earlier than we might have chosen to do in an ideal world.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

The Minister is quite possibly the first and only Conservative that I have ever felt sorry for. Yet again, he has been sent out by the Government to be the sacrificial lamb for the howling Brexiteers on the Benches behind him. As someone who supports remaining in the EU, I am concerned the Government are alienating voters rather than informing them. Is the Minister planning any follow-up communications before the referendum? If so, may I suggest that, as in the line from the Scottish national anthem, he is sent “homeward to think again”?

[Mr Lidington]

We have no plans for any further leaflets to go to every household. In my statement, I described the further publications that we have already committed ourselves to providing.

Renegotiation of EU Membership (Devolved Administrations)

Debate between David Lidington and Stewart Malcolm McDonald

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.