Business of the House

Debate between Pat Glass and David Lidington

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Lady has launched the campaign this afternoon, and I am sure she will have opportunities, whether in questions to Ministers or debates of various kinds, to make the case even more strongly. Most of us know that the towns making up the modern city of Stoke-on-Trent have an amazing history of cultural contribution to our country, most notably through the pottery industry, but also in the role Stoke played in the industrial revolution and in the development of British industry and technology over many years. We have seen with Hull this year the difference that being designated City of Culture can make to a city’s self-confidence and opportunities. I hope, without prejudicing any future decision, that one day Stoke-on-Trent might have that opportunity as well.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

I would like to associate myself with the remarks about the late Father of the House. I did not know Gerald as well as some of my colleagues, but I always found him to be immensely kind.

I wish to talk about my private Member’s Bill on boundaries. Last year, more than 140 Members, from every region and every party, stayed on a Friday to vote overwhelmingly for the Bill. It was and is the will of the House. Yet, instead of allowing it to progress into Committee and, if they so wish, voting against it on Third Reading—if they could get the votes—the Government have chosen to engage in what I can only describe as a series of dirty tricks to prevent it from getting into Committee. I suspect it was because they feared I would have the support of the Committee and that the Bill would have progressed to Third Reading. I remind the Leader of the House that we had a referendum in this country in which the sovereignty of Parliament and the will of the House was an important feature. Yet this has demonstrated to me that the will of the House counts for nothing if it clashes with the will of the lady in No. 10. I have worked well with the Leader of the House in the past—I shadowed him when he was Europe Minister—and I have found him to be a decent man, but this has not reflected well on him. It has not been well done.

[Mr Lidington]

There is no doubting the hon. Lady’s commitment to her private Member’s Bill, but in fairness she must acknowledge that the Government are the Government only by virtue of having a majority in the House of Commons and that the Government came into office with commitments of their own on boundary changes—commitments on the basis of which they fought and won a general election. I understand that it is possible for her Committee to meet and to begin debating, irrespective of whether a money resolution has been secured. My advice is that the Committee convene and begin its work.

Business of the House

Debate between Pat Glass and David Lidington

Thursday 12th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I join my hon. Friend in expressing condolences to Mr Noskwith’s family and friends and to salute the vital and secret work that he and so many other men and women did at Bletchley Park during the second world war. They really are the unsung heroes of that period. My hon. Friend may wish to write formally to the House of Commons Commission about a memorial. She will be reassured to know that the Bletchley Park Trust has reconfigured the museum at Bletchley Park so that it is much more of a memorial than it has sometimes been in the past to the heroic work of those men and women.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

I understand that my private Member’s Bill is mentioned regularly in the House in business questions and that the Leader of the House’s response is that he is waiting for me to come forward with some costs. We are talking about a private Member’s Bill, which means that there is only me. The Leader of the House has an array of civil servants who are willing and able to provide those figures for him. However, if he wants to let me know in detail what exactly he wants, he can write to me, and I will be happy to provide it—I will try on my own—for him and his civil servants. He must accept that this is the will of this House and that Members, from every part of this country and from right across this House, gave up their Friday surgeries to be in the Chamber when the Bill was debated. Will he stop trying to prevent the passage of this Bill and let me know when he will put it into Committee and come forward with a money resolution?

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Lady is sincere, as always, in speaking up for her private Member’s Bill, but it is also the case that the Bill was published, I think, only two or three days before it was introduced, and there was no memorandum of costs associated with it. Frankly, it is also the case—[Interruption.] She is sincere in her championship. The Bill is not exactly a disinterested initiative, but a deliberate effort to try to ensure that we have very unequal-sized constituencies. As I have said before, the Government are continuing to consider the financial implications of her Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pat Glass and David Lidington

Tuesday 12th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The consistent message that we hear from friends, allies and partners, not just in Europe, but in the Commonwealth and around the world, is that they want to see us stay in the EU. I am still waiting for the advocates of quitting to come up with an example of a friendly international leader who supports their case.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

There are more cars manufactured in one city in the north of England in one month than that great car-producing country Italy makes in a year, and the vast majority of those cars are exported to Europe—and that is just one city in one region. We see that being replicated right across the country. Early assessment suggests that any post-Brexit deal would place a tariff of up to 10% on every single car manufactured in the UK and sent to Europe, and that, over time, that would damage both manufacturing and jobs in the UK. Will the Minister confirm the possibility of a tariff of at least 10% being placed on every car manufactured in the UK?

[Mr Lidington]

That is indeed the case. If we were outside the single market, and World Trade Organisation rules applied, we could expect that 10% tariff on every car exported to the rest of Europe from the United Kingdom, which is why exit would be such a bad deal.

Government Referendum Leaflet

Debate between Pat Glass and David Lidington

Monday 11th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and for giving me early sight of it.

It is perfectly reasonable for the Government of the day to set out their position and the facts about our membership of the EU, just as the Labour Government did in the 1975 referendum when they published their famous red, white and blue leaflet. Indeed, the Government have an obligation to explain their view, not least because this is the biggest political choice the British people have faced for more than 40 years and the public rightly expect an informed debate that is backed up by information. I have spent a lot of time over the past couple of months knocking on doors, and I am told by lots of people, “We need the facts.” This leaflet will, at least, set out the facts for them.

The leaflet is clear as to what it is about. The title page sets out clearly:

“Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK.”

That is also the view of the Opposition but sadly not of the Conservative party, which is split on the matter, as we will, no doubt, shortly be reminded. Does the Minister agree that some of the reaction to this publication has been more about trying to silence the arguments for remaining than about trying to counter them? He will be aware that members of the Conservative party have attacked the Government’s leaflet, claiming that it is inaccurate. Is he aware that the same people also allege, for example, that we have lost control of our borders, even though, as the Government’s leaflet helpfully explains:

“The UK is not part of the EU’s border-free zone—we control our own borders which gives us the right to check everyone, including EU nationals, arriving from continental Europe”—

in the way that I was checked this morning?

Will the Minister confirm that, if we left the EU, in order to retain full access to the single market, we would need to continue to make a contribution to the EU budget, allow free movement of workers and abide by rules made by the remaining member states, and that that is what Norway has to do to get access to the largest single market in the world? Can he further confirm to those who advocate a trade deal like that which Canada has with the EU that the negotiation of that deal took seven years, and that the agreement excludes important sectors from free trade?

The truth is that those who advocate Brexit cannot say what the UK leaving the EU would look like. Many Conservative Members have spent decades wanting Britain to break away from Europe, but still they cannot tell us what out looks like. Rather than spending their time attacking the Government’s booklet, perhaps they would do well to work out what out looks like and share that with the rest of us before 23 June.

Has the Minister seen a leaflet entitled “The UK and the European Union: The Facts”, which has been posted to many households? It claims to be a neutral document shedding light on the complex issue of the EU referendum, but only when we get to the very small print on the back do we discover that it has, in fact, been produced by Vote Leave. Does he agree that there should be greater transparency, and a much bigger typeface, in such publications so that the public can discover just who is behind all this?

Labour is campaigning for Britain to remain in Europe because of the jobs, growth, investment and protection for British workers and consumers that depend on our continued EU membership. Leaving would put all that at risk and diminish Britain’s influence in the world. We are clear: Britain is better off in Europe.

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her words of support. On the specific questions she posed, I can certainly confirm that, since we are outside the Schengen no borders area, we can and do apply border checks to people seeking to enter this country, including EU nationals and, as she said, UK nationals as well.

It is indeed the case that, where other countries—the hon. Lady cited Norway—have sought and obtained access to the European Union’s free trade single market, that has come at a price. That price has included acceptance of the principle of freedom of movement for workers, an obligation to pay into the European Union’s budget and, critically, an acceptance that the country concerned will implement European Union rules, including on product standards, without being present at the table, having a say or having a vote on how those rules should be made. Part of the Government’s case is indeed that the interests of British business and the interests of jobs and growth in the United Kingdom are served by our having a role in leading and shaping the direction of the single market, not by simply accepting rules that have been worked out by other countries in our absence. She is also right that, in the case of Canada, we are looking at seven years so far and still no final agreement. It is a mistake to underestimate the complexity involved in a free trade agreement negotiation, particularly if it has to be conducted in the circumstances of the UK having decided to withdraw from the European Union.

No one could be in any doubt that the leaflet being distributed this week represents the views of the Government. As I said earlier, the Government are not neutral on this issue. We accept that this is an issue on which there are long-standing differences of opinion honourably held by people of different political parties and of none. I have always respected the views of those who differ from my own on this matter, but I believe that the Government have not only the right, but a duty to explain to the electorate, when faced with a decision of this gravity, the reasons why the Government have come to the recommendation that we have come to.

EU-Turkey Agreement

Debate between Pat Glass and David Lidington

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

Let me respond to my right hon. Friend’s three questions. We already have an opt-out from Schengen; that is written into the treaties. Similar arrangements apply to Ireland and Denmark in slightly different respects. The legal measure that would be used for any liberalisation of visa arrangements for Turkey would be a Schengen measure that would be brought forward under the appropriate treaty base, so it would not apply to the United Kingdom, Denmark or Ireland. I made it clear in my initial response to my right hon. Friend that the Government do not intend to liberalise our visa arrangements with Turkey.

On my right hon. Friend’s second point, it has of course been the policy of successive British Governments, including the one in which he served with such distinction, to support the eventual accession of Turkey to EU membership. That is not going to happen in the near future. The statement of the Heads of State or Government said on Monday that they would prepare for the decision on the opening of new chapters in the accession negotiations as soon as possible. To open a chapter such as chapter 23, which deals with the rule of law, might well be very helpful to strengthen the dialogue that we shall be having with Turkey about the rule of law, human rights and the standards that are expected of candidate members of the European Union but, again, no agreement has yet been reached on any aspect of opening new chapters, and many member states will have their views about that.

On my right hon. Friend’s point about Turkish accession—or any new member’s accession—and freedom of movement, the Government have said repeatedly that we will not agree to any further EU enlargement unless we first have in place new arrangements for transitional controls on freedom of movement so that we do not take on the risk, as we did in 2004, of very large movements of people in the aftermath of a new accession. Every decision to do with EU membership requires unanimity, so every country has a veto on every such step.

Thirdly, my right hon. Friend asked about finance. As I said, there are no formal proposals on the table. There is an ongoing negotiation at EU level in which there are many different moving parts. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement after the European Council next week, but the refugee facility agreed last year is budgeted for and is causing the Commission to reprioritise its various spending programmes, which seems a sensible thing for it to do.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

The countries of the middle east and the European Union are now confronted by the biggest refugee crisis since the end of the second world war. In the past 12 months alone, more than 1 million people have entered the EU by sea, mostly from Turkey to Greece. Does the Minister agree that the only way to deal with the crisis is to work with our European neighbours and other countries affected in the region, including Turkey? We welcome the fact that European nations are working together to try to find a solution, rather than having a situation of individual countries trying to find individual solutions to what is clearly a collective challenge.

We must recognise that we all have a responsibility to ensure that the language that we use reflects the fact that we are talking about fellow human beings in the most difficult of circumstances. Does the Minister therefore agree that it was deeply irresponsible of the Prime Minister to refer to people who are frightened, tired and fearful—families, vulnerable women, children and old people—as a “bunch of migrants”?

Does the Minister agree that the only way to reduce the overall flow of refugees is to tackle its root cause: the slaughter of the Syrian civil war? It would therefore be helpful if he could give us his latest assessment of progress with the ceasefire. The EU and Turkey say that they have agreed the broad principles of a plan to ease the migration crisis. How many of the promised 20,000 Syrian refugees have we settled? What additional financial contribution will the UK be making? When does the Minister expect any additional payments to be made? Can he set out how that money will break the business model of the smugglers exploiting the most vulnerable in the most dangerous way? How will we ensure that the money will be spent on what it was intended to be spent on? Who is monitoring this, and how? With the threat of conflict and climate change across the world, does the Minister agree that this shows exactly why we need to work together internationally, including by being a member of the EU, rather than walking away from our shared interests and responsibilities?

[Mr Lidington]

I agree with the hon. Lady that it is in this country’s interests, and in the interests of every European country, that we put together a determined and coherent response to the crisis. I also agree that no single European country—not Greece, Germany, the UK or anyone else—can solve this human tragedy, or stop the wicked work of the people traffickers who are exploiting it, on its own.

The hon. Lady asked about the ceasefire in Syria. The latest information indicates that it is holding, but it is not holding perfectly—that will be no surprise to any Member. The Prime Minister, along with other European leaders, had a conference call with President Putin a few days ago to take stock of how things now look, and to urge him to work towards a political settlement and a political transition in Syria, which we continue to believe represents the long-term answer to try to rebuild that country and to give people hope that they can have a safe and secure life there.

The hon. Lady asked how the business model of the people traffickers would be harmed by the agreement reached last week. One key element of the deal—I emphasise again that it is yet to be finalised—would be that somebody who went in a boat and was intercepted or processed having reached one of the Greek islands would face being sent back to Turkey. They would then be put to the back of the queue for legal resettlement, so the incentive for people to entrust their safety to the people carriers would be removed.

The hon. Lady asked about the number of arrivals in this country under the Syrian refugee resettlement scheme. The number is now running at more than 1,000, so this is going on track and much as we had planned. I ought to recognise the role that the devolved Administrations and local authorities of all political colours have played in trying to make the scheme successful, and in making the process as easy as possible for the people whom we are trying to help.

Referendums

Debate between Pat Glass and David Lidington

Monday 29th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

We seem to have focused on process for so much of today that I hope this will be the last time we do so.

I want to check some of the details of the statutory instrument with the Minister. It sets the date of the referendum on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union. It also prescribes the length of the referendum period, the start of the period for applications to become a designated organisation, and the periods for the reporting of donations or regulated transactions. If would be good if the Minister nodded.

[Mr Lidington]

indicated assent.

[Pat Glass]

The main purpose of the statutory instrument is to set 23 June 2016 as the date of the referendum, which will take place over the whole of the UK and in Gibraltar. It prescribes the referendum period, which will begin on 15 April 2016, and it prescribes 4 March 2016 as the start of the period in which applications can be made to become designated organisations in the referendum. I understand that that poses no problem for the organisations in the remain campaign, but those in the hopelessly splintered out campaign seem to be having a much greater problem. Now is the time for them to get their act together if they are to hit the deadline.

The statutory instrument also sets out periods for the reporting of donations or regulated transactions—for example, loans—by permitted participants who are not registered parties or are minor parties. It sets out the dates on or before which reports must be delivered to the Electoral Commission. Okay so far?

[Mr Lidington]

indicated assent.

[Pat Glass]

Labour has always said that as soon as the Government’s European negotiations are completed, they should get on with the referendum and end the uncertainty, which is bad for British jobs, growth, investment and working people.

Better Regulation

Debate between Pat Glass and David Lidington

Monday 8th February 2016 General Committees

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I have two brief, pragmatic questions.

The document sets out ways in which consultation can be improved and cites the 12-week rule as the appropriate framework. That mirrors the Cabinet Office guidance on consultation, to which the Government—certainly, in my experience—rarely conform in practice despite requiring others, such as local government, to adhere to it. Is it possible for the document to be more closely aligned to our Cabinet Office guidance? The Cabinet Office guidance is really good. It specifies not only that there is a 12-week timescale, but that it should not span times when it is more difficult to engage with the public such as the six to eight weeks of the summer holidays or, at least, the month of August when the Government go into standby mode.

My second question is about feedback. The one thing that really irritates people about consultation is when they go to the trouble of giving their views, but receive little or no feedback. Are there any plans to ask the EU to look at that in the document—I did not see any—to ensure that feedback is built into the consultation process?

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I am glad that the hon. Lady drew attention to the 12-week rule. Of course, that also ties in with what is in the draft reform texts from President Tusk apropos the suggested red card for national Parliaments. President Tusk is talking about having a 12-week period during which reasoned opinions can be tabled, rather than the eight-week deadline that is set out at the moment. That is a real benefit to national Parliaments. I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Lady says on both counts. One has to have a caveat in terms of the ability of EU institutions to act urgently when there is urgent need, perhaps most obviously on issues to do with plant or animal health and the need to act swiftly to prevent the spread of disease.

I sympathise with the hon. Lady’s wish that we try to align European arrangements more closely to Cabinet Office guidance, but the reality is, of course, that at EU level we are dealing with 28 different Governments and 28 different Parliaments, each of which has its own arrangements for domestic legislative processes and, indeed, for parliamentary recesses and holidays. For example, in parts of Europe, including Scotland, the summer holiday starts towards the end of June, and there are other places where people break a lot later. It is similar at Christmas and new year, when the duration of the holiday depends on whether western or Orthodox Christianity is the mainstream in a particular country. Although we have probably got a decent distance, I accept that there is further to go, but we must bear in mind such complicating factors.

[Pat Glass]

And on feedback?

[Mr Lidington]

On feedback, the text of the interinstitutional agreement contains a certain amount that goes in the direction that the hon. Lady suggests, particularly annex 1 to the agreement and the new arrangements for consultations in the preparation and drawing-up of delegated Acts—in other words, EU secondary legislation, the equivalent of statutory instruments here.

One of the benefits of the interinstitutional agreement that we now have is that there is a commitment to involve member states’ experts much more closely in the preparation of draft delegated Acts and in a timely manner. There is a specific requirement for the Commission to say openly, at the end of any meeting of member state experts, what conclusions it has drawn, how it will take those experts’ views into consideration and how it intends to proceed. Those conclusions will be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. There is a permissive provision in the rules for broader groups of stakeholders to be involved in the preparation and drawing-up of delegated Acts, so there are some measures in the text that take us very much in the direction that the hon. Lady suggests.

More generally, in terms of its better regulation proposals, the Commission has chosen to make more information available at an earlier stage. Stakeholders’ comments will therefore be more relevant and helpful because they will have access to the documents—the road maps and the inception impact assessments—that will give more detail about the policy initiative in question. Clearly, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, but the proposals amount to a very useful step forward from the previous position.

Common Foreign and Security Policy

Debate between Pat Glass and David Lidington

Monday 1st February 2016 General Committees

[Pat Glass]

The question is: is it right that the document is about being proactive, about building capacity across the member states? The European Scrutiny Committee believes that the Government do not have sufficient scrutiny arrangements in place, and the Minister has said that the arrangements have been less than perfect, so it would be helpful if he could set out what the future scrutiny arrangements would be.

[Mr Lidington]

I will try to reply to those points. The purpose of the common foreign and security policy is set out primarily in article 21 of the treaty on the European Union. I will not recite it in full—it is lengthy—but it is basically about developing external action in a way that promotes European values and the fundamental interests of security, independence and integrity, and consolidates and supports democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the principles of international law in external action. The article goes on to list other criteria too.

NATO is to some extent reactive, in that it is the ultimate guarantor of collective security for allies. I do not want to get drawn too far into this question, but I think it is fair to say that at the Wales summit and again at the Warsaw summit later this year, we are trying to ensure that NATO is less reactive and is, for example, focusing very much on questions of resilience and how to have effective deterrents and response plans in place against hybrid attack, not just conventional military attack.

EU external action has particular value added in two ways. First, of course, not every EU member state is a member of NATO, so countries such as Sweden and Finland are able to contribute to EU missions, including military missions, when they would not be able to do so as part of a NATO mission. For example, the Austrians have deployed forces as part of an EU mission in the western Balkans, whereas they could not participate in a NATO mission. Secondly, EU work can provide civilian expertise in things such as training of military personnel; training of police and security forces; border work, including the training of border forces; and missions to try to improve the governance of neighbouring or more distant countries.

The roles should be complementary. One could argue, for example, that the cyber threat to military communications and military capability should be dealt with at NATO level, but we know there is a cyber threat to key IT systems for energy distribution and even for retail distribution in a modern economy. It is much more difficult to say that those fall naturally into NATO’s remit, but effective co-operation and complementarity between NATO and the EU, if done well, can add up to a very effective security response.

On the question of scrutiny, with every CFSP document we check whether the document in question falls within the terms of the scrutiny reserve resolution. If it does, it goes to the Committee anyway for scrutiny. The challenge from the Committee—it is one I understand—is that some quite significant policy documents on EU foreign policy, including some described as action plans in the past, do not fall within the current terms of reference of the scrutiny reserve resolution. The volume of such documents is so large that I would be reluctant to agree to submit all of them for scrutiny, so it comes down to a matter of my judgment as to which I send to the Committee.

I remain open to trying to agree with the Committee a set of criteria that would enable it to have oversight of the documents that it particularly wishes to see and that are genuinely important. I would, in return, want to have a serious discussion about the fact that some documents—not necessarily CFSP documents—go to the Committee at the moment that frankly need not go through the formal scrutiny process and could be dealt with in a more streamlined fashion.

Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy

Debate between Pat Glass and David Lidington

Monday 25th January 2016 General Committees

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

As this is my first outing in one of the European Committees, Mr Rosindell, I hope that the Minister will handle me gently.

I understand that the action plan is about third countries and not our internal EU partners. None of us would have any problems in principle with the action plan, which the Minister described as a document of principles, high-level actions and practical steps. That is where I had a problem when reading through the document, because I think that I got more about what the practical steps are and what is going on from the Minister in a 10-minute speech than I did from two hours of reading that document. When I look at an action plan, I expect high-level actions, milestones, timescales, costs and some numbers detailing how many and by when. I did not see any such reference in this document. When I was a director of education, I had three banned words from action plans—ongoing, developing and progressing, because they mean nothing. In terms of timescales, 75% to 80% of the document before the Committee is ongoing. I had a problem with that.

The Minister referred to the Court of Auditors, so I am assuming that underneath this high-level document are other documents that will tell me exactly how many, by when, who is responsible and the costs, as well as where we are, where we want to get to and how we will get there. I think fellow Committee members were also looking for those answers. Is there a series of documents beneath this high-level document that will give me those specific, practical answers?

We are working with two different drafts, and my first question relates to objective no. 4 of the table in my version of the new action plan. I appreciate that it relates to third parties and not to our EU partners, but it does feel a little like, “Do as I say, not as I do.” Objective 4.b refers to the need to

“Monitor at bilateral and multilateral level the compliance by partner countries of their international obligations in terms of access to justice and fair trial, including legal aid”.

How does that sit with our Government’s recent action to cut back access to justice and legal aid?

My second question is about item no. 12, “Cultivating an environment of non-discrimination.” Objective 12.a is to:

“Develop an ‘EU Handbook on Anti-discrimination’ in third countries, outlining tools for anti-discrimination measures”.

Well, that is going to do it for the Ugandan anti-homosexual laws—that is going to make it happen. I was expecting something more than just a handbook. Who is going to do this? The EEAS, the Commission and the Council. It is a handbook, so surely they have some idea who is going to put it together.

My last point concerns no. 25, “Counter-terrorism”, which deals with

“how to prevent radicalisation and extremist violence among young people in third countries…in the field.”

I am curious about how that will relate to our Prevent strategy.

Those are my three observations. Overall, I think that the strategy is moving in the right direction, but I have concerns about who will monitor it, how it will be monitored and how we will judge whether it is effective and gives value for money. It will be difficult to judge whether the strategy is successful if we have no idea where we started, where we intend to be or what the milestones are along the way. Presumably, those things are in the low-level documents that the Minister is going to tell me about now.

[Mr Lidington]

I welcome the hon. Member for North West Durham to her new responsibilities. We miss her predecessor, but during her time in the House she has shown herself to be interested in and committed to European issues. I am sure that we will debate European matters across the Committee and across the Chamber on many enjoyable occasions. I will try to answer her questions briefly.

As I said in my opening comments, the plan is deliberately intended as a high-level statement of objectives and principles that should inform the whole range of external policy activity that the EU and its institutions undertake. Other documents, most obviously the annual reports on the EU’s human rights work, are worth looking at. The External Action Service will report on missions to particular countries and it will sometimes report to the European Parliament on the EU’s interaction with a specific third country. In those reports, hon. Members will see human rights issues being raised in accordance with the principles set out in the action plan. There are quite a lot of different documents, such as the EU’s human rights guidelines and a recently adopted EU framework policy on transitional justice, which add up to a more complete picture.

On the question of who will monitor this work, the EU institutions and the representatives of member states in Brussels—the permanent representations—have an important role in trying to ensure best value for money at all times. The European Court of Auditors plays a crucial role in monitoring that, as it does every other aspect of EU expenditure.

When I visited the Court of Auditors late last year, I was told that I was the first British Minister they could remember ever visiting the place, which I thought was rather a pity. What impressed me was that the Court of Auditors had a very clear objective to shift its focus from measuring inputs into particular programmes to looking at outcomes and focusing much more on whether the declared objectives of a particular EU programme have been achieved, rather than on how much money might be going into something and whether it had been spent on this particular line rather than that particular line.

I mentioned in my opening comments the European instrument for democracy and human rights as one of the external funding instruments. Precisely because human rights work is meant to be mainstreamed in everything the EU does in terms of its foreign policy, it is not possible to abstract a dedicated budget for human rights work alone. For example, what the EU does in relation to Saudi Arabia or Iran will include a human rights element, but it will include other things as well. The pre-accession funding programmes that are available to Turkey and to western Balkans countries that are moving towards membership, and some of the partnership funds to some of the eastern European countries from the former Soviet Union, will also have a human rights element as we try to encourage those countries to build functioning democracies and entrench the rule of law and human rights in their political culture.

I turn briefly to the three specific items that the hon. Lady raised. In fairness, even with the recent restrictions on legal aid, the United Kingdom’s legal aid system remains one of the most generous anywhere in Europe or the democratic world. What the EU is trying to focus on here is the fact that there are too many countries in which it is impossible for defendants to have access to an independent lawyer at all, and where everything that we take for granted in terms of such statutes as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or the rules of procedure in court are simply not available in the way that we would understand them. As part of the consular casework that I have dealt with, I have had British citizens, through their families, complaining that they have sometimes not had any opportunity to understand the charges being brought against them in court. That is the sort of issue that this policy is designed to address.

When it comes to anti-discrimination work, the reality is that such work has to proceed through persuasion, good practice and peer group pressure within international organisations. If, for example, we look at the way in which the United Kingdom Government first drove forward preventing sexual violence from being used as a weapon of war, placed that on the international agenda and then used our membership of the EU and of the UN to get other countries to take this issue up and make it a priority, that demonstrates one particular way in which this approach can work. We certainly see the EU’s action plan as complementing our own bilateral efforts to increase women’s political participation around the world, from the middle east to north Africa to work with indigenous groups in Latin America.

On the question of counter-terrorism, again we see the EU action plan work complementing what we seek to do under Prevent and other United Kingdom programmes. There are many countries around the world that face a genuine threat from terrorism but that also do not observe the standards in terms of human rights and due process that we would expect from our own police and judicial systems, so part of what we do bilaterally and part of what we do through EU activity is to have a dialogue with those countries and discuss how it is possible to combine effective action against terrorism with respect for the rule of law and for human rights. That is an issue that Members from all parties in the House have raised in the context of Colombia in debates in this House. It is an issue that we raise in our dialogue with Russian authorities, who face a genuine terrorist threat in the north Caucasus but who tackle it in a somewhat different way from how we might tackle terrorism here.