Libya and the Middle East
Denis MacShane Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
Yes, my hon. Friend is right. That is one of the reasons why I said in answer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) that one of the criteria should be demonstrable need. If one was to consider implementing a no-fly zone, one would have to ensure that it would actually make a difference to the situation. The demonstrable need must be there if we are to consider doing it.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
Since this crisis started, I have been reading The New York Times and European papers, and watching al-Jazeera, and the notion that Britain is seen as the leader in this crisis exists only in the Foreign Secretary’s head. Last week, to restore the good name of the London School of Economics, Sir Howard Davies did the honourable British thing and accepted his responsibilities. Has the Foreign Secretary considered his position at all?
Mr Hague
As I have said, I take full ministerial responsibility, as Ministers do. I believe very strongly in the doctrine of ministerial responsibility for everything that happens in a Minister’s Department, so I am very clear about that. We have been busy drafting the resolutions of the UN Security Council and the UN Human Rights Council while the right hon. Gentleman has been struggling to read the newspapers from around Europe.
Bahrain
Denis MacShane Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Bahrain.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
Last night at approximately 3.30 am local time, Bahraini police moved into the Pearl roundabout area of Bahrain’s capital city, Manama, to clear an encampment of protesters. The Bahraini Ministry of the Interior claims that the protesters were asked to move before force was used. Other reports say that the police moved in without warning, using tear gas and rubber bullets. Two people have been confirmed dead and there are reports of further casualties. The police and the Bahrain defence force have moved to secure key areas in Bahrain, particularly the Pearl roundabout in Manama and neighbouring districts.
This morning, there are further reports of sporadic clashes and unconfirmed reports of further deaths. There has also been a large gathering outside the hospital where the injured were taken. Traffic is severely disrupted in Manama and there are reports of stockpile shopping. There are no reports of other areas to the west and south of Bahrain being affected.
We are not aware of any UK nationals having been caught up in the violence so far. We are advising all British nationals to stay away from protests and to avoid all but essential travel around Bahrain. The airport in Manama continues to function normally, but we will of course keep the situation under review and ensure that British nationals in Bahrain receive full consular support.
We have conveyed our concern about these events and the level of violence to the Government of Bahrain. We are greatly concerned about the deaths that have occurred. This morning, I spoke to the Foreign Minister of Bahrain and last night our ambassador spoke to the Minister of the Interior. In both cases, we stressed the need for peaceful action to address the concerns of protesters, and the importance of respect for the rights to peaceful protest and freedom of expression. It is also essential that all those who are injured have immediate access to medical treatment. We urge all sides to avoid violence and for the police to exercise restraint. The Bahraini Government should move quickly to carry out their commitment to a transparent investigation into earlier deaths, and extend that to include today’s events and any alleged human rights abuses.
I also said to the Foreign Minister that this is a time to build bridges between the different religious communities in Bahrain. I said that we would strongly oppose any interference in the affairs of Bahrain by other nations or any action to inflame sectarian tensions between Bahrain’s Sunni and Shi’a communities. We recognise that Bahrain has made important political reforms alongside its growing economic success. We strongly welcome such steps within the context of the long friendship between Bahrain and the UK under successive Governments. I was assured in Bahrain last week and again this morning that the Bahraini Government intend to build on these reforms.
We will always encourage Bahrain and other countries to take further steps that meet legitimate aspirations for greater political and social freedoms. As I said in my statement on Monday, Britain will continue to send a constant message to Governments of the region about how important it is to move in the direction of more open and flexible political systems and sound economic development, while always respecting the different cultures, histories and traditions of each nation.
Mr MacShane
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for coming to answer this urgent question himself, and for bringing his ministerial team. Does he agree that a wind of change is blowing through the Arab world—first Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen, and now Libya, Algeria and the terrible news of deaths and hospitals filled with the wounded as the autocrats of Bahrain seek to crush their people’s hopes? [Interruption.] I hear sneers from the Government Benches. Momentous changes are under way as big as those of 90 years ago after Lawrence arrived in Aqaba.
Seven thousand British citizens live in Bahrain, and UK exports to Bahrain are worth £500 million. Last week, the Foreign Secretary visited Bahrain. Did he have contact with the pro-democracy opposition or was the purpose of his mission simply to be a latter-day Castlereagh, upholding conservative monarchs in the region? Why is there no statement on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website with even the tiniest hint from the Foreign Secretary to the rulers of Bahrain that they must move with the times—or does he chastise only the Israeli Government? Does he agree that all political detainees must be released now?
Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that late last year his FCO ministerial colleagues signed off on exports to Bahrain of tear gas, irritant ammunition, riot control equipment and other matériel used to crush democracy? Will he tell the House that there will be no more exports of such matériel from Britain? Will he confirm that the Register of Members’ Financial Interests shows that Ministers, while in opposition, were on a regular gravy train to Bahrain, paid for by the rulers of the statelet? Does he agree that it would be better if the financial links between Bahrain and Members of this House were now suspended?
Finally, does the Foreign Secretary agree that almost a century of British policy, supported by Governments of all parties, based on turning a blind eye to the repression and corruption of the regimes in this region may be coming to an end? Will he therefore agree to a wide review of UK foreign policy in the region before it is too late, and reverse the cuts to the BBC and the British Council, so that Britain can be more and not less present, and on the side of democracy and decency in the region for the first time in generations?
Mr Hague
If I may respond to the substantive parts of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, Britain is of course on the side of decency and democracy everywhere in the world, including in the middle east and the Gulf states. The House gave strong support on Monday for the sentiments that I expressed in respect of our approach to the situation. The Opposition were also generally supportive of our continual call for more open and flexible political systems, and for the recognition of legitimate political aspirations, while respecting and understanding the fact that those countries are all different, that they all cope with different situations, and that they have had a different pace of reforms.
It is certainly important to express our gravest concerns in the manner in which I have this morning, but it is also important to recognise that important reforms have taken place in Bahrain and that the King of Bahrain pledged himself in the last week to further such reforms.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the presence of Government statements on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website. That website will of course be updated with all my statements, including this one and what I will say at the press conference that I will hold shortly with the Spanish Foreign Minister. However, I did speak about this matter in the House of Commons itself on Monday, and that is where Governments should give their definitive statements on such things.
Any exports will be looked at under the strict criteria that we always apply in this country. It is true that both in opposition and in government, many right hon. and hon. Members have been to Bahrain and held extensive discussions with its leaders. In fact, on every occasion when I went there in the last five years, Ministers of the previous Government were there at the same time. It is wholly right to have that dialogue with Bahrain and other Gulf states.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about my visit last week. I met a variety of opposition human rights organisations, including the Bahrain Human Rights Society, the Migrant Workers Protection Society and the Bahrain Women’s Union. I subsequently raised some of the issues that they brought up with Bahraini Ministers. We have a continuous discussion and dialogue on human rights with the Bahraini authorities, which again is absolutely the appropriate thing to do.
I am sure that the right position for this country, in the context of that long friendship with Bahrain of which I have spoken, is to press for legitimate aspirations to be met and for actions to be taken that bring different religious communities together, as well as to express our grave concern when such matters arise.
Middle East
Denis MacShane Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
I welcome what my hon. Friend has said. A couple of weeks ago I announced an increase in funds for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which I consider to be part of the mixture of support for civil society and the development of political parties when that is appropriate and agreed with the countries concerned. I very much hope that the foundation will be able to play a role in both Tunisia and Egypt.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary share my dismay that the first act of the new military rulers in Egypt—the generals and colonels who are now in charge there—has been to ban strikes and, in effect, prevent trade unions from functioning? Are we not in danger of seeing an agreement between men in uniform and the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood that will leave no space for secular democracy, which must allow a degree of social justice and the right of Egyptian workers to organise freely?
Mr Hague
It is indeed very important for secular democratic parties to be given space in which to develop. That is one of the issues on which I exchanged comments with the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) a moment ago. The military council has made many announcements that we should welcome—I listed them in my statement—but that does not mean that we agree with everything that it says or does. One of the things that we are encouraging the Egyptian Government to do, which I discussed with the Egyptian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister yesterday, is to continue to “reach out”, as we would say in the jargon, to opposition groups in Egypt—including, of course, trade unions and small opposition political parties—and ensure that they feel included in the process that is taking place. I am sure that that is the soundest approach.
European Union Bill
Denis MacShane Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Let me say at the outset what a pleasure it is again to be debating the Bill with the Minister and the select group of Members currently in the Chamber. We welcome the provisions that the Government have set out to give parliamentary approval to the allocation of the UK’s extra seat in the European Parliament. Having worked in the European Parliament for some time, I know the important role that it plays, but I would like to ask the Minister some questions of clarification.
Can the Minister clarify why the so-called Sainte-Laguë process was chosen to allocate the UK’s extra seat in the European Parliament to the west midlands region? I understand that the method was set out in the Electoral Commission report in October last year. What consultation took place between the Government and the Electoral Commission on choosing that method? Was a joint decision made, or was it the decision of the commission or the Government? Did the Government consider any other method to allocate the extra seat, and if so, which? Which methods are being used by other member states to allocate extra seats?
The explanatory note says that the west midlands had the lowest number of electors per MP according to the current electoral register, and on that basis the decision was made to allocate the extra seat. It is perhaps ironic that, although the west midlands will be given one extra MEP, owing to the Government’s plans it is set to lose several MPs. Which electoral register did the Government consider when making their decision: the one from December last year or the year before? Can the Minister tell the Committee what progress other member states are making on ratifying the protocol to increase the number of MEPs, and when he expects the UK to take up its extra seat in the European Parliament?
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
The Minister and my hon. Friend have set out clearly the technical reasons for adopting the clause, and I am sure that the Committee will not divide on it. Let me also tell the Minister that it is a great pleasure to have someone on the Front Bench from this Government advocating an increase in parliamentary representation. Whereas the other place so long resisted the culling of foxes, we are shortly to have a sharp culling of MPs, with a reduction in representation. It is therefore good that we are increasing representation in the European Parliament under the current proposal.
Mrs Main
I am listening with interest to the right hon. Gentleman on the issue of increasing the number of Members. Does he not share my concern that any increase in the number of elected Members will also see a proportionate increase in costs, pensions and office staff, which, sadly, this country cannot choose to afford?
Mr MacShane
The hon. Lady is quite right, but if she checks the debates on the great Reform Bill of 1832, she will find that exactly the same point was made—that any increase in representation in this country would place an unbearable cost on the Exchequer.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Upper Houses are not relevant to this stand part debate, so let us stick to the clause. I am sure that Mr MacShane will want to come back to that subject.
Mr MacShane
I am tempted to say—though, thank goodness, oral amendments are not allowed in Committee of the whole House—that the increase in MEPs at the heart of this part of the Bill could be allocated to representatives from national Parliaments at some future date. I am just stretching the limits of order—[Interruption.] I am about to sit down, Mr Hoyle. I am inviting the Minister to open a debate about how to make the European Parliament more representative and more reflective of the national will in the different countries that constitute the EU. That might require a small treaty change, but not, I am sure, a significant one, so we would not need to initiate the referendum provisions.
We often knock the European Parliament because of expenses or costs or decisions it has taken that we do not like, which is frankly rather childish. What we need is a more serious debate about making the European Parliament more effective, more efficient and more representative—leaving aside those who want to abolish it or to withdraw completely from it. I invite the Minister to engage with that debate, although he may well hope that once proceedings on the Bill are concluded there will be no more debate about the EU on his side of the House for the next few years.
Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman not give any weight to what the German constitutional court said in respect of democracy—that it lies not in the institutions of the European Union or its Parliament, but in those of the national state?
Mr MacShane
The Verfassungsgericht in Germany, of course, sees the German people—das Volk—as the sovereign, and distinguishes clearly between the Bundestag and the Bundesrat. It allocates powers on a subsidiary basis—
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Again, we really are drifting from the subject, and we must return to it. The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that he was winding up his speech, but he is now broadening it again.
Mr MacShane
Not many Members wish to speak, Mr Hoyle, so I was trying to reply to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd), but I now invite him to read some expert books on the subject instead.
Mr MacShane
For the last time—because mine was intended to be a very short speech—I give way, as always, to my hon. Friend.
Kelvin Hopkins
I thank my right hon. Friend, as always, for being so generous.
No doubt we should welcome the extra seat in the European Parliament as a small extension of democracy, but my right hon. Friend is right about accountability. Would it not be a good idea for some powers to be repatriated to national Parliaments, and would it not also be a good idea to return to single-Member, first-past-the-post seats in the European Parliament? Would that not increase accountability?
The Chairman
Order. That has absolutely nothing to with the clause. I think that the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) had better sum up his speech now.
Mr MacShane
Might my hon. Friend possibly accept that on this occasion I really must bow to the Chair and sit down?
Mr Lidington
A number of the questions posed by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) invited me to move from clause 15 to clauses 16 and 17. If you are willing to allow me to stray on to that territory, Mr Hoyle, I shall be able to reply to her questions now and perhaps speak more formally later when we deal with those clauses; otherwise I shall have to delay my responses to her.
The right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) made his points very forcefully. I agree with him that there is a disconnection between decisions made by national legislatures in just about every member state and decisions made in the European Parliament—or in Europe more generally—on behalf of those countries, and I think it important for us to consider how to remedy that democratic deficit. However, I do not want to be drawn into a detailed discussion about the treaty changes which would need to be debated and negotiated to produce the outcome that the right hon. Gentleman seeks, and which would have to command unanimous agreement among all member states and, indeed, the European Parliament itself.
Let me say two things about the European Parliament. First, it does an important job. Whatever view I, or any other Member present, may take on whether or not it should have particular powers, my contacts with MEPs of all parties have given me the impression that, for the most part, they take their duties of scrutinising and seeking to amend European legislation very seriously. As a Government and as a Parliament, we need to have regard to and engage consistently with MEPs if we are to pursue successfully the national objectives of the United Kingdom through the European Union.
Secondly, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is an unhealthy democratic gap between the way in which the European Parliament operates and the— in my opinion—correct belief held by most national legislatures that they are more directly accountable to the voters in their respective countries than are MEPs. That is, perhaps, particularly true in the United Kingdom, where there is a significant difference in the method of election: while MEPs are elected through a regional party list system, we in the House of Commons are elected to single-Member constituencies. The right hon. Gentleman has sketched what has the makings of a fruitful debate in the months and years to come.
Let me now deal with the various detailed points made by, in particular, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East. While I am tempted to deal at length on differences between the Sainte-Laguë and d’Hondt methods, that would probably reduce the number of Members attending the debate even further. I am happy to offer a seminar. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) indicates that he does not wish to be drawn into a debate about the respective merits of Sainte-Laguë and d’Hondt.
Mr MacShane
Let us leave Sainte-Laguë and d’Hondt. Is the Minister in favour of the alternative vote? That is what the Committee and the nation want to know.
Mr Lidington
No.
The answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East is that the Electoral Commission decided to use the Sainte-Laguë method following various consultations that it had carried out. There is a debate about whether we should move to that method when it comes to deciding how to elect Members of the European Parliament, but that is a matter for a future occasion.
Mr MacShane
The hon. Gentleman says that the previous and current Chancellors entered into an unlawful act. Is he saying that the current Chancellor of the Exchequer is a criminal?
Mr Cash
That is an absurd comment. I am speaking in terms of the vires of the treaty. It is a different question; it is nothing to do with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It was a serious misjudgment. It was an agreement that cannot be justified by the legal base. The European Scrutiny Committee said in its report that the agreement on that particular mechanism was legally unsound. That is what I mean. It has exposed the British taxpayer to a very significant sum of money.
However, that is just one example. The real question, ultimately, is one of democracy and trust. It is a matter of principle, and that principle is demonstrated by what happened in respect of the Lisbon treaty. We stood here in this House, month after month, debating the Lisbon treaty. I tabled perhaps 120 or 130 amendments. We united the Conservative party: for the first time since 1972, we had complete unanimity. Of those with a different view, only one is still in the party now—the others have all fled to other parties—and he is the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. He is entitled to his view and I respect him for the consistency with which he pursues it, however much I may disagree. The Conservative party was united in opposing every aspect of the Lisbon treaty and united for a referendum, and we voted accordingly. For reasons that have been put forward, but which I simply do not accept, that promise of a referendum was torn up.
Other promises with regard to the European issue—promises made in our manifesto—have not been sustained. These are serious matters. It is no surprise that the people of this country lose faith and trust in their politicians if such decisions are taken. This applies just as much to the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats. Broken promises are broken manifesto promises. Manifesto promises are the basis on which people ask to be elected and get into this House to represent the interests of the people who vote for them in the polling booth. If we break our promises, it is hardly surprising if the people of this country begin to feel a sense, first, of unease, and then of contempt for the political system.
This is constitutional reality, but also practical reality: it affects people in their everyday lives. We heard from the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) about the working at heights directive. We heard from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) about the posted workers directive. We have heard about the working time directive, the nurses agencies directive, and so on. The EU affects every single corner, every single nook and cranny of our lives, and we appear to be powerless to do anything about it.
A few days ago I got the figures from the Library on the balance of trade between ourselves and the European Union. They are alarming. In relation to the 27 member states, between 1999 and 2009—it has got very much worse in the past 18 months—we had an imbalance of £5 billion. With the rest of the world, we have had an improvement of £11 billion. There is a message there: you cannot trade with a bankrupt organisation if you are a successful company. The European Union, with its low growth, its riots and protests, and its failure, demonstrates why a referendum is required, as the new clause says, on the question of
“continuing United Kingdom membership of the European Union”.
For me, this is not just a question of in or out, but of to be or not to be a democratic nation state. This is not a matter to be trifled with.
I have profound views about the manner in which the coalition Government are dealing with this issue. As the Minister for Europe said in the debate last week, the Government have a European Affairs Committee, two thirds of which is Conservative and one third of which is Liberal Democrat. I pointed out to him that that Committee clearly could not have a vote, because we would win every time and we would have the policies that we stood on in our manifesto. So who is wagging the tail? It is clearly the one third of the Committee that are Liberal Democrats, combined with the instincts of those on our side of the equation who want more Europeanisation, although they disclaim it. That is another problem for us.
In Prime Minister’s questions a few weeks ago I asked why it is that at every turn, whenever an issue of integration comes up, we always go in the wrong direction. Why has repatriation been rejected? It is the repatriation of powers, using the well-known formula—notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972—that would enable us to re-grow our economy and answer the question that is now before the Chancellor of the Exchequer: why is our economy not growing? We can tell him that it is not growing because 50% of our trade is with the European Union, which is itself in deep trouble and has low growth. At the same time, we cannot grow our economy because we are strangled to such an extent by the red tape of Brussels. Those two situations can be retrieved only through a new relationship between us and the European Union.
This is not just a constitutional argument, but an argument of practicality. It is an argument of to be or not to be a democratic nation state, a great sovereign state and a successful country that represents the interests of the people we serve—not ourselves. As I have said so often, it is not our Parliament, it is their Parliament. They are entitled to know that if things have not gone right—things certainly have not gone right with Europeanisation—we have an absolute obligation to ask them for their opinion. That is democracy, that is trust and that is what will restore integrity to this House and the British political system.
Mr MacShane
I have considerable sympathy with the speech of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash). A year ago, his party was Cash and Carswell; now it is Clegg and Cable. His party has surrendered the authenticity of its position on Europe for the marriage of convenience with the Liberal Democrats. That is his problem, not mine.
I am not so sure that the European Union is to blame for the fact that we alone of the major European Union economies have zero growth, inflation of 3.6%, a shrinking currency and rising unemployment. This House and this Government could at a stroke tomorrow cut taxes, abolish national labour laws that they do not like and do whatever they think might turn this situation around. I gently suggest that perhaps it is the economic management that needs to be looked at.
I want to address the fundamental point that was made by the hon. Member for Stone and my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who has left her place. Should this democracy be based on plebiscites and referendums, or on the authority of this House? In recent days, the issue that the people of Britain have been in touch with me about is the selling off of Sherwood forest, our woods and our free forest lands to private interests. Perhaps I would like to respond to them by saying, “Let there be a referendum on this issue.” Previously, the issue about which people were in touch with me was the tripling of student fees, on which one of the coalition parties broke, in the most fundamental and flagrant way, a solemn promise that it had made and signed in public. We have no mechanism to have a referendum on that matter. I could also mention the education maintenance allowance.
Oral Answers to Questions
Denis MacShane Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Bellingham
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. Zimbabwe is facing a dramatic year. We are working closely with the South Africans, who are putting together a road map towards credible elections. It is most likely that there will be a referendum on the new constitution some time this spring or summer. It is absolutely essential that it goes smoothly and that it is free and fair and completely credible, because it will be observed very closely as the forerunner for presidential and parliamentary elections possibly later this year or next year.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will shortly be appointing some very senior officials to some of the most important diplomatic posts of our nation. Will he assure the House that those who represent Her Majesty and the Government abroad, especially in Europe, speak and read, as the norm, a language other than English?
Mr Hague
Yes, British diplomats are renowned for their language skills. That is why I was very disappointed when the Government whom the right hon. Gentleman supported closed the Foreign Office language school two years ago. It is a difficult thing to put back together. I am now looking not so much at putting it back together but at increasing the learning of hard languages in the Foreign Office. I will be allocating additional funds—[Interruption.] This is the answer to the question. I will be allocating additional funds for the learning of hard languages in the Foreign Office. It is very important that people who go to embassies, including around Europe, are able to speak those languages.
BBC World Service
Denis MacShane Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary if he will make a statement on BBC World Service cuts.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
The House will agree that the BBC World Service performs an invaluable role, reflecting British democratic values overseas and supporting British influence in the world, and that the services it provides are a beacon to many in some of the poorest and most insecure countries in the world. We announced in October that from 2014 responsibility for the BBC World Service will be transferred to the BBC itself and funded from the licence fee, a move that has been welcomed by the World Service and the BBC Trust as providing new opportunities for the World Service to develop in the future. In the meantime, the World Service, like any other taxpayer-funded body, must ensure that it is working on the right priorities and as efficiently as possible. I announced in October that its expenditure limits would be reduced by 16% in real terms over the next three years.
As I set out in a written statement earlier today, we are providing £13 million per annum to help with the deficit in BBC pension funds and £10 million per annum for new services in markets that we and the World Service have identified as priorities. Those include TV programming in Urdu, in sub-Saharan Africa and in Hindi to be provided to local partners. We have also guaranteed the capital for the move of the World Service to its new offices in W1. That is proper provision for the future of the World Service and will make up for inherited deficits.
The other services provided by the World Service cannot stand still, and those that have become less well used because of the rise of local broadcasters or falling shortwave audiences sometimes have to close. It is the World Service’s responsibility to be as efficient as possible while maintaining as many services as possible, something the previous Government recognised when in 2006 they closed 10 separate language services of the World Service. The World Service initially suggested to the Foreign Office the closure of up to 13 language services, but I refused to give permission for that. I have agreed to the closure of five language services, accounting for 3.5 million listeners out of the total audience of 180 million. Withdrawal from shortwave and other services will have a bigger effect, but they will rightly allow for concentration on online and mobile services for the future.
The BBC World Service has a viable and promising future, but it is not immune from public spending constraints or the reassessment of its priorities. While any closures might be regretted, they would not be necessary at all were it not for the inherited BBC pension deficit and the vast public deficit inherited from the previous Government.
Mr MacShane
May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he is Her Majesty’s principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, not a pensions actuary at KPMG? In every year of the previous Labour Government, the grant in aid to the foreign service went up, but under him it has gone down. He is doing in part what no dictator has ever achieved: silencing the voice of the BBC, the voice of Britain, the voice of democracy, and the voice of balanced journalism at a time when it is needed more than ever.
I have an interest to declare. It was the World Service that broadcast my arrest and imprisonment 30 years ago in communist Poland, thus helping to secure my fairly swift release. This week there is turmoil in the Balkans, where people were killed and injured in Tirana last Friday and where Serbia and Macedonia remain without a European future. There is turmoil in Russia, where no one trusts the Putin-controlled media. There is turmoil in Africa, from Egypt and Tunisia down to Ivory Coast and Zimbabwe. What are the Government doing? They are axing the voice of the BBC—the voice of Britain and our values—in Albanian, Serbian and Macedonian. They are cutting services to Angola, Mozambique, Russia and China. They are taking the BBC off the air as other non or semi-democracies replace BBC truth with their propaganda.
The Foreign Secretary secured a flat cash settlement for his own Foreign and Commonwealth Office diplomats, but he has made the World Service the main victim of his cuts with a 20% real-terms reduction. That will cost the jobs of hundreds of journalists who come from every corner of the world to offer their linguistic and political expertise to our nation.
Finally, does the Foreign Secretary accept that just 0.5% of the UK’s total spend on international work goes to the World Service? I urge him to look across the range of UK overseas spending, including some sacred cows, and reverse the World Service cuts before irreparable damage is done to our country. If he cannot do that, he should let us have a Foreign Secretary who will allow Britain to maintain its voice in the world.
Mr Hague
When the right hon. Gentleman talks about Poland, one would never imagine that the World Service’s Polish service was closed by the Government of whom he was a member. When he talks about the Balkans, one would never imagine that the Bulgarian, Croatian and Slovene services were also closed by the Government of whom he was a member. It was apparently fine under the previous Government sometimes to have to change priorities, but it is not fine now.
The right hon. Gentleman asks about the Russian services. In Russia, online audiences have increased by 120% in the past 12 months, while radio audiences have declined by 85% since 2001. That is why it is absolutely right for the World Service to move more of its services to online and mobile services; that is the way the world is going, even though he might not have noticed it.
Of course the World Service has to move with the future, and of course occasionally some services have to close. The right hon. Gentleman recognised that when he was a Minister. It is a pity he does not recognise it now.
European Union Bill
Denis MacShane Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Nuttall
I have no idea what each individual thinks—that is up to them. All I am saying is that those who promote the EU project, which states the need for ever-closer union—[Interruption.] Those who promote the EU project would very much like there to be simply EU elections and local, regional elections, effectively bypassing Members of Parliament. The thrust of the legislation means that that is where we are headed, and it is one of many reasons why I tabled amendments 54 and 55, and I commend them to the Committee.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
My treat, which I can never find the resources or time to put into effect, is to send the comments that hon. Members on both sides of the House make to our fellow European politicians. I should like President Sarkozy, Chancellor Merkel, Prime Minister Tusk or the representatives of any one of the nine Nordic and Baltic states that were hosted by the Prime Minister at Downing street last week, to read that someone stood up in the Chamber of the House of Commons and said that we are about to abolish national elections. They would realise what a wonderful world the House of Commons can become. To paraphrase Karl Marx on history in the famous opening lines of “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte”, the House of Commons, when it debates the EU, starts as muddle and descends quickly into farce. We are already firmly into those two categories today.
Clause 6 refers—
Mr MacShane
Might I just finish my point on clause 6? My hon. Friend and I have had many exchanges here and in the Tea Room over a number of years, and my affection for him grows with each passing moment.
Government amendment 57 calls for a referendum with reference to an extension of the powers of the European public prosecutor’s office, but clause 6(4)(c) already lists the requirement for a referendum when there is any change in the treaty involving the participation of the UK with the EPPO. That is just the technical muddle.
I remember sitting on the Government Benches, where the hon. Member for Broadmoor is now sitting.
Mr MacShane
There are times when the European Union debate makes me think that I am in Broadmoor—in respect of speeches made on both sides of the House, some of which reach the highest clouds of fantasy and invention.
When I was on the Government Benches, getting the wording right was interesting. Foreign Office officials are brilliant draftspersons, but they are not necessarily quite as focused on the detail or on internal contradictions in legislation, because they do not always produce Bills. Clause 6 and amendment 57, which I assume will go through tonight with a Government majority despite the best efforts of Conservative Back Benchers, actually contradict themselves.
Kelvin Hopkins
The important thing about elections is not just that they are a method for electing people to a Chamber such as this, but that those people have power to exercise on behalf of the people who vote for them. Should we not be careful to ensure that this House, this Parliament and our Government retain power? Otherwise, democracy becomes meaningless and we would just be a decorative part of the constitution instead of an effective part, as Bagehot would say.
Mr MacShane
My hon. Friend is one of the most decorative parts of this House, and I hope that, after the reduction of representation in the wretched Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Bill becomes law—it will weaken the House of Commons unless the other place defends our constitutional rights—when there will be 50 fewer of us, he is to be found among the survivors.
This is the eternal argument. The most sovereign person in the world was Robinson Crusoe on his island. No one could tell him what to do, and he did not tell anyone else what to do. Our nation’s history is entirely about finding partners and allies and making treaties. I invite hon. Members to go to the National Gallery and look at the depiction of the signing of the treaty of London signed in 1604, which has four British dips and four Spanish dips and you cannot tell the difference between them. That treaty brought to an end 50 years of conflict between Spain and Britain because—
Mr MacShane
That is a good crack, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that Spanish power messed up the continent for another 100 years until we won again. If the House of Commons only exists to express the sentiment of the football fan that “We won, and they have to lose”, Britain will never advance.
Chris Bryant
If the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) is correct that we won in 1604, why did we spend the next 20 years trying to marry off the heir to the British throne to a Spanish infanta?
Mr MacShane
I am glad that we are now marrying off one of our royals to someone who has the attributes of a very normal, pretty Englishwoman. We wish William and “Caterina” every success.
To return to the Bill and the clause, I campaigned for many years in this House, on an all-party basis, for laws and measures to combat human trafficking. That cannot be done on the basis of a single decision of this House alone. In the last Parliament, it took a great deal of work by hon. Members on both sides of the House to persuade the then Prime Minister to first sign and then ratify the Council of Europe’s convention on trafficking. The Home Office’s view was that it did not want to be told by anyone—and this was the Council of Europe, not the European Union—what to do or to accept any obligations. Ministers and officials came up with argument after argument about why the Council of Europe convention should not be signed. I am glad to say that parliamentary pressure from both sides wore them down and the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, signed and ratified it. It was an important step forward. As ever, it was not the final solution to that dark and wretched side of globalisation, but it was a step forward.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the case of the person in Leek, Staffordshire whom it was proposed, under an arrest warrant, should be taken over to Italy, and who was convicted in his absence to 15 years, but who, thanks to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) and the Prime Minister, has been completely exonerated? He was not even within 1,000 miles of where the murder took place.
Mr MacShane
The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right, but we could all list examples in Britain of improper arrests. It does not vitiate the need for international co-operation against criminality—I mentioned trafficking, but there are other examples—if that is what we want. International co-operation on the basis of, “Well, you’ll co-operate with us, but we won’t co-operate you”, will never happen. I am glad that there was not a referendum lock on the EAW, because otherwise that gentleman from 7/7 would still be waiting in Rome until we had had our referendum.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) was invalid, but that his own similar individual example is valid. Why is it valid when it supports his argument, and invalid when it does not?
Mr MacShane
On the contrary, there are anomalies with the EAW. I have cases myself involving the Polish authorities, in particular, sending out generalised arrest warrants for people who have done little more than nick a bike. None the less, a law is a law is a law. If we want criminals whom we want dealt with in Britain to be sent back here, we have to accept that what is sauce for our criminal goose has to be sauce for other criminal gander.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
I invite the right hon. Gentleman to contemplate the evidence given to the Home Affairs Committee by an eminent lawyer in the field of extradition about the extent of the problem he has just described: arrest warrants coming from Poland and other eastern European places for trivial offences, resulting in many of those on the receiving end of one being locked up in British prisons and police stations, wasting a considerable amount of time and occupying valuable space.
Mike Gapes
Is my right hon. Friend aware that recently a Romanian national was arrested in east London and taken back to Romania on an extradition warrant issued by the Romanian authorities? This individual had been involved in the most terrible form of trafficking of human beings and criminal activity in Romania.
Mr MacShane
May we bring an end to these individual cases from right hon. and hon. Members?
I am glad that the “costa del crime” has been shut down thanks to enhanced European co-operation. I put it to hon. Members on both sides that in a few years’ time it might be to our country’s advantage to have an effective prosecutor’s office working to ensure that the people whom we bring to justice can face inquiry and remedy. I accept that the Bill will pass, but I am nervous about saying to our European colleagues, “Forget that idea, because we will have to have a referendum on it first.” I do not want to use hyperbole, but were I a trafficker or someone who did not want to be brought to justice on a trans-frontier basis, I would be quite happy to see a referendum take place before effective action could be taken against me.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
As it happens, the European arrest warrant has recently been of great use to one of my constituents who had suffered a grave injustice in Spain, which is an argument in favour of the European arrest warrant. We have also heard some arguments against it, but these are all arguments that can be put to the British people. We can have a mature debate in front of them. Why does the right hon. Gentleman oppose that?
Mr MacShane
That takes us into a slightly broader aspect of the debate, where there are differences between us. I started my political life campaigning in pubs and elsewhere against the demand, which was very prevalent after my student days, that there should be a referendum on capital punishment. Again and again, the cry is for a referendum, and we heard it in health questions today, when it was asked whether we could have a referendum on NHS reforms. I do not think that any hon. Member on the Government Benches would give a fleeting thought to that proposition, but if a referendum on a public prosecutor’s office is good, why is a referendum on something that will impact far more directly on the British people—namely the Government’s proposals to change significantly the way that our health service is delivered—not good?
Mr MacShane
To be told to sit down by the hon. Gentleman, who, to his great credit, has never long warmed a Bench if he could stand up, is undoubtedly a real pleasure to be had from my small contribution to this debate.
Mr Redwood
The big difference is that the Government’s health reforms are reversible if they do not work or if a future Government do not like them, whereas the surrender of power to Europe is irreversible.
Mr MacShane
Again, this shows a failure to understand that if we do not like a treaty, there is an alternative. I have been told over the 16 years in which I have sat in the House that almost any change would undermine Britain. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman famously said that the Amsterdam treaty would mean the abolition of the United Kingdom. Can anybody in the Committee tell me a single thing that was in the Amsterdam treaty?
Mr MacShane
There we are: when we need an anorak, there is always one from Rhondda. I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
I respect the Member for Europe, for whom there is a great deal of affection among those of us in the House who are first-class Euro-bores. The Member for Europe—[Hon. Members: “Member for Europe?”] I apologise: the Minister for Europe is a sincere and serious chap. I have recently been much involved in the issue of Kosovo. One of our great problems there is that whereas the United Kingdom recognises Kosovo, along with 21 other member states, led by Britain—there is, I hope, not a cigarette paper of difference between those on our Front Bench and those on the Government’s on the importance of helping Kosovo find its way to a future—five EU member states do not recognise Kosovo. As a result, we are utterly stymied in so much that we could and should do to help Kosovo find its way towards some stability, and because Kosovo has no stability or sense of security, that is contagious in other countries in the Balkans. There are times when this Government would, if anything, like to exercise a little more authority in Europe, in order to achieve key foreign policy goals.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Jesse Norman
I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much, and I am greatly enjoying his comic turn. On a point of information, is he engaged in a one-man filibuster, or is this a genuine contribution to the argument?
Mr MacShane
If the hon. Gentleman and every other hon. Member had remained seated, rather than jumping up and insisting on making interventions, I would have sat down about 10 minutes ago. [Hon. Members: “No!”] I am hearing cries for me to go on and on—I do not think that anything similar is happening in the other place—but I will sit down in due course.
I have no intention of filibustering; I have come here to make the point that remains at the heart of the Bill. That is that no Minister of the Crown—whether of this Administration, a Lib Dem Administration or, in four and a half years’ time, when my right hon. Friends are on the Government Front Bench, a Labour Administration—is going to sign either a brand new treaty or a significant amendment that so unacceptably transfers authority and power away from this House and the Government of the nation that that Minister would have to come back here and say, “We have looked at this and we are very uncertain about it. We think it is significant and we are going to give the British people a referendum on it.” “Significant” is the key adjective in this regard.
That shows the intellectual dishonesty at the heart of all these debates. The Bill is being introduced simply because the Conservative part of the Government could not honour its commitment to have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, could not repatriate any powers and could not alter the existing treaties. Because the Conservatives are locked into their coalition agreement with the Lib Dems, the only reflection of five years of consistent, campaigning Euroscepticism they can offer to the British people is this Bill. I accept that it reflects the prevailing mood among the largest single party, the Conservative party. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have campaigned consistently on Eurosceptic themes.
Mr MacShane
I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman will make his points in due course.
In opposition, it was possible for the Conservatives to campaign as Eurosceptics, but they cannot but govern as Euro-realists. This we have seen in whole range of—
Mr MacShane
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to make his point very shortly.
As Euro-realists, this Government have been—by my standards—responsible and helpful, shovelling out money to Ireland and working with Chancellor Merkel on serious treaty amendments that will increase economic surveillance of all the 27 member states, on foreign policy and on other issues. I really have no huge complaints to make about the Government at all. I say again, however, that it is inconceivable that any Minister of any Government in the future is going to come back from Brussels and say, “I’ve signed such a bad treaty. I’m not really sure about it. It is so significant in its alteration of the powers between the UK and the rest of the EU that I want it put to a referendum.”
Mr Cash
The right hon. Gentleman is making a big show about all this. First, there was a referendum in 1975 under a Labour Government. Secondly, there was also a promise in the Labour manifesto about a referendum on the constitutional treaty. Thirdly, if the right hon. Gentleman had been here yesterday, he would have heard those on his own Front Bench proposing a mechanism to ensure that, in certain circumstances, there would be a referendum on all matters within the treaties. So, for practical purposes, he needs to ask himself whether the Labour party is now contradicting the position that he is adopting.
Mr MacShane
I will leave that point for my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I am not sure whether their new clause has been selected for debate today, but it proposes to set up a broad oversight committee, which might indeed be a rival to the Committee of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash). I do not think that the proposal will make much progress, however.
The worry for me is that, at least among the majority party on the Government Benches, we have a Eurosceptic majority. We have to accept that. There are also many Eurosceptics on these Benches—[Interruption.]
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Mr MacShane, could you please turn your phone off? This is the second time that it has rung in the course of your contribution. While I am on my feet, may I ask you to refer to the amendments, and not to be tempted by interventions to reflect on anything that is not within them?
Mr MacShane
I apologise, Ms Primarolo. I thought that the phone was in silent mode, but it was not. I have learned something. At least my tie is sober and silent! I accept that interventions have dragged me here and there, but we are a friendly kind of House when it comes to European debates—to begin with, at least. I have been trying to sit down for about 10 minutes, but hon. Members just will not let me.
The Second Deputy Chairman
Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman to sit down. Has he concluded his remarks? If not, he may continue, but he should not reflect on what I have said.
Mr MacShane
I was concluding my remarks until various Members got up to intervene.
My conclusion is simply this. There may come a time—not now, I accept—when a majority in this House and a duly elected Government feel that they want to take the lead to alter a European Union treaty—to propose a new one or make amendments to an existing one. They will then find that they are being held back by the tone, if not the strict legal content, of this Bill. This is coming dangerously close to what an Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office, Mr Henry Hopkinson, said about Cyprus in 1956—that it would “never” be free.
I genuinely worry about the signal we are sending to our EU partners at a time when we all, quite irrespective of our party political positions, need more co-operation and more enforcement in Europe, whether it be on Tunisia, on growth policies or on finding solutions to the problem in Ireland, where, as the Prime Minister rightly pointed out, we export three and a half times more British goods than we do to China. I worry greatly that this Bill, and particularly the new clause on the need for effective prosecution of criminality in Europe, will send out precisely the opposite signals. Our nation might well suffer, not tonight or in the next few weeks or months, but in the future, as a result of this deeply isolationist proposal.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
The last time I spoke after the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), I was slightly unkind to him. Even though he has given me lots of material to do the same again, I will not. I was a Member of the European Parliament when he was the Minister for Europe and we would have had many disagreements, but I would like to think that we could at least agree to disagree in a friendly manner. The right hon. Gentleman was definitely treading on thin ice when he spoke about Robinson Crusoe being cut adrift, but it is all welcome for the purposes of debate.
I wish to make a point about the European public prosecutor, which I am against, and it is one of the reasons why I tabled the amendments. When I was an MEP, there was a great Scottish National party MEP, Sir Neil MacCormick. In the first debate that ever took place on this subject, he reminded me that having a European public prosecutor would mean changing the way we do criminal law in this country—moving away from habeas corpus towards a more Napoleonic code. Perhaps that is worth reflecting on in this place and giving the British people a chance to have a say on it. I very much welcome Government amendments 57 and 58, and I am pretty sure that the great Sir Neil MacCormick would have done so.
I tried to explain to my constituents at the last general election that I had a bit of experience of European matters and that, given the opportunity, I would try to use that experience in this place. I also explained how the Conservative party would try to stop any future power grab by the European Union, as set out in its manifesto. When this is coupled with my membership of the European Scrutiny Committee, I hope that my constituents in Daventry will forgive me for continually talking in the Committee stages of this Bill. It is a very important Bill which contains a great deal of merit.
My amendments 36 to 38 would simply require approval by an Act of Parliament and a referendum before a United Kingdom Minister can give final agreement in the Council to a proposed justice and home affairs ratchet decision when the UK has already opted into the proposal for that decision. Such proposals are subject to unanimity in the Council.
Amendment 40 requires a decision under the amending treaty, a decision under article 48(6) of the Treaty on European Union or a 48(7) ratchet decision that abolishes the veto of EU proposals on family law to be approved in a referendum. Family law matters can fall under EU competence, and the veto could be abolished by an article 81(3) ratchet clause. I know that that is highly unlikely, and I know that the EU’s ability to become involved in family law has existed for a long time—since long before the Lisbon treaty—but I think that Members on both sides of the Committee can agree among themselves and with our European partners on matters such as the mutual recognition and enforcement between member states of judgments and decisions in extra-judicial cases.
However, genuine concern is felt by many people, and I am definitely one of them. In December 2005, the European Commission tried to make a case for applying the pre-Lisbon ratchet clause to qualified majority voting in EU proposals concerning maintenance obligations, which are obviously a family law matter. It was knocked back in the Council at that point, but anyone who listens to or reads debates in the European Parliament—as I now do—and anyone who reads statements from European Commissioners will understand that a bit of pressure is beginning to be applied. I should appreciate an assurance from the Minister that he is aware of that pressure and will continue to keep an eye on any challenges that may be forthcoming. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote.
European Union Bill
Denis MacShane Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Cash
I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, because he is exactly right. Since 1972, there has been an accumulation that has now turned into a tsunami—a sort of Pied Piper of Hamelin, whom we all remember from our childhoods—as the accumulated rumbling and tumbling has gone on and on. We are now faced with a continuous stream of legislation divesting the House of its right to legislate, and this is an opportunity—one not invented by me in terms of the clauses proposed by the Government—to enable us to regain the sovereignty that belongs to the people of this country, the voters in general elections and Members of Parliament elected to the House for the purposes of protecting those voters’ interests.
Mr MacShane
Just as we start this interesting debate, I would like to know whether the hon. Gentleman accepts the broad principle of pacta sunt servanda.
The Chairman
Order. We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at the same time.
Mr Cash
With the greatest respect, we have already had one intervention from the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he would be kind enough to wait.
It would be ironic to say the least if the slogan “Working together in the national interest”, which we saw at our party conference, were to become “Working together against the national interest”. I do not believe that any Member of Parliament or any Minister would agree that the coalition—a “temporary alliance”, according to the “Oxford English Dictionary”—should be employed in any way to pass legislation that would undermine parliamentary sovereignty. Incidentally, I am somewhat appalled at the lack of coverage not of this debate but of the European Scrutiny Committee report when it came out, given the fundamental nature of the issues at stake, and the quality of analysis not only in the report itself but in the evidence given to us by probably the most distinguished constitutional experts in the land.
I will turn first to the constitutional and legal issues that clause 18 raises and which were carefully considered for several weeks by the European Scrutiny Committee, which received evidence on a completely even-handed basis, which, because of the fundamental importance of the issues to our constitution and our democracy, was well worth doing. In the course of the proceedings it became clear that many of the constitutional experts concerned felt that, at the very least, clause 18 was completely unnecessary. The most compelling evidence—the evidence that we received from Professors Tomkins and Goldsworthy, along with a number of others—was that clause 18 was hazardous and dangerous, particularly in the light of the Government’s assertions.
The issue of parliamentary sovereignty has been a matter of fundamental concern, importance and action since the 17th century. However, parliamentary sovereignty acquired a special and fundamental significance with the extension of the franchise in the mid-19th century, from the Reform Act of 1867 onwards—for example, through the Reform Acts of 1885 and 1884—and is undoubtedly the democratic basis of the United Kingdom constitution. However, irrespective of its now democratic basis, parliamentary sovereignty has become increasingly questioned recently—and only very recently—by reason of judicial assertions. Although on the tin, as well as in many repeated statements, we were told—I refer now to my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches—that we would be getting a sovereignty clause or even a sovereignty Bill, clause 18 is emphatically not a sovereignty clause. For reasons that I will explain, the clause will actually undermine parliamentary sovereignty by encouraging judicial supremacy. The explanatory notes put forward the dangerous notion that parliamentary sovereignty is a “common law principle”, and therefore subject to judicial authority. However, even if the explanatory notes were disavowed on this matter, the problem of judicial assertions relating to parliamentary sovereignty would not disappear.
Mr Cash
I should be more than happy to show the hon. Gentleman a book that is entirely devoted to the issue of the sovereignty of Parliament. The point is that there is no need to define parliamentary sovereignty. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which gave greater independence to the judiciary and the whole of which ultimately turns on the rule of law, does not contain any definition of the rule of law. Certain fundamental principles, and methods whereby we are governed, do not require definition for that purpose. They are applied, in the case of both sovereignty and the rule of law. There is a natural constructive tension between the two, but it is our job to protect the element that involves the sovereignty of Parliament.
Mr MacShane
I do not disagree with what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, but the fundamental rule of international law in regard to treaties is “pacta sunt servanda”. Those who sign a treaty must abide by it. If Parliament does not like a treaty, it has a sovereign right to withdraw from it. We can withdraw from the European convention on human rights, which is concerned with deporting people and so forth, and we can do the same in regard to the European Union. That is not a nuclear option; it is a perfectly fair choice that this Parliament could take. I rather wonder whether that is the speech that the hon. Gentleman should be making.
Mr Cash
I shall deal with that point shortly, but—with respect to the right hon. Gentleman—he will have to be a little patient.
As Members will have noticed, I have sought only to strengthen clause 18, which, as it stands, merely refers to the “Status of EU law”. We were promised a sovereignty clause, and my amendment would achieve that. The clause as it stands would be subject to statutory interpretation, and it would be strange, uncertain and hazardous not to insert this provision in the framework of the European Communities Act 1972 itself. Clause 18 is a stand-alone clause. It refers to the “Status of EU law” and to section 2 of the European Communities Act, but it does not amend the Act. I am talking here about section 2 through section 3, when the judges apply themselves to any law. The clause is only six lines long, but it incorporates and absorbs within it every single piece of European legislation, so it applies to everything. However, although we know that law from the European Union emanates through from the 1972 Act, this measure does not amend the Act when incorporating the status of EU law. I am extremely concerned about that and find it very strange. In fact I will go further and say that I think the measure is deliberately contrived to make sure it is not an amendment to the 1972 Act.
Mr Jones
If there is a referendum, it will be interesting to observe the actions of the coalition. As on many other occasions, it will behave rather like Dr Dolittle’s pushmi-pullyu. Let us be honest: the hon. Gentleman and others are unlikely to agree with the Liberal Democrats on most European issues, given their clear view that nasty foreigners across the water are somehow doing terrible things to this Parliament and this country.
Mr MacShane
Is there not an alternative reading of the manifestos? The Liberals’ “in or out” referendum offer led to their losing five seats, while the Conservatives’ isolationist sovereignty Bill offer led to their failure to secure a majority. I suspect that if the Conservatives had remained true to their vocation of being internationalists, they might have secured that majority. It was their Euroscepticism that gave them only 303 seats. That is an alternative reading of all the figures that have been given.
Mr Jones
I imagine that it is, but the real point about the modern Conservative party is that it has not changed. It is virulently anti-Europe. At the time of the election, however, the Conservatives had to give the impression that they had put all that behind them.
Another view—amplified by the hon. Member for Dover—is that these nasty people in Europe do things to Britain in which our Parliament has no say, and that if we do not stand up and make token gestures such as this, those nasty foreigners will take away the rights that we have developed over many centuries. It should not be forgotten that, early in this country’s history, the Norman invaders spoke Norman French, and for a long time northern France was part of England.
Mr Jones
Well yes, but funnily enough we still see many cars parked outside this building.
The important point about the Thoburn v. Sunderland City Council case is that the council attempted to assert the primacy of EU law and EU legislative and judicial institutions but that was rejected, and that is the case law that is now in place. Therefore, although Eurosceptics in this House and commentators outside suggest that somehow these laws are coming from Europe and they are imposed on us and we have no control over them, that is not the case, so I do not see why we need this point to be reinforced through clause 18. To be fair to the European Scrutiny Committee, it makes the good point that the Thoburn case sets out the law as it is currently interpreted.
Mr Jones
I do not want to go down that route, but I think that point has already been dealt with very well. We did not do what we are being accused of having done. [Interruption.] I do sometimes worry about some Conservative Members, as they must have to lie down in a darkened room and take sedatives after having got themselves so frothed up and excitable about the Lisbon treaty somehow being the end of the world as we know it. Unfortunately for them, the end of the world has not happened because of the implementation of the Lisbon treaty.
Mr MacShane
For the sake of some of our new distinguished colleagues, it might be worth while if we remind ourselves that a promise was made on a referendum on the constitutional treaty, but that was killed by the French and the Dutch. The right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), who is now Secretary of State for Defence, said at the Dispatch Box that he was a doctor and he knew death when he saw it. That constitutional treaty is dead, and we cannot have a referendum on a dead parrot.
Neil Carmichael
We in the Conservative party are always celebrating, especially with our coalition partners, the success of our Government, so we have lots to celebrate. The hon. Gentleman is right about the renewal of marriage vows being a cause for celebration, but I am not entirely sure that we will be drinking champagne when we have defeated this amendment and passed the Act.
The point is that if something exists, we do not need to keep reaffirming it. Funnily enough, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was absolutely right about the wording of the amendment: if one reaffirms something, one effectively admits that it is already there. Something I have noticed during the past three and half hours I have spent in this debate, except for the brief moment when I had a drink, is that clause 18, as drafted, is required because there is so much misunderstanding about what sovereignty is and what power Parliament has. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) spoke, we deviated into the 1600s in connection with the outcome and causes of the English civil war, but the real issue there was the relationship between the King and Parliament. We must remember that the monarchy is still part of Parliament, because an Act does not become an Act until it has received Royal Assent.
Another, much more interesting, dimension of this discussion is the transfer from kingdom to nation state. That has rather more to do with sovereignty than our involvement in the European Union. Suppose that we wanted to leave the European Union—we would simply repeal the European Communities Act 1972. We are not going to do that, but that is what we would have to do. But what if Essex wanted to leave England? How would that unfold? That would be a completely different situation and would bite at the issue of sovereignty. It is important to get right this issue of what sovereignty is. The shadow Minister started to speak about that and the very fact that we are debating it proves that we should not use the word sovereignty in the Bill because it will lead to a need for interpretation.
It is also important that instead of talking about sovereignty, as we have for the past three hours, we ought to discuss what Parliament should be doing to make a difference in the European Union, if that is what we really want. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham did not really answer the question he was asked about the common fisheries policy. The matter is very simple: if we did not want to be in the CFP, we would have to say so and pass appropriate legislation having made the necessary agreement with our European partners. It would no doubt be messy and would certainly be complicated, but it would not be prevented by our no longer being sovereign because we are. Parliament has the power to take the decisions necessary to bring about such an outcome.
It is important to focus on what Parliament does rather than on what we think it is. That is the difference. This discussion is about sovereignty, but we have to move away from that specific issue and focus instead on the power and role of Parliament and the way it can influence things. At the end of the day, if we decided to leave the European Union, we would have to repeal the 1972 Act, which some people might want to do. Others might want to reform or restructure it in some way—we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) that that would, to some extent, be his direction of travel—but the most important thing for us to do is define the national interest and pursue it relentlessly. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) talked about the national interest and Disraeli’s description of the Conservative party as always being the national party. That is what we have to do, and that is what the Conservative party, with our Liberal Democrat partners, will continue to do—try to shape a role for Britain that is constructive but without allowing the European Union to be too intrusive on how we proceed. That is the best way that we can act as a Government.
Mr MacShane
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) who, in his short and effective speech, demolished some of the more windy and high-blown rhetoric that we have heard tonight. Sovereignty is a wonderful topic for a seminar but is rather more difficult to define than one might imagine. In many continental legislations, the people are sovereign. The American constitution starts: “We the People”. In such a system, it is not the Parliament or Congress that is sovereign but the people, who grant to the President or Parliament the right to govern in their name. In other countries, there are checks and balances known as a constitution or as direct democracy through forms of plebiscite and referendum. We have never gone down that path and have always refused a written constitution. In his book, “The English Constitution”, Bagehot contrasted the flexibility that the lack of a written constitution affords Britain with the American constitution, which he said was so rigid that it could be broken only through the civil war that was taking place as he was writing or compiling his book.
The additions that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and his colleagues on both sides of the House propose to clause 18 are superfluous because they will not add one extra bit of strength to the Bill. The Bill is cynical and worthless. The Government—or at least the Conservative part of the Government—may have campaigned in opposition as Eurosceptics but they have found that they have to govern as Eurorealists. I congratulate the Minister and the Government on being very Eurorealist since the coalition was formed in May. They have accepted a number of measures that require Britain to pay money or accept collective decisions, and have shown no desire to oppose the proposed changes in the Lisbon treaty to effect greater economic governance in Europe that were decided collectively by all 27 member states. They hide behind the convenient and comforting myth that that only affects the eurozone but, precisely to ensure better and more effective governance, much of which will involve a degree of fiscal discipline, we are gradually moving in the direction of greater co-ordination of our economic and fiscal policies in Europe. It will not be a case of giving orders or dictating tax levels—some countries might want to put up VAT, some might want to put up income tax, some might want to put up corporation, petrol, environmental, housing tax or whatever, and that will remain their individual decision—but much greater co-ordination is coming fast down the tracks. We live in such an open trading economy that if we want the European Union to remain open to all of our products, services, people and capital, we will require greater co-ordination.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am listening carefully to Mr MacShane, and if he is out of order, I will call him out of order.
Mr MacShane
I am grateful, Mr Evans.
We have heard a wide range of speeches, including one from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). We had a wonderful seminar on constitutional law from the hon. Member for Stone, and we are discussing something of profound importance: whether or not our country and this Parliament want to stay in the European Union on the common terms dictated by the treaty.
Andrew Bridgen
Is the right hon. Gentleman’s rather rambling speech just a ploy to use up time so that his colleagues can get back from Oldham?
Mr MacShane
I would politely suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he wait until the early hours of Friday morning before he begins to smirk about Oldham.
The First Deputy Chairman
Order. We are definitely not on clause 18 at the moment.
Mr MacShane
I am a courteous, friendly fellow, Mr Evans, so I accept interventions even if they are points of order on the dark side of the moon.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s courtesy in giving way. He is right that putting something into a Bill and stating that we reaffirm sovereignty may not in itself affect or change the law, but it sends a signal to the very people who effect our law, for example the UKRep or the Council of Ministers, and all those people who just go with the flow in Europe, instead of standing up for the needs of Britain, which are effectively written off. Saying it therefore sends a positive and powerful signal.
Mr MacShane
With respect, the hon. Gentleman is not being fair to our officials, who undertake the arduous task of negotiating the treaties or agreements that affect Britain. If he travelled widely on the continent as I do—and I am sure that he does, too—he would find that in capital after capital, people think that the EU is, if not a British plot, an Anglo-Saxon hymn to free trade. Again and again, in Berlin, Madrid and Paris, I have had to defend the EU and the European Court of Justice, because the vast majority of rulings in the ECJ uphold open and free trade, and slap down the protectionist instincts of many EU member states.
Ian Paisley
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for almost inviting me back. Having worked in Brussels and in France for two years on issues to do with European law and how it affects our kingdom, I found that people went with the flow unless backbone was put into the UKRep’s office or into the Council of Ministers. We see it directly in fisheries policy, as fishermen in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland are prohibited from doing the job that they want to do—fishing our seas—week in, week out, because of bizarre regulations that flow from Europe.
Mr MacShane
As the hon. Gentleman spent time in France, he may have read in the French papers reports of blockade after blockade of French ports by French fishermen, outraged that the British interpretation in Brussels of the common fisheries policies prevented them from doing what they wanted to do. This is a collective decision that we have taken, and I suggest that Government Members are honest: if they do not like the European Union, they will not alter it one little bit by putting new forms of words into clause 18.
Our representatives in Brussels and in all the Ministries that negotiate every aspect of our relationship with the EU will not be impressed by the proposals. If hon. Members do not like it, they should pull out—that is the honest position to take. There is no magic form of words that can get us out of our obligations under this or any other treaty. If they do not want to be in any of the treaty-based organisations, all of which are part of international law and which can, if necessary be prayed in aid by our judges, they should say so. There is a completely separate problem concerning the erosion of parliamentary sovereignty in relation to our courts. We are writing into our unwritten constitution judicial power that exists in other countries. The Germans have a constitutional court, and its rulings guide and control part of Germany’s relationship with the EU. We do not have such a court, but perhaps we should have. We all know full well the strength and power of the Supreme Court in the American constitution. We have never allowed that; we have wanted everything to happen here in Parliament and have not moved to a form of written constitution. We could put into one an obligation to have referendums on new treaties, as the Irish constitutional court has and the Danish constitution does. All those things are possible.
The Government could simply have said, “There will be a referendum on each new EU treaty—period.” That would have been very powerful and given the sovereign people the right to decide what should or should not happen. It would have severely limited the chances of this or any future Government negotiating changes to a treaty that we judged to be in our interests.
It is no accident that any reference to a referendum on enlargement is excluded from the Bill, because the Government want Turkey to join the EU—and so do I. However, nobody in the House can possibly imagine that the question of whether 85 million Muslim ladies and gentlemen from Anatolia should have free access into this country would not receive a resounding “no” from the British people in a referendum.
So we go back to the clause, again and again. Nothing in the amendment strengthens the Government’s hand or puts backbone into the UKRep spine—straight and sturdy though I am sure it is.
Kelvin Hopkins
Time and again my right hon. Friend poses the alternative: accept what we have, or get out of the European Union. Yet now we are talking about reform and change—perhaps even withdrawing from the common fisheries policy. I shall leave that there.
I want to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), who talked about officials. I suggest that the politicians, particularly the people at the Commission, pushed Britain to the brink. Recently, we came close to having a referendum that would certainly have produced a no vote. This signal that we are giving to the European Union will emphasise the point that Britain was pushed to the brink of a serious referendum, with a no vote being the certain outcome. This signal will make sure that they do not push us again.
Mr MacShane
There is this version of Britain contra mundum—the 26 member states all ganging up against us. We have allies and friends, and we win arguments. The European Union is seen around the world as a model for open trade. Lorries leave Portugal and arrive in Poland. A lorry cannot leave Mexico with its Corona beer and unload it in San Diego; it has to unload it on to protectionist lorries controlled by trade unions in the United States.
I put it gently to hon. Members that they should be careful before getting what they wish—the disaggregation of the European Union, with every country rejecting European Court of Justice decisions that they do not like. France believed that it was sovereign when it refused to accept a pound, or a kilo, of British beef, at the time when the whole world thought that the beef was contaminated. We could not export it to Australia, and Canada would not accept it. The Commonwealth would not have it. Hong Kong, our Crown colony, would not have it. But the European Union had to accept British beef because the European Court of Justice accepted our scientific arguments that the beef was fit for sale in the common European market.
Mr MacShane
Most of my speech has consisted of accepting interventions from right hon. and hon. Friends and colleagues. With your permission, Mr Evans, I shall now sit down. [Hon. Members: “Hurrah!”] I do not propose to put that to a referendum; it is my sovereign decision whether to stand or sit, but the amendments would not make one iota of difference to Britain’s relationship with the EU. The Bill itself will also make very little difference, although that, as has been pointed out, may be a point for a later day. I sincerely put it to hon. Members who do not like the EU to have the courage of their convictions and start persuading their party to be as Eurosceptic in government as it was in opposition. But a party of U-turns will probably find that difficult to achieve.
Diplomacy (Internet)
Denis MacShane Excerpts(14 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the language of both Senator Lieberman and my friend Vice-President Joe Biden, who described Assange as a terrorist. None the less, the names were given of three senior Thai officials animadverting on the sexual and other behaviours of the Crown Prince. If a courtier in Buckingham Palace did that, presumably not an awful lot would happen to him, but I am not so sure about Thailand, so I do not think the hon. Gentleman is right to say that all the revelations are harmless. In the Kremlin, Putin’s people have said that they now know the names of some of these people and they will be taking action. I would be quaking in my boots thanks to The Guardian and Assange because of some of the names put on the web.
Joseph Johnson
It is regrettable if people have been put in a position that makes them vulnerable to reprisals. I was not aware of the instance to which the right hon. Gentleman refers or of the fact that Putin had said that he was in a position to take action. I suspect that part of that may be bluff. Perhaps he wishes that he knew who was responsible.
Foreign policy in this country and in many democracies that are otherwise healthy is fundamentally and woefully underscrutinised. In Britain, for example, a Prime Minister can sign international treaties and take a country to war without a vote in Parliament. Foreign Office questions in Parliament come round only once every five sitting weeks. The culture of bipartisanship and the parochial nature of domestic politics stifle scrutiny of foreign policy making, but WikiLeaks is starting to change some of that. We can see that millions of people around the world, many of them in countries that have been denied a free media, have glimpsed truths about their rulers and Governments that had previously been hidden from them or that they had merely suspected. The Guardian is right to claim that the cables have revealed
“wrongdoing, war crimes, corruption, hypocrisy, greed, espionage, double-dealing and the cynical exercise of power on a wondrous scale.”
The fact that there has been public interest in an airing of these documents—or a large majority of them—is beyond question. We have learned from the revelations, among thousands of other things, that Saudi Arabia and other Arab Governments sided with Israel in urging the US to stop Iran developing a nuclear bomb; that US officials have been instructed to spy on the UN leadership, demanding e-mail addresses, phone, fax and pager numbers, credit card details and frequent flyer numbers; that there could be a shift in relations between China and North Korea, with suggestions that Beijing might not intervene if the reclusive regime in Pyongyang collapsed; that there are concerns over Pakistan’s growing instability, the security of its nuclear weapons and suspicions that the Inter-Services Intelligence is backing the Taliban in the war in Afghanistan; that there are suspicions of corruption in the Afghan Government, with one cable alleging that Vice-President Zia Massoud was carrying $52 million in cash when he was stopped during a visit to the UAE; that Russia and its intelligence agencies are using mafia bosses to carry out criminal operations, with one cable describing the country as a “virtual mafia state”; that there is a close relationship between Vladimir Putin, the Russian Prime Minister, and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, which is causing intense US suspicion; and that US commanders, the Afghan President and local officials in Helmand have privately been critical of the UK’s military operations in Afghanistan.
Those are just a few of the highlights that have been picked up and re-published by thousands of newspapers and all other forms of media organisations all over the world. There will be more to come, but what is clear is that there is massive global interest in this extraordinary deluge of information. That is not because Assange and the “information-must-be-free” brigade at WikiLeaks have given these documents a global circulation, but because thousands of editors at hundreds of media organisations in dozens of countries throughout the world have all judged that there is a compelling public interest justifying publication.
It is possible to start drawing some lessons from the WikiLeaks saga. Just as the Supreme Court ruled in the Pentagon papers case more than three decades ago, it is, first and foremost, for Governments to protect their own secrets. It is not the job of the media to do so, unless there is a compelling national security reason to hold back from publication. The WikiLeaks affair has reignited the debate about where the line should be drawn between the right to a free press and freedom of speech, and the interests of national security. It has intensified what is an eternal and essentially unresolvable conflict. On the one hand, we defend and demand freedom of expression and the ideal of a free press but, on the other hand, we accept the limits to those freedoms in the interests of national security.
Those at the freedom-of-expression end of the debate have hailed Assange as a hero for revealing double-dealing and hypocrisy around the world. He is called the new Jason Bourne by Jemima Khan, the Ned Kelly of the cyber age by members of the press in Australia, and a libertine 007 by those who note his fondness for martinis. They point out that people living in countries with repressive Governments who lack a free media have a great hunger to read what their rulers have been saying and that we deny them that right at our peril.
To such people, it must appear hypocritical for the US to argue that the internet can be a force for transparent and democratic Government, and for accountability and democracy around the world, and then to condemn as “nihilists” those who use internet technology to allow greater scrutiny of US foreign policy making. I have considerable sympathy for that line of argument—what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
I have not been persuaded by those on the national security side of the argument who have accused the WikiLeaks founder of being an information or info-tech “terrorist”, to use the word cited by Vice-President Biden, which was mentioned earlier by the right hon. Member for Rotherham, and of putting the lives of civilians and troops in danger. Thus far, as I said earlier, I think that the redaction of names and other sensitive information by The Guardian and the four other media organisations entrusted with the cables has been extremely diligent and painstaking. Of course, any broader distribution of the cables beyond this core group of responsible media organisations might considerably increase the risks to individuals named, especially if standards of care drop. For the moment, however, I am yet to be convinced that the release of the cables will increase the vulnerability of the US to attack, as has been rather melodramatically suggested.
I also take with a pinch of salt the way in which US diplomats have been touring TV studios invoking the sanctity of diplomatic communications, as per the Vienna convention on consular relations. That international treaty was signed in 1963 by 172 countries. Among other things, it guarantees the inviolability of the diplomatic bag and other communications from embassies back to their home countries. I am sceptical, first, because it is states that are signatories to that convention, rather than media organisations, and, secondly, because of the revelation in the leaked cables that the US seems to use staff in some of its embassies as part of a global espionage network tasked with obtaining not only information from the people whom those staff meet, but a wealth of personal details, including even DNA material.
A second lesson is that it would be dismaying if there were now to be an attempt in the US to prosecute Julian Assange for his role in publishing the documents. I say that because I think that such an attempt would conflate the role of the media with that of espionage, which in turn would have a chilling effect on investigative journalism, the purpose of which is to unearth “what they don’t want you to know”. It would be one thing if Julian Assange had encouraged, helped or conspired with Bradley Manning to leak the material, but Assange claims—and there is no reason at this point to disbelieve him—never to have even heard the informant’s name until he read it in an article in Wired magazine that mentioned Manning’s arrest. I am no lawyer, but unless it can be established that there is a bona fide ground for Assange to be charged under the US Espionage Act, he surely deserves to be regarded as a publisher and a journalist, which in a US court of law would entitle him to protection under the first amendment to the US constitution. From the limited information that is publicly available, I see little substantive difference between Assange’s role and that of The Guardian, The New York Times and others in running the story contained in the cables that he passed on to them. Neither he nor they were the original leakers.
Thirdly, the WikiLeaks affair shows us that technology is making it much more difficult to keep information confidential. It has exposed the extent to which internet technology makes possible security breaches on a scale that was unimaginable in an era of paper-based communication. As Sir Christopher Meyer, the British ambassador to the US in the Blair years, has pointed out, paper would have been impossible to steal in such quantities. The cables themselves came from a huge secret internet protocol router network—a database that was kept separate from the ordinary civilian internet and run by the Department of Defence in Washington. Since the attacks of September 2001, there has been a move in the US to link up archives of Government information in the hope that key intelligence no longer gets trapped in information silos or “stovepipes”. This database can be accessed not only by anyone in the State Department, but by anyone in the US military who has security clearance up to the secret level, a password and a computer connected to the database, which astonishingly covers more than 3 million people, including Private Bradley Manning.
The US Government have now announced a thorough review of the principles on which they share the information that they collect—I am sure that the Saudi King, for example, will be relieved to hear that. Safeguarding sources is critical to any information-gathering exercise and after such a breach, rebuilding the trust of many thousands of sources will be a painstaking exercise. The US’s experience is therefore a salutary lesson for all other diplomatic services around the world. I will be interested to know whether the Foreign Office proposes a similar review.
We are at a watershed in relations between the Government and the new internet media. The UK Government have a clear choice as to whether to promote a transparency agenda or to seek the false comfort of the old culture of secrecy and repression. I would prefer Britain to choose to become a more open and less secretive society, rather than to leave it to the likes of Julian Assange to force openness upon us. Rather than tightening further our draconian Official Secrets Act and threatening to prosecute journalists and whistleblowers, Governments should focus on making more information available and protecting only that which can cause substantive harm.
It is worth noting that none of the released documents was classified as top secret and much of the information in the 6% of documents classified as secret was already publicly known. Furthermore, these documents were likely to be released anyway in the course of freedom of information requests.
Of course, media organisations must exercise caution when revealing possibly sensitive information that could endanger lives, and this country should respect defence advisory notices when they are reasonably issued. However, new technologies have the potential to transform diplomacy and foreign policy making for the better in the long run. Studies of the effects of right-to-information legislation in numerous countries have found that there has been little impact on the amount of information recorded and that opinions have not been blunted following an increase in transparency. There is no chilling effect. In fact, according to Article 19, an independent human rights organisation that works globally to protect and promote the right to freedom of expression, the quality of some documents has improved, because the people writing them know that they will become public one day. They therefore focus on the provision of real political analysis rather than tittle-tattle and colour.
Officials have a duty to pass on important information, and that is not lifted because of fears that it one day may become public. By forcing greater transparency in foreign policy making, I believe that WikiLeaks will ultimately have a beneficial effect on the conduct of diplomacy. Let us continue to embrace the new technologies, not smother them at birth.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
I have consulted the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) on this debate, both in the House and by e-mail. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, a distinguished former correspondent of the Financial Times, on raising this issue. One of the most thoughtful Foreign Office Ministers is here with us. His colleague, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), mentioned in the main Chamber the concept of a private realm of information, which was new “dip speak” to me. I do not know whether the Minister will expand a bit on that.
I agree in part with the argument made by the hon. Member for Orpington: the victimisation and the turning of Mr Assange into some kind of hero are wrong. He is quite a squalid customer who is lapping up all the publicity that he is getting at the moment. The quicker we can forget about him, the better.
I do not agree that private communications should be made readily available, for the simple reason that the British diplomatic service is understaffed and one of the smallest, although of the highest quality, in the world. It works on complete frankness in paper communication. If that becomes impossible because people think that their real-time thoughts—which may be relevant on the day but perhaps not so accurate with the hindsight of longer reflection—cannot be transmitted because they can end up on the front page of a paper, the decision-making process here in our nation’s capital will suffer.
Most of the material that I saw as a Minister could have been put straight on to the web. In that sense, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but equally, he comes from a paper that takes foreign affairs seriously. It is extraordinary that we now learn that the International Committee of the Red Cross provided concrete evidence—
Miss Anne McIntosh (in the Chair)
Order. May I invite the Minister to make the winding-up speech?
Oral Answers to Questions
Denis MacShane Excerpts(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Browne
We believe in freedom of information and open and transparent government, but there is a private realm and a legitimate area for confidentiality in diplomatic relations between nations. We need to get that balance right to ensure that we are secure when trying to safeguard confidential information. That is what we are working to do.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
We have learned that the US Secretary of Defence, Mr Gates, believed that
“Russian democracy has disappeared and the government was an oligarchy run by the security services”.
Who could possibly disagree? Instead of the wet willies whimpering over WikiLeaks from the Front Bench and wanting to lock up Mr Assange, would it not be better to congratulate American diplomats on being such excellent reporters and ask why our media are so lazy at foreign reporting? The only time we get foreign news on the front pages is when WikiLeaks gives the media a story.
Mr Browne
I do not wish to comment on the individual case that the right hon. Gentleman has brought to the House’s attention. We all understand that there are areas of the private realm—health and tax records, for instance —where it is perfectly possible to release information, but where we would not wish to see it released. We regard that as appropriate for diplomatic relations as well.