Commission Work Programme 2014

Debate between James Clappison and David Lidington

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

No. I do not think that any member state would be able to say that it unreservedly welcomes and endorses, absolutely everything in the Commission’s work programme. Of the measures described in the work programme, there are some that we positively welcome, others where we think the proposal seems okay at first sight but we very much want to examine the detail of the promised measure before we come to a final conclusion, and others where we are quite open in saying that we think the Commission’s suggestion is mistaken. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), we have already expressed considerable concerns about the data protection package, and we will continue to negotiate to try to ensure that it does not over-burden business while providing adequate protection for personal data.

Nor can we welcome the draft regulation to establish a European public prosecutor’s office. We believe that the Commission’s evidence for this proposal is weak, and we will continue to challenge it on its unacceptable, rather summary response to the yellow card that national Parliaments raised about it.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I give way to my hon. Friend, who follows this issue very closely.

[Mr Clappison]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Will he convey to the Commission how deeply disappointing it is for Parliaments to gather the requisite number of signatures for petitions from individual Chambers and for the Commission then peremptorily to say that it will go ahead all the same? That is very dispiriting for Parliaments.

[Mr Lidington]

I completely agree. It would be easier to accept the Commission’s unwelcome decision if, at the very least, it had produced a detailed explanation of its reasons and showed proper respect for the 19 different reasoned opinions. I continue to agree with my hon. Friend that the proposal is wrong, but I made it very clear at the last meeting of the General Affairs Council that I regarded the Commission’s behaviour on the measure as unacceptable, and I was pleased that Ministers from some other member states then spoke out and endorsed my criticisms of its approach.

The House will be aware that tomorrow marks a year since the Prime Minister’s speech setting out a vision for European Union reform. Today, there is growing support across Europe for reform and for accepting that it needs to become more competitive and democratic, so that it is a Europe in which, to quote the Dutch Government, our enterprise is based on being

“European where necessary, national where possible.”

As I said last week at the very stimulating conference organised by Open Europe and the Fresh Start group, we will get behind the proposal made by the Dutch Foreign Minister, Frans Timmermans, for a governance manifesto for the new Commission—agreed by the 28 accountable national Heads of State and Government—that lays out what Europe should focus on and, crucially, what should be left to member states. On the new items in the work programme, the House can be assured that we will be vigilant in relation to the subsidiarity principle and do our utmost to ensure that action is taken at EU level only when that is the correct level to take proposals forward.

We already work with partners across Europe to deliver concrete changes that benefit this country and every EU member state, including the first ever cut in the EU’s seven-year budget, which protects the British rebate; agreement on a single European patent after 23 years of negotiation, which safeguards the intellectual property of innovative British businesses; keeping the UK out of any eurozone bail-out facility, which safeguards British interests; and abolishing the obscene policy of discarding caught fish, which is a key element of wholesale reform of the common fisheries policy. It can therefore be done: reform is possible and it is happening. However, the Government recognise that there is much more still to do to make Europe more flexible, competitive and democratically accountable. Ministers will use every opportunity to push forward that agenda.

European Council

Debate between James Clappison and David Lidington

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

There is a lot in the European Council conclusions. I do not think it would serve a huge purpose if a written statement simply rehearsed every single item when there is a link in the statement on the Council conclusions to the full text itself. I am also somewhat constrained—quite properly—by the time permitted to respond to the urgent question asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart).

The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), however, is right: this was a very important breakthrough. There was a commitment by all 28 Heads of State and Government for European countries to do more to help people in Syria who have been displaced and are in need and those who have taken refuge in neighbouring countries who face huge problems. What is also needed—we have supported the efforts of other EU countries on this—is some declaration, if we cannot get a resolution, at the United Nations Security Council to provide safe passage for humanitarian organisations to reach people in Syria who are in desperate need and find it impossible to get access to the aid available.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has undoubtedly won some crucial victories in our national interest, in the face of the unremitting efforts of the Brussels institutions to fulfil ambitions that are set out in the treaties for all to see, including that of having a European army. Sadly, there are some new commitments in the conclusions, including one in paragraph 9 for

“an EU Maritime Security Strategy by June 2014, on the basis of a joint Communication from the Commission and the High Representative, taking into account the opinions of Member States”.

Is that not precisely a case of the Brussels institutions being in the driving seat and an open invitation for them to indulge in more competence creep?

[Mr Lidington]

The maritime security strategy is about trying to make the different efforts of the 28 European Governments over matters such as piracy and port security more cohesive and co-ordinated than they are at present. It does not involve any kind of direction. It is trying to establish a framework for effective partnership and working together so that we have fewer weak links in security—whether it be maritime or terrestrial—anywhere across the continent of Europe. Any weakness in security arrangements elsewhere in Europe can end up providing a point of entry for people who want to threaten our interests directly, so this sort of effective working together is very much in the interests of this country.

European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [Lords]

Debate between James Clappison and David Lidington

Monday 10th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I simply refer the hon. Gentleman to what I said in response to his earlier intervention. The amendment to article 136 will provide our friends and partners who are members of the eurozone with the additional certainty that they have sought ever since the proposal for a treaty change was first made in the autumn of 2010. He is searching for plots and mysteries where none exists. Over the past two and a half years, in every conversation that I have had with my opposite numbers from the eurozone member states, they have been anxious to find out what position the British Government were taking on the treaty amendment and keen that we should be committed to ratifying it, having agreed to it last year.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I, too, am pleased to see my right hon. Friend still in his post. There are undoubtedly Euro-plots, but this is not one of them. As a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, I understood the former Financial Secretary to be talking about the European Union’s view of the legal position, not the British Government’s view. It was the EU’s view that the change was required. It was not the British Government’s responsibility. I think the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) is a little confused about that.

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification.

Clause 1(3) fulfils the requirements of the European Union Act 2011 relating to the referendum lock. It demonstrates compliance with the condition in that Act that exempts the approval of certain European Council decisions from the requirement to hold a referendum. Section 3(1) provides that a Minister may not confirm the approval of a decision made under article 48(6) of the treaty on European Union unless three requirements have been met: first, that a statement has been laid under section 5 of the Act; secondly, that the decision has been approved by Act of Parliament; and thirdly, that the referendum condition, the exemption condition or the significance condition has been met.

The 2011 Act provides that a decision under article 48(6) is not subject to a referendum if its provisions apply only to member states other than the United Kingdom, and that is the case here. The decision amending article 136 applies only to member states whose currency is the euro, and therefore not to the United Kingdom. It therefore falls within the exemption provided for in section 4(4)(b) of the Act. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary laid a statement before Parliament under section 5 on 13 October 2011 stating that in his opinion the decision amending article 136 fell within the exemption in section 4(4)(b) and therefore did not attract a referendum. To comply fully with the exemption condition, the Bill includes the provision in clause 1(3) stating that the decision does not fall within section 4 of the 2011 Act. I commend the clause to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clappison]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his careful answers to my questions. I am grateful to him for giving the figures confirming that the majority of the contingent liabilities that could have been allocated under the EFSM have indeed been allocated, and that we already have a significant liability. However, I do not think he has quite answered one of my questions—he may be coming to it. If the ESM is not ratified, or until it is ratified, could we be liable for new liabilities entered into under the EFSM out of the remaining unallocated portion? If so, would that come about as a result of qualified majority voting or would it require unanimity?

[Mr Lidington]

The legal position is that yes, that is possible, and it would be by qualified majority voting. That flows from the decision taken on the final day of the last Government’s time in office. It may be some reassurance to my hon. Friend, though, if I say that the EFSM has tended not to feature in the discussions over the past year. The discussion has been very much about the EFSF, which can draw on a much larger sum and can therefore command much more credibility with the markets.

I say to those of my hon. Friends, and Opposition Members, who have been extremely critical of the European Union, that I have found that there is an understanding in other member states, whether among Heads of Government, Finance Ministers or Europe Ministers, that the EFSM is a sensitive and delicate subject for the United Kingdom and particularly for the House. I do not get the impression that our European Union colleagues want to push us into a corner for the sake of it. What they hope for, and reasonably so, is our co-operation, not in sacrificing our vital interests but in helping them solve the existential financial and economic crisis that the single currency area faces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clappison]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The point I was making is that in many respects we cannot, because they are above and beyond the control of our electorate. That has always been the problem with the European Union. Some in Europe sought to impose their project without bothering to take account of the views of the electorate. That problem lies at the heart of the matters we are discussing today and is one of the reasons we are afflicted by the eurozone. It is time people began to listen and reflect on what electorates have to say and on the lamentable economic consequences of the euro. However, as I indicated I would, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Lidington]

Clause 2 simply declares that the Bill extends to the whole of the United Kingdom and will come into force on the day on which it is passed, and gives its title.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Impact of the European Stability Mechanism on the UK

‘The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall make a report to Parliament within one year of the Act coming into force and annually thereafter setting out an assessment of the impact of the European Stability Mechanism on the risks to the interests and obligations of the United Kingdom from eurozone instability.’.—(Emma Reynolds.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Court of Justice of the European Union

Debate between James Clappison and David Lidington

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I know, not least from my own 90-minute evidence session in front of my hon. Friend’s Committee, how strongly he and other members of the Committee feel about that subject. However, it would be moving beyond the terms of this afternoon’s debate if I responded in detail about the Government’s approach to fiscal union and their decision to reserve their position on the use of the institutions for the implementation of the fiscal compact. Ministers have corresponded about that with the Committee and I am sure that there will be other opportunities for us to go into that matter.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Does that not go to the root of the matter? We are told that the regulation is justified by the growth in the work load of the European Court of Justice. Assuming that there has been no change in the litigiousness of members of the European Union, and taking into account EU expansion as well, should we not be given pause for thought that it is the increasing jurisdiction of the ECJ over member countries that lies behind the issue? It is highly material that we should look at the prospective growth of that jurisdiction through the expansion to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) referred.

[Mr Lidington]

It is true that every time the competence of the European institutions is enlarged through treaty amendments, the potential case load of the European Court of Justice is also enlarged. However, as I shall come to demonstrate, the reason for these particular reforms is largely to do with an increase in the case load as a result of litigation by private parties, particularly on single market matters. The case load that the reforms are intended to address certainly does not arise out of the negotiation of the fiscal compact by 25 member states last year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clappison]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I will give way once more and then I will move on to the details of the reforms.

[Mr Clappison]

My right hon. Friend has been generous in giving way. He made the same point—that the Court was of benefit to British businesses because of the enforcement of the single market—in the memorandum supplied to the European Scrutiny Committee. However, in my researches I have not been able to find any such case involving a British company, although there may be such cases.

Will my right hon. Friend write to me giving chapter and verse of cases involving British companies that have involved the European Court of Justice and the single market? There is the suspicion that the European Court of Justice, as with many other things to do with the European Union, is using the single market as a justification for its intrusion into decision making in areas that have nothing to do with the single market.

[Mr Lidington]

I will happily write to my hon. Friend, but I point out to him that just because a case does not involve a British company as one of the parties does not mean that the case is insignificant to British business interests. There might well be a case involving parties from other member states the outcome of which made a considerable difference to the opportunities available to United Kingdom companies.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Clappison and David Lidington

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has rightly set his face against the EU’s proposal for an unjustified 6% increase in its budget. Will the Minister take this opportunity to express his opposition to the External Action Service’s claim for a 5.7% increase in its budget and qualify the motion that appears on the Order Paper today?

[Mr Lidington]

When that motion was debated and agreed without a Division at yesterday’s European Committee, I made it very clear that we were opposed to an increase in the External Action Service’s budget, and that we expected the EAS to live up to the terms of the decision establishing it, which said that it had a responsibility to secure value for money and to return to budget neutrality.

Council of Europe (UK Chairmanship)

Debate between James Clappison and David Lidington

Thursday 27th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

With the leave of the House, Mr Speaker.

First, let me thank every Member who has taken part in what has been a thoughtful and wide-ranging discussion of issues within the remit of the Council of Europe.

The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), in which he dwelt on how the Council of Europe addresses questions of sport and seeks to root out corruption in sport, served to remind us of the breadth of the remit of the Council and its various committees.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who referred to Russia and other countries whose human rights records have been subject to a great deal of criticism, reminded us that, although we who live in countries with long and well-established national traditions of human rights sometimes find it irksome when judgments are made against us, the principles that are incorporated in the convention, and subject to judgments by an independent court, still matter hugely to citizens of countries that do not have established, centuries-old traditions such as those that we are fortunate enough to enjoy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) rightly drew attention to the way in which the Council of Europe is already contributing to the development of democratic traditions and the growth of the rule of law in the fledgling democracies of north Africa. We strongly support that work, and hope that it will continue. When he pointed out that in this country, until fairly recently, human rights were regarded universally as something that should be welcomed and supported, I was reminded of the fact that the European convention on human rights was, and is, based on noble ideas. At the end of last month, I met in Warsaw members of the opposition parties from Belarus, one of the few countries in Europe that are not party to the convention. That brought home to me the importance of our not taking for granted the liberties and rights that we and our citizens enjoy. My hon. Friend’s comments about extraordinary rendition were a salutary reminder that, however strong our traditions of human rights in much of Europe, we cannot afford to be complacent about them.

As has emerged during the debate, there is a range of views about how human rights are best protected, and about the respective roles of national authorities and the European Court of Human Rights. That is, of course, one of the issues that we intend to address during our chairmanship. The principle that we will advance is that national authorities of member states—their Governments, legislatures and courts—have the primary responsibility to guarantee and protect human rights at a national level. The role of the European Court of Human Rights is subsidiary in achieving those objectives.

During our chairmanship, we will work with all the member states of the Council of Europe to see how that agreed guiding principle, which was built into the Izmir declaration earlier this year, should work and can be strengthened. However, it is important to note that the corollary of the principle is proper implementation of the convention by national authorities. Of course the United Kingdom should still be subject to judgments of the Strasbourg court, but the court should not normally need to intervene in cases that have already been properly considered by national courts applying the convention.

I am under no illusion about the fact that agreeing on the necessary reforms will not be easy. Consensus among all 47 member states is required. I am, however, struck by the degree of consensus that already exists. Virtually everyone agrees that the current situation is unsustainable and undermines the court’s authority and effectiveness. However, we have already made progress. In April this year, all 47 countries called for the court to exercise restraint when interfering in national decisions on the deportation of asylum seekers and others who have exhausted fair and effective domestic court procedures. Since then, we have talked to many member states and to key individuals in the Council of Europe. We know that there is an appetite for further reforms. We will work energetically to gain agreement on a reform package, and will give it the highest priority during our chairmanship. I shall respond to as many points raised as possible. I apologise to any colleagues whose contributions I do not have time to address, and I undertake to write to them.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) asked several questions. On the budget of the EU Fundamental Rights Agency, the UK has long-stressed the importance of the EU not duplicating the work of the COE, which we believe is, and should remain, the prime European focus for work on human rights. While the FRA of the European Union does some interesting research, the COE does far more valuable work, and does so with fewer resources.

My hon. Friend also questioned the figures I gave on the backlog of cases. I have had the latest figures checked and there are approximately 155,000 cases in the backlog. That figure has dropped slightly in recent times, from about 160,000.

My hon. Friend focused on the accession of the EU to the COE, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere also mentioned that. This is a complex matter, and negotiations are still ongoing. I undertake to write to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, giving further details on this, but for now I shall briefly explain where we are at present. As the House knows, EU accession to the COE was one element of the treaty of Lisbon, which was ratified by all 27 member states in 2009. There is considerable fear that the interaction of EU accession in its own right to the COE with the duty of sincere co-operation, which applies to all member states of the EU, could lead to the creation of an EU caucus within the structures of the COE. The British Government’s position is that while we accept what is written in the Lisbon treaty—that the EU should accede to the COE—and while we can see the advantages of placing the institutions of the EU clearly within the remit of the European Court of Human Rights, we will only agree to the detailed instrument of accession when we are completely satisfied about the detail not only of the drafting of the instrument of accession itself, but, importantly, of the drafting of the EU’s own set of rules on how its membership of the COE would be made operational and how, in particular, that would interact with the duty of sincere co-operation.

[Mr Clappison]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s approach to this matter. Can he confirm that in his discussions at the European level, we will have a right of veto? In other words, will this be subject to unanimity, so we can insist on the very important points he has just made?

European Union Bill

Debate between James Clappison and David Lidington

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

Because the provisions for Gibraltar are laid out in clauses 2 and 3, as I have explained.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

Commencement

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 15, page 12, line 12, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

‘(3) The day appointed under subsection (2) shall be within one month of the day on which this Act is passed.’.

Under clause 21, certain provisions will come into force quickly, while others will do so at a later date. Clause 15 will come in straight away, as will part 3, which includes clause 18, the sovereignty clause. The amendment would bring in the whole Bill all at once within one month of its passing through all relevant stages. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister has said elsewhere that it is the Government’s intention for the entire Bill to come into force within two months of Royal Assent. I am giving my right hon. Friend an opportunity to say a few more words about the clause, and I am sure that he will be able to deal with it as comprehensively as he has just dealt with the many points put to him by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). All those points were put to bed and I am sure that he will put this point to bed in the same way.

[Mr Lidington]

The Bill radically changes how the UK approaches the consideration of future key decisions on the European Union. It is therefore right that the provisions of this legislation should be applied as soon as possible after Royal Assent. It is also right that any treaty change currently being considered should be examined through the prism of this legislation. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I have all made it clear that the Government’s firm intention is that the provisions will apply to the eurozone treaty change, which is expected to be agreed at EU level at the spring European Council.

Under the usual arrangements, the provisions of Acts of Parliament enter into force, unless otherwise stated, two months after Royal Assent. This Bill, however, has a slightly different set of provisions when it comes to commencement. Clause 21 makes provision for the Bill’s entry into force; subsection (1) provides for clause 15 and part 3 to come into force on the day of Royal Assent.

Clause 15 allows our country to be able to ratify the transitional protocol on MEPs as soon as possible, and two months earlier than we would otherwise have been able to. Article 2 of the MEP protocol stated that it should be in place, if possible, on 1 December 2010. At the moment, it looks unlikely that we will be the last member state to ratify that transitional protocol, but I would want us to be in a position where, if it turned out that we were bringing up the rear, there would be no delay and we would be able to bring our ratification into effect and allow the provisions of the protocol to take effect immediately after Royal Assent. We thus consider early commencement of that part of the Bill to be appropriate in order to reduce the delay and ensure that early commencement of the provision would not have any undue or adverse effects.

Clause 21(2) enables the Bill’s other provisions to be brought into force by one or more commencement orders made by the Secretary of State, and subsection 3 allows different days to be appointed for different purposes. The subsections were intended to give the Government the flexibility to bring the remaining provisions into force earlier—I emphasise the word “earlier”—than might otherwise have been the case, but we did not fix back in November, when we introduced the Bill, the date on which the provisions would enter into force. We allowed for flexibility so that individual parts could be brought into force at times that would maximise the Bill’s effectiveness.

Amendment 15 aims to ensure that all parts of the Bill are in force within one month of Royal Assent. I entirely understand the wish of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) to ensure that the Bill is in force as soon as possible, and I share his enthusiasm, but I hope I can persuade him that his amendment is not necessary. As we have already made clear, the Government have a firm commitment to use the Bill’s provisions for any future treaty change, not least the forthcoming eurozone treaty change. Because of the timing of that change, Parliament will have two bites at the cherry. Under the 2008 Act introduced by our predecessors, it will have a vote before the March European Council; it will then have to consider a Bill under the provisions in this Bill. We introduced Government amendment 56 precisely to ensure that this Bill could apply to the eurozone treaty change.

[Mr Clappison]

My hon. Friend is giving a very helpful explanation, but can he tell me which parts of the Bill will cover the proposed eurozone treaty change, whether or not the Bill is in force? As he has said, it does not matter whether it is in force or not, because the Government will abide by its terms regardless of whether it has been commenced.

[Mr Lidington]

All relevant parts of the Bill would apply to the treaty change. The Minister responsible would have to make a formal statement setting out whether the change transferred competences or powers—as defined in the legislation—to the European Union and therefore triggered a referendum, or whether it fell into one of the exempt categories.

As my hon. Friend knows, the Government believe that the treaty amendment that is now being considered applies only to the eurozone. It does not transfer any competences or powers from the United Kingdom to Brussels, and therefore, although primary legislation would be required for its ratification, a referendum would not be required. However, under this Bill we will require the Minister to set out his argument in the detail that we would expect to be demanded in relation to any other treaty change proposal.

There would then need to be primary legislation for the United Kingdom to ratify the treaty change. Although it does not affect the United Kingdom directly, it must be ratified by all 27 member states in order to take effect. It is therefore important for Parliament to have the right to examine the implications of the change in detail. We consider that primary legislation represents a better, more democratic approach than the simple debate on a resolution which is all that is provided for the ratification of such a change under the 2008 Act.

Clause 21 allows for flexibility to introduce provisions in the Bill at different times if required. I can assure my hon. Friend, on behalf of the Government, that we will lay an order to ensure the commencement of all the provisions that are not already in force by then one month after Royal Assent. We want to ensure that Parliament and the public are able to exercise the new rights that the Bill gives over EU decision-making as soon as possible. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend the assurances that he seeks, and that I can therefore persuade him to withdraw his amendment.

European Union Bill

Debate between James Clappison and David Lidington

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

Amendments 24 and 25 would require that before the EU can accede to the European convention on human rights, Parliament would need to approve the EU’s accession by Act of Parliament. At present, the EU and its institutions cannot be held to account for the fulfilment of its existing international legal obligations by the ECHR in the same way as the EU member states all can. Accession by the EU to the convention would close this gap.

EU accession to the ECHR is, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) acknowledged, already expressly provided for in the EU treaties, as amended by the treaty of Lisbon. Article 6(2) of the treaty on the EU provides that

“the Union shall accede to the ECHR”.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I am sure that in his usual persuasive way my right hon. Friend will give us a very good account of the legal case for the EU acceding to the ECHR. I hope that as he does so he will dispel the suspicion that is forming in many people’s minds that the real reason, never mind the complicated legal rationale that he has given, is to put the EU on the same footing as the other signatories to the convention, which are all member states, and to give the EU the character of a member state. It is only member states that have acceded to the ECHR, and all the members of the EU have done so. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will give us a very thorough explanation, which will also serve to dispel that suspicion that is forming in many people’s minds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

Certainly I agree that it is important to keep in our minds the distinction between the member states and the EU as an entity. It is therefore important that the treaties set out plainly that accession to the convention would not affect the EU’s competences in any way, and that any extension or enlargement of EU competence would therefore have to be obtained by the normal process of treaty amendment, which is subject to the various checks that we are laying out in this legislation. Under protocol 8 to the treaties, it is also made clear that the Union’s accession to the ECHR will in no way affect the situation of the individual member states as parties to that convention. So the accession by the EU to the convention cannot give further powers or competences to the EU; nor will it affect member states’ own standing with respect to the ECHR.

In dealing with Council of Europe matters, the Government are always on the alert to avoid creating either the impression or the reality that EU member states, which are all individually parties to the ECHR, are acting as a bloc. The situation is unusual, because the Council of Europe is an institution in which EU member states have a majority over other state parties. Therefore, it is important that that distinction of principle to which my hon. Friend alluded is maintained.

[Mr Clappison]

May I say—I hope the Minister will appreciate this—that he has been extremely assiduous in attending to Council of Europe matters and exemplary in discharging his ministerial responsibility in respect of them? He made an extremely important point about the Council of Europe, which is that it includes many other nations that are not EU member states. It is a good thing for countries that are members of the Council of Europe to be dealt with individually, including those that also happen to be EU member states, so as not to create in any sense the impression that there is an EU bloc, because that has a bad impact on human rights in Europe, extending more widely than just the EU.

[Mr Lidington]

I agree. Quite apart from any constitutional or legal significance, it would be politically and diplomatically counter-productive to go down the route that my hon. Friend has rightly warned against. Whether the UK as state party should continue to have the relationship with the European convention on human rights that we currently have is a matter of intense in the debate in the House, and Members on both sides of the Committee have their views on that.

The point for the purposes of this afternoon’s considerations is that the accession of the EU to the ECHR would make no practical difference to the UK’s position. The Government see some advantages in EU accession, because the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg could act as a direct check on how EU institutions exercise their powers, in exactly the same way it acts as a check on the actions of all other signatories to the convention. I know that some of my hon. Friends will say that they believe that the European Court of Human Rights should not have that type of authority over this country, but I say to them that it is my belief that the EU and its institutions should be held to the same standards on human rights as we expect of member states.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I cannot recall without advice whether the Committee had just been appointed but had not met, or whether it had not yet been constituted, but the lesson that I draw from that episode—and the Government were far from happy with the fact that we had to take a decision at the end of the three-month period without a formal scrutiny process—is that we have, in the forthcoming discussions, to find a way to address the real difficulty that arises during a Dissolution of Parliament and the period after that before the scrutiny Committees are fully reconstituted. What the new Government found on coming into office was that the EU’s legislative timetable on justice and home affairs had not stopped and there was an accumulation of measures, each with a non-extendable three-month timetable, at the end of which we had to decide whether to make the initial opt-in. A large chunk of that time had already been devoured by the period of Dissolution, and there were no scrutiny Committees in place to do the job that we would want and expect Parliament to do.

[Mr Clappison]

Can I take it from what my right hon. Friend has just said about the European investigation order that although it may be an issue that he would consider as of particular interest and therefore deserving a debate under the scrutiny process, it would not have been caught by clause 9 as it stands? He is therefore conceding that this is an extra stage of scrutiny that has been brought about by the diligent and commendable efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, who has done a service to the House in ensuring additional scrutiny.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is right. I signed off a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) earlier today responding to these points, which he put to me in writing, although I expect that he has not yet received it. We draw a distinction between the justice and home affairs matters on which it is already within the competence of the EU to act, but where the UK has an opt-in, and matters that are without the existing competence of the European Union. We have tried to maintain that distinction in each aspect of the Bill, and that is a point that has informed the Government’s collective view on this legislation.

[Mr Clappison]

My right hon. Friend said “where the UK has an opt-in,” but if I may correct him, I think that he meant where we have the right to opt in. There is a substantial body of such matters and, of course, in each case they would be subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ, should we decide to opt in.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is right to make that correction. He is also right when he refers to the importance of the jurisdiction of the ECJ as a relevant new feature of any justice and home affairs measure that is brought forward subsequent to the Lisbon treaty. That is the thing that makes such a profound difference between third-pillar arrangements and the current treaty arrangements. That is why when Ministers—usually the Justice Secretary or Home Secretary—come to the European Affairs Committee of the Cabinet with a proposed decision on a justice and home affairs measure, they are required, as a standard part of Government policy, to produce an analysis of the likely impact of ECJ jurisdiction on our law if the United Kingdom participated in the measure, and also to assess the risks that this would lead to competence creep. My hon. Friend is right that that is an important consideration that we need to take into account when judging the balance of national interests that determines whether we choose to opt in to, or stay out of, a particular decision.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), along with a number of other hon. Members, asked why we needed to opt in at all, because if we have not gone through the whole scrutiny process, we should just leave it and opt out. The treaty gives us a three-month period within which we have to decide whether we want to make an initial opt-in. We can, if we choose, opt out at that stage, let the negotiations take place on the final version of the measure, and then opt in to the final text, as agreed by the others taking part. The problem with what he suggested is that it is not a reliable method of ensuring that our national interests are properly represented, for a number of reasons.

First, if we wait until the final stage, we have to ask the Commission if we may participate. The Council is then able to specify conditions under which United Kingdom can do so. If we judge that the balance of advantage points towards our opting in, there is a further advantage in getting in first. Secondly, if we participate on the first occasion on which we can opt in, we will then be at the table with a vote, helping to shape the final status of the text. We will not be in anything like as influential a position if we make a decision first to stay out. Thirdly, if we are not taking part, we have no vote on the final text. There are sometimes occasions—perhaps on a counter-terrorism measure—where we might decide that, on balance, it will be in our national interest to opt in, but where we dislike one particular element of the draft text. Perhaps we also know that two or three other key member states have similar reservations. In those circumstances, it is possible that the Government’s decision would be to opt in by the end of the three-month period, with the aim of putting together an alliance with those other member states so as to secure through negotiation a final text that meets our interests and means that we are completely content with the outcome.

[Mr Clappison]

My right hon. Friend is being most courteous in giving way. On the question of where the national interest lies, I understand and accept the reasons why the Government, as a coalition, are having to go through the complicated process that he has described. However, in the Conservative manifesto it was conceived as being in the national interest that we should not opt in to any such matters, because we were clear that there should be no further extension of the EU’s power over the UK and we promised to work to return key powers over legal rights, criminal justice, and social and employment legislation to the UK. However, we cannot have envisaged seeking to return those powers while at the same time handing over completely new powers to the European Union, by choosing to opt in. That was the national interest as we saw it, and it remains the national interest.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend puts his point trenchantly. I am not going to make any secret of the fact that the handling of European policy, and in particular on justice and home affairs, has been one of the most delicate issues for the coalition. There have had to be compromises on both sides to get the package of measures that we are including in the Bill and to shape the general policy that we are pursuing in respect of the European Union.

European Union Bill

Debate between James Clappison and David Lidington

Monday 24th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clappison]

The Minister is making a persuasive argument in a courteous way, but I must take him up on this point about the accession treaty. I believe that eight members joined at the same time and what took place then was in many respects a shambles, which would have been avoided by better scrutiny and if the question of a referendum had been on the table.

[Mr Lidington]

I am going to stick to my figure of 10. It does not make much difference to the principle of the argument, but I believe my figure is accurate. My hon. Friend rightly made a point about problems after some of those accessions, but that makes the case for member states to insist on the rigorous application of the accession criteria before accession takes place, rather than allowing countries in before they are fully ready and equipped and then arguing about it afterwards.

European Union Bill (Programme)(No. 2)

Debate between James Clappison and David Lidington

Monday 24th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who has been here for a long time, knows that a balance needs to be struck between the time that is needed to examine important political and constitutional issues fairly and in the depth that both the House and the general public would expect, and the time that is available for debate, bearing in mind the many other priorities that the House has to consider. I would say gently to my hon. Friend that I believe that he spoke at some length—more than 60 minutes—during the first day’s proceedings in Committee. I hope that so far he has not had reason to complain that his contributions are being crowded out.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are no fewer than 29 amendments, some of which are Government amendments, before we reach the fourth or fifth group, which contain the provision relating to whether there should be a referendum in the case of the accession of a new member state? That provision is extremely important, and without proper scrutiny being given to that, it could hardly be said that the Bill had had proper scrutiny in the terms that my right hon. Friend described? Would he regard it as unsatisfactory if we did not scrutinise that question, which is important for many, many people?

[Mr Lidington]

It would be improper for me to comment on the selection or grouping of amendments, which is properly a matter for the Chair and not the Government. My hon. Friend is right to say that the question of the possible need for a referendum on accession treaties is a matter of importance. I hope we get the opportunity to debate that in the course of today’s proceedings. One of the consequences of the programme motion, which I support, is that the House will get the opportunity of a sixth day of consideration. There will therefore be opportunities for my hon. Friend and other Members in all parts of the House to table further amendments and new clauses when we reach Report.

It would have been open to the Government, having decided to table amendments and hoping—I believe not unreasonably—that those amendments might be accepted by the House, to have said to the House, “Well, we now have to make provision for a Report stage, so what we suggest is that we curtail the Committee stage from five days to four, and that we have Report and Third Reading on the fifth day.” If it would be of some assurance to my hon. Friend, I want to make it clear that we had no thought of doing that.

We decided at the start that it was important to continue with the full five days in Committee that we had promised all parties in the House, so in order to provide for a debate on Report we have allocated an additional, sixth day for debate on Report and Third Reading. If, by some chance, the House decides not to accept any of the amendments tabled by the Government or other Members and to leave the Bill unamended in Committee, that sixth day would be available for a full parliamentary day’s debate on Third Reading.

European External Action Service

Debate between James Clappison and David Lidington

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I can assure my hon. Friend that, based on the various conversations I have had with Baroness Ashton in the past few weeks, she has no wish whatever to interfere with the free flow of London traffic. It is a good sign that the High Representative, who is now assuming her office, is someone who is focused on practical action rather than on glitz, glamour, motorcades and red carpets. That is an important difference between her approach and the approach that a possible alternative candidate might have adopted. [Hon. Members: “Name him!”]

I believe that the political agreement reached between the High Representative and the European Parliament about the structure and accountability of the EEAS provides the safeguards the British Government were seeking, particularly those we sought on the competence of member states over foreign policy. That was no mean achievement, for we need to be clear about one thing. Those who argued that the ratification of Lisbon would somehow automatically bring an end to turf wars between different European institutions, or that it would satisfy the ambitions of those seeking to replace national with supra-national control over foreign policy, were plain wrong in those assumptions.

The European Parliament demanded to be given a much greater say over the running of the EEAS. In particular, it wanted the right to hold hearings on the appointment of heads of EU delegations; it wanted the appointment of political deputies to the High Representative; and it even sought to make the entire EEAS part of the Commission. The Commission sought for itself an extensive representational role. Others wanted to extend the remit of the EEAS to include the provision of consular services.

Had these proposals been accepted, they would have added up to a major encroachment by both the European Parliament and the Commission into areas of policy that are, as set out in the treaties, clearly the responsibility of member states. We, working with France and other countries that shared our view that the EEAS should be led by the member states and should not be under the thumb of the European Parliament, successfully resisted those proposals. As a result, the draft decision we are debating this evening is a framework that respects British foreign policy objectives and allows us to establish an external action service that does not replace national diplomatic action, but can complement and add value to it. As article 3.1 of the draft decision says, in terms:

“The EEAS shall support and work in cooperation with the diplomatic services of the Member States”.

The EEAS does not mean a big new role for the EU in international affairs or shifts in competence; indeed, we will very carefully police any claims or action to the contrary.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a very good case, and I speak as somebody who is not in favour of British withdrawal from the European Union and who recognises, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, that we are where we are. However, I hope that my hon. Friend is not advancing the case that because we have obtained one or two safeguards in relation to the construction of the EEAS, that invalidates the principled objection that we maintained throughout the treaty of Lisbon proceedings to both the creation of the EEAS and the position of the High Representative. We are just mitigating the damaging consequences, are we not?

[Mr Lidington]

I am certainly not resiling from anything that I or my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said when we were speaking from the Opposition Benches. But as my hon. Friend has acknowledged, we are in the legal and constitutional position in which we find ourselves, and in those circumstances I believe it to be the duty of the Government of the United Kingdom to fashion the best way forward we can, in alliance with like-minded member states, to provide the maximum possible safeguards for the freedom of individual European nations to act in pursuit of national interests when it comes to foreign policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

Before I respond directly to my hon. Friend, I should add that there will be intense competition for appointments, which will quite rightly be made on merit. However, we are determined to fight for a good share of the senior positions in the EAS because we think that we have first-rate British candidates to put forward.

We are clear that we do not plan to put aside extra money for the EAS in the long term. We accept that getting the service started and bringing in national secondees to serve alongside those who will transfer to the EAS from existing posts in the external service of the Commission or the Council will involve some additional start-up costs, for which we are planning. The additional cost for the United Kingdom is about £1.1 million, but that is before any calculation of the abatement is taken into account.

[Mr Clappison]

I think that the Minister is citing a written answer that he gave me. May I take him away from the EU accounting procedures with which some of us are familiar? The External Action Service will have 136 embassies. It already employs 700 staff—he looks puzzled, but that comes from a written answer that he gave me—and might have thousands more. Without talking about accounting manoeuvres or additional amounts, will he tell us the cost of those 136 embassies and the hundreds, if not thousands, of staff employed by the EAS?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend overlooks the fact that the EAS, as he describes it, will simply be the sum of existing EU missions and activities that already form part of the external work of the Commission and the Council, which are funded from within the existing EU budget. The British Government’s objective is to ensure, despite the acknowledged additional start-up costs, that we use the bringing together of disparate external functions to seek savings by eliminating duplication. The EAS budget is due for review in 2013; our objective is to ensure that by that stage we have got rid of what we intend will be a temporary spike due to start-up costs, and managed to achieve savings and better value for money. The EAS should be about the effective delivery of foreign policy, not new and expensive bureaucracy.