Middle East and North Africa

Philip Davies Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Regarding not taking our eye off the ball in the middle east and the Gulf, the United Arab Emirates has certainly made great strides in working with the Kurdistan Regional Government; and our Government issued the first formal invitation to the KRG’s Prime Minister a month ago, and that relationship is developing. However, there are issues and I hope my right hon. Friend will address some of them. The Kurds now find themselves with a very long border with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. They are also cut off from Baghdad because their budget has not been delivered since March. And of course, they have a strong bilateral relationship with Turkey and are attempting to sell their oil through the pipeline to Ceyhan and to Turkey, but that in itself has come up against a number of challenges. I suspect that our Government will remain neutral on this matter, but can he address some of those issues—

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions should certainly be shorter than that one.

[Alistair Burt]

Unsurprisingly, I have a short passage in my speech relating to Kurdish issues, and I think my hon. Friend will find that I address one or two of those points.

I have a particular relationship with the UAE through my current chairmanship of the all-party group on the UAE, and through a connection with my very good friend, the deputy Foreign Minister of the UAE, Dr Anwar Gargash; I commend such a relationship to my hon. Friend the Minister. The UAE belies some of the easy and rather lazy descriptions that the uninformed make about the Gulf. This is a state where women hold very senior positions; for example, the ambassador to the UN and the Minister in charge of the extraordinary Dubai 2020 Expo are women. It is also a state where people can go to church; I went to church on my last visit to Abu Dhabi.

The UAE is also a state whose prosperity relationship with the UK is singularly important. We will contribute to British firms going to Expo 2020. There is also investment by the Emirates in the UK: the £1.5 billion investment by Dubai’s DP World in London Gateway; Masdar, Abu Dhabi’s energy company, is investing more than £500 million in the London Array, the world’s largest offshore wind farm; and the Abu Dhabi United Group is working beyond London in Manchester, through its connection with Manchester City football club, to encourage the regeneration of the city. Again, I profess a special interest, having been the Minister with responsibility for Manchester and Salford many years ago; seeing the regeneration of that great city has been one of the great highlights of the past 20 years. All that activity shows that the UAE is working with and investing in the UK, which enhances the relationship between the two countries.

Wherever we look around the Gulf, particularly in a state such as the UAE, we see a close partner working together with the UK. I emphasise that point because whatever direction the FCO now goes in, it is very important that the middle east and the Gulf remain uppermost in its mind. I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will be keen to ensure that that is the case.

Briefly, please do not forget the middle east. Stick with those states that are working through the Arab spring and working with the Arab Partnership. Stick with Libya—it is difficult. Stick with Egypt, which will be a key partner, even though it will inevitably go through difficulties. It has serious human rights and judicial issues to overcome, but its economy needs support if the country is to get anywhere with its democracy. Egypt’s parliamentary elections later this year will be keenly scrutinised to ensure that they are fully inclusive. Certainly, the state has questions to answer, as we all know, but it will be a key partner for the future and in increasing the prosperity of the region as a whole.

In a final point on the values that we hold dear, let me mention that throughout the region religious intolerance and ensuring that there is greater freedom of worship and conscience is another important issue that I am sure the FCO will address. I know that one or two colleagues here today will talk about that specifically

I had the honour yesterday of meeting two young women from Iran who had been imprisoned in Tehran in 2009 for being Christian believers. Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh are now free in the United States. They have written about their experiences and make the point that although a rapprochement in Iran in many ways has advantages for all of us, to neglect human rights issues in Iran would be a mistake. They also make the point that it is not only Christians who are suffering; so are Baha’is and others. We know that across the region the agonies caused by differences between Muslim sects have been reflected in the pressures on those of other faiths and of none. I am certain that a greater sense of religious tolerance throughout the region is a value that the UK and this Parliament would strongly profess, and again I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to make that a key part of his work in the region.

Before I sit down, I will address two major issues briefly: first, Syria and, secondly, Gaza. With Syria, it seems that we have a very short attention span for tragedy. One has to do a little bit of searching now in the newspapers to find out that the agony of Syria is continuing. In three years perhaps 160,000 people have been killed, although there are estimates of many more. There is a need to ensure that the truth of what is happening in Syria comes out, rather than a narrative produced by the Syrian regime.

In short, Assad would have us all believe that right from the beginning he was challenged not by his own people but by foreign extremists. That is untrue. There were no foreign extremists on the streets of Damascus when the first brave people asked not for his overthrow but for reform. They were met with torture and violence, and with a deliberate campaign to ensure that more extremists came into the country from outside, because Assad knew that his greatest chance of staying in power was to convince the outside world that he was threatened by terrorists from outside and not from his own country. Sadly, that narrative has had all too much opportunity to succeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

I hear that. If I was sitting at the other end of this desk, in the Minister’s place, I would be equally cagey in my response. I will not ask my hon. Friend the Minister for a definitive answer at this stage. There would be ramifications. Ultimately, the independence of the Kurdish people is a matter of self-determination—my hon. Friend is correct. Bearing in mind all that the Kurdish people—a people subject to chemical attack and the like— have been through for so long, it is important that people listen. This matter should not be dealt with suddenly; it should be worked through with neighbours and friends and the surrounding territories. The Kurdish people deserve to have their voice heard, of that there is no doubt. There is plenty that the UK can still continue to do.

Let me make one last point, because I am conscious that I have taken up a lot of time. I want to finish by talking about Gaza. I have become passionate about the region, and colleagues throughout the House have been kind enough to recognise that. I appreciate what colleagues have said over the past few months. If there is one issue on which that passion has been allied to grief, it is the continuing failure of the middle east peace process and the inability of both Israelis and Palestinians to live in the peace and security to which both are entitled and which both are being denied. What we are witnessing now in Gaza is just the latest instalment of this awful tragedy, which has been far too long-running for all of us. I welcome the news over the course of the morning about possible ceasefire prospects, because the matter is urgent and the kinetic action there needs to stop as quickly as possible on both sides.

Over many years I was solely associated with the Israeli cause, and I appreciate greatly how in office this was never raised against me by Arab interlocutors, who I think guessed rightly that such a background gave me the opportunity to speak with great frankness to my many friends in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, which I did. My last four years have therefore brought me much closer to Arab and Palestinian leaders and provided greater exposure to the impact of the failure to conclude an agreement on their side. Whether it is the economic and humanitarian difficulties of Gaza or the grief of the Tamimi family in Nabi Saleh, or the parents of an Israeli schoolchild killed by a bomb, I have, like all the rest of us in this Chamber, seen too much despair from too many. I do not need to be told by either side whose fault it is or to listen any more to a catalogue of mutual injustice. For the record, I get it. Both have right and wrongs on their side. They are both my friends. Like the vast majority of those who live in the region, I just want this to stop.

The present round is sadly no different from the rest: it solves nothing on either side. As long as Hamas keeps re-arming, Israel will need to act to remove the threat. As long as Israel does so and as long as the suffering of Gaza and its people—from their Hamas Administration as well as the restrictions of Israel—continues, there will be new recruits, because the political end to the struggle is not co-ordinated with a cessation of hostilities. So it goes on, endlessly, and it is pointless because it does not achieve the objects of either of the protagonists. It just kills.

Israel has a right to protect its citizens from the unique terror of Hamas, condemned by the UK Government as we urged EU partners to proscribe the military wing of Hamas last year. It targets Israelis—actually, it targets Jews; let us be frank—anywhere in the world, contributes to incitement and fires rockets indiscriminately at them, or fails to prevent others from doing so. Israel’s reaction to this is proportionate to the threat, but there is an imbalance in the suffering as a result. Every child killed or hurt and every civilian killed wounds Israel and calls into question the method it is employing to bring security and peace to its people at such a price, just as dreadful injuries condemn those who place children in harm’s way. We cannot go on like this.

My optimism for the excellent efforts of John Kerry, and the quieter work of Tony Blair, has not yet been realised in a result, but might I ask my hon. Friend the Minister not to give up and to ensure the FCO plays its full part in urging that, after this round of conflict is done, we get back to the negotiations for the comprehensive solution, which is the only answer? It is truly not impossible to solve the problem if the will is there, as countless people have said.

I commend the article of 7 July in Haaretz, by His Highness Prince Turki bin Faisal Al Saud of Saudia Arabia, making the point that the 2002 Arab peace initiative still provides a template for a just solution to Israel’s conflict with Palestinians and the Arab world. He writes about the opportunity for both sides in the economic development and political opportunities that would result from an agreement. That the positives of a solution in that area so outweigh the negatives still leaves me gasping that it cannot quite be grasped. However, I hope that, after this round of hostilities, everyone will pile in on both sets of leaders to say, “We dare not have this happen again, in a region where we have learned that things can spiral out of control very quickly.”

The middle east has not been more volatile in recent years. From Lebanon to Yemen, there are latent threats to add to those more obvious, about which I have spoken, but there is still a vibrancy of populations who promise, and deserve, much more. I hope therefore that the UK long continues its historical relationship, for we still have so much to offer our friends throughout the region in terms of peace and prosperity.

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I want to let hon. Members know that I do not intend to place a time limit unnecessarily at this stage. However, at least 10 hon. Members wish to catch my eye, so to ensure that everyone gets a fair crack of the whip and has a fair opportunity to have their voices heard, perhaps Members could look to speak for about 10 minutes each.

Deep Sea Mining Bill

Philip Davies Excerpts

Friday 6th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sheryll Murray]

My hon. Friend is correct.

The UK was able to sponsor and issue a licence to that company under the existing Act, which became valid only upon the issue of a contract by the ISA.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

This is complicated stuff, most of which is way over my head, but it seems rather bureaucratic. Why do people have to get a licence from the ISA and the UK Government? Why do people have to undergo that double whammy? Why is one not sufficient?

[Sheryll Murray]

Under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, any resources beyond the 200-mile limit median line were declared the common heritage of mankind. One must be a signatory to the UN convention to be able to apply to the ISA for a licence. We, as a signatory to UNCLOS, are in the best position to apply for the contract with the ISA on behalf of one of our companies because we can then apply the most stringent and best environmental conditions.

[Philip Davies]

Does that mean that a company cannot apply to the ISA for a licence without the sponsorship of a nation state, that it has to have the sponsorship of its home country to be granted a licence?

[Sheryll Murray]

That is correct. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to expand on that if he speaks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheryll Murray]

That is very helpful. I am sure my hon. Friend can reassure the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) when he speaks.

Another important provision in the Bill widens the scope of minerals for which licences can be granted. The 1981 Act is limited to one type—polymetallic nodules—and the Bill widens the definition to all mineral resources. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich crusts. There are now agreed international regulations for the exploration of such minerals. In future, other mineral types could be discovered or become commercially viable for deep-sea mining. UK-registered firms should be able to take part in exploration and possible exploitation of such resources, as much as companies from any other state.

Sea-bed mining has enormous potential. Scientists know that lying on the surface of the sea bed at great depths are valuable new sources of nickel, copper, cobalt, manganese, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who is not in his place, and rare earth elements in the form of polymetallic nodules. Such metals are vital to new materials technology. Nickel is used in superalloys; cobalt and manganese are used in energy storage technology; and rare earth elements, which are strategically important, are used in low-carbon technology, lasers, superconductors and many telecoms applications.

[Philip Davies]

I must confess that, not for the first time this morning, I am slightly confused by what my hon. Friend says; that has nothing to do with her delivery, but with my lack of understanding. She said that it is important for the Bill to include other minerals because we want British companies to be able to explore and exploit them in the same way that other countries can. Am I right in thinking that if such minerals are not covered by international agreement, British companies are already free to do so without a licence, and that including such minerals in legislation will add bureaucracy and cost to UK companies rather than assist them?

[Sheryll Murray]

No, it will not, because we already have the ISA granting contracts—I will come on to who holds contracts at the moment—and one must be a signatory of UNCLOS before one can apply to the ISA for a licence and contract.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheryll Murray]

We are talking about sourcing hydrocarbons, which I will move on to a little later in my speech. If I miss anything out, I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will pick up on it.

Mining for polymetallic nodules could be a lot less environmentally damaging than land-based mining for the same minerals. To assist my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), mining for polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich crusts is a different matter. It would involve the excavation of rock. Mining for those materials is even further off than mining for polymetallic nodules, and the principles that might apply to nodules would have to be reconsidered for sulphides and crusts. We are determined to ensure that the highest environmental standards are applied to any use of those minerals. The point is that international regulations have been agreed for the exploration of different types of minerals, and they were in place in advance of exploration contracts being issued. The various regulations have been continually reviewed and updated in the light of developments and new considerations.

There are no regulations yet on the exploration of any of the minerals in question—they are probably at least five years off. As I mentioned earlier, it was only this year at the ISA’s annual meeting that the council had a preliminary discussion on the process for the development of a regulatory framework for the exploitation of polymetallic nodules.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend suggests that the industry is still in its infancy, and I appreciate that, but the Act that the Bill would amend was passed in 1981. The matter was regarded then as so urgent that the Act had to be passed without even waiting for the international convention to come into force. Something must have led to that feeling of urgency back in 1981. Can my hon. Friend explain why nothing really happened after the Act was passed?

[Sheryll Murray]

I was not around in the House during the passing of the 1981 Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

As the Minister knows, few licences have been granted since the 1981 Act took effect, so I would not at this stage seek to adumbrate examples. However, I am aware of many concerns from the environmental community about deep-sea mining and about how the Bill does not reinforce the protections that I believe hon. Members on both sides of the House would want us to have.

The World Wide Fund for Nature position paper on deep-sea mining states:

“Distinct ecosystems are or can be associated with these minerals and will be affected in different ways by different types of mining. Dredging for nodules is likely to damage large areas of the seabed and disperse large clouds of sediment. Polymetallic sulphide mining may destroy active and inactive hydrothermal vents (black smokers) and their associated communities and disperse toxic materials. The extraction of cobalt rich crusts may destroy the benthic seamount communities and dependent fauna.”

I will not quote the paper at length—it is available online for hon. Members to read for themselves—but we need to take those concerns seriously. The global community has a principle on environmental legislation. It is the precautionary principle, which is that when we do not know, we do not do something that we have good reason to believe will cause damage.

[Philip Davies]

There are always uncertainties, so the precautionary principle would mean that we never did anything. Many of these environmental concerns were raised in the debate back in 1981, and according to Hansard the Labour party opposed that Bill. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the misgivings expressed back then were unfounded, and therefore the misgivings that he is expressing are also likely to be unfounded?

[Barry Gardiner]

That is a very interesting interpretation of the precautionary principle—that because misgivings were unfounded in the past, they are likely to be unfounded in the future.

I do not speak from the Front Bench, but I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown), who will do so today, that we will not oppose the Bill. I certainly seek not to oppose the Bill, but to improve it. Indeed, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) said that it was a good Conservative principle to conserve what we have and to improve it. On the sea bed we have immeasurable riches, and the international community has stated clearly that they are part of the common heritage of humanity. That is what the international community has agreed and that is what the Government have signed up to. That common heritage should be preserved, protected and improved. If the hon. Member for South East Cornwall will give the assurance that in Committee we can ensure that protection through this legislation, I for one will be very happy to see the Bill make progress.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), who has raised the issue of environmental protection, which goes to the very heart of the Bill. I happen to take the view that resources were placed on this world for the exploitation of man, but we must ensure that they are exploited with great care and caution, whether they are on land, in the sea or on the sea bed.

[Philip Davies]

Has my hon. Friend identified the contradiction in what the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) said? He said that he supports the Bill, but believes in the precautionary principle. Of course if the precautionary principle had applied back in 1981, the 1981 Act would not have become law in the first place.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend is right. There is a contradiction in that position. It is interesting to ask at what point in the last 32 years the Labour party changed its position on this legislation. Did the conversion happen this morning, at the last general election or at some other point? I look forward to hearing from the shadow Minister on Labour’s conversion, because it voted against the Bill that became the 1981 Act on its Second and Third Readings.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) on retrieving this legislation from the dusty Foreign Office shelf where it had been languishing, perhaps for several years—although it may have been drafted this year. It was an orphan waiting to be adopted and I am grateful that she has adopted it and brought it before the House this morning.

[Philip Davies]

Does my hon. Friend endorse the words of our former colleague, Teddy Taylor, who said in the debate in 1981:

“The Bill appears to be a small and sensible measure, but anyone who has Britain’s interests at heart must view with suspicion any measure which has anything to do with our Foreign Office.”——[Official Report, 29 April 1981; Vol. 3, c. 867.]?

[Mr Nuttall]

I read those comments, although I am sure that with the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt)—a predecessor of mine in Bury North—at the Dispatch Box this morning we have no need to fear, as the Bill will be handled with the utmost care.

Some important economic issues are at stake. It would be easy for an individual or company wanting to exploit the resources of the seabed to relocate to the jurisdiction they thought most favourable to them. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall, who so ably proposed the Bill this morning, I want our country to be the world leader in this industry. Despite the fact that it has been 32 years since the original Act was passed, we can still describe it as being in its infancy, and this nascent industry has great potential for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), who, as usual, made many comments with which I should like to be associated. I join him in congratulating our hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) on her Bill, which she presented with her customary charm. I think that that will stand her in good stead today, and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North, I hope that the Bill is passed without too much trouble.

Reading up on this subject has been a learning curve for me. I was not particularly well versed in it before, unlike the Minister, who, I know, is a long-standing expert in the field. My starting point was to establish what deep-sea mining actually was. I had not realised that it was such a controversial subject until, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North, I read the report of the 1981 debate. Having assumed that the debate must have been fairly consensual and that the issue had not been particularly controversial, I was astounded to discover how heated the discussion had become on some occasions. If I detected accurately what was said earlier by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), the Labour party had changed its mind about the legislation, so I am delighted. However, I think that some of the reservations that have been expressed about this Bill are similar to those expressed in 1981. It is strange that people who now say that they are in favour of the 1981 Act and who seem to be in favour of the Bill should express the same reservations that they expressed in 1981.

Deep-sea mining, I learn, is the process of retrieving minerals, raw materials and precious metal from the deep-sea bed. The United Kingdom has a great tradition of oceanography and similar activities. The modern age in that respect—certainly the modern age as far as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is concerned—began in 1872, when HMS Challenger set out on its four-year voyage to explore the oceans. The expedition was led by John Murray and Charles Thomson, who should be commended for the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North pointed out, much of our present exploration and exploitation activity is thanks to their discovery of what was out there. We should be incredibly grateful to them for that. Only yesterday, I believe, the Prime Minister said that pretty much everything that was worth inventing was invented by people in this country. Much of what was worth discovering was discovered by people in this country, too, and we should be immensely proud of that great tradition.

I had not previously been particularly well versed in polymetallic nodules and deep-sea hydrothermal vents—or, for that matter, manganese nodules—but they are actually more fascinating than people may think. They are very productive, and not only rich in minerals but home to unique organisms that have evolved to live in extreme conditions and are of interest to scientists for their genetic properties, which have many remedial, medical and other practical applications.

I may be doing him a disservice, but it is possible that the hon. Member for Brent North has read—as I have—the briefing on the Bill that was sent to us by Greenpeace, which I am sure was also read with great interest by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall. Greenpeace fears that if sea-bed mining is allowed to proceed in the absence of a comprehensive system of environmental protection, we may be destroying species for ever before we have fully explored what they are. That returns us to the precautionary principle mentioned by the hon. Member for Brent North.

[Sheryll Murray]

Some of the cone-shaped polymetallic nodules are alive and smoking, and certain marine creatures live in their environment. I understand that the harvesting will be restricted to the dead ones. I think the Greenpeace paper refers to the living ones, which we see in films with smoke coming out of them, but I understand it is the dead ones that are going to be mined.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend has far more expertise in this field than me, and I am grateful to her for that clarification. I do not necessarily agree with the Greenpeace stance, but I think there are certain points that are worth putting on the record. The concern is that problems we are not yet aware of may arise from deep-sea mining. It is always difficult to counter such arguments: if we are not aware of the problems, how can we give reassurance on them? I suspect we cannot. Sometimes we have to take a leap of faith, however; otherwise, we would never do anything. We would never do anything in this country if we were constantly concerned about things we are not yet aware of. Such an approach would not take us very far forward.

[Mr Nuttall]

In a similar vein, does my hon. Friend not think there will be some difficulty in establishing whether these cone-shaped nodules are living or dead, and who is going to monitor whether the correct sort of nodule has been mined?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I hope that such detailed questions, which go way beyond my sphere of expertise, will be covered by the Minister. He has much more expertise in these matters than me, and I have hopes that he will be able to cover much of this ground in more detail than I could.

Environmentalists are also concerned about pollution of the deep sea, which they say is likely to occur from deep-sea mining activities as the ocean currents may carry sediments and toxic pollution far from the area of mining activities to areas of fishing, which would potentially have a terrible impact on fishing levels. However, it is worth quoting from a magazine that I am sure is read by many Members called Mining Weekly—I am sure you are a regular reader of it, Mr Speaker, so you will be able to correct me if what I say is wrong. The environment principal and marine ecologist for De Beers, Dr Patti Wickens, said:

“An environmental-impact assessment was undertaken in the early 1990s to assess the impact of offshore diamond mining on the seabed in Namibia. It was found that while mining activities alter the nature of the seabed landscape or habitat, this effect is not permanent.”

We should bear that point in mind: there may be some changes, but they will not be permanent, and the habitat will return to its normal state after the mining ceases in an area. I hope that gives comfort to those with concerns.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

I agree to a certain extent with what the hon. Gentleman says, but what if the damage is so significant that the environment cannot repair itself as he blandly indicates? Is there not a real risk that damage may not be reparable?

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me more credit than I am due. I was not claiming anything; I was merely quoting what a principal marine ecologist said. I would not wish the hon. Gentleman to think that was my theory. I would not want to claim credit for what Dr Patti Wickens said in Mining Weekly. I can only refer him to her if he wants to argue the case. I suspect he will get much further if he argues the toss with her rather than me. I will leave on the record what she said, however, and people can make their own minds up as to whether the hon. Gentleman or Dr Patti Wickens knows more about this subject. That is a judgment we will all have to make at some point.

The deep-sea bed is defined in the schedule as an

“area of the sea bed situated beyond the limits of national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom or any other State”.

The main marine mineral content of interest is manganese nodules, manganese crusts and seafloor massive sulphides. Two metallic mineral resources of the deep-sea floor incorporate dissolved metals from both continental and deep ocean sources. One of these is what my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall—and, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall)—described as golf ball-sized polymetallic modules. I have heard them described as “golf-to-tennis” ball size, but I am not sure whether there is any mileage in arguing about the size, as we know what we are talking about here.

These nodules precipitate from sea water over millions of years on sediment that forms the surface of the deep ocean. It is understood that they require the undisturbed conditions which are found in areas of the deepest oceans. That serves to highlight again the environmental point that the undisturbed conditions are what is important. To clarify:

“Polymetallic massive sulphides are types of minerals discovered in the oceans in 1979 that were previously known only from deposits that have been mined on land since pre-classical times for copper, iron, zinc, silver and gold.”

Rather than get bogged down in all the science, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North covered in some detail, I will focus on some of the impacts of this proposed legislation and ask some questions, which I hope the Minister may be able to answer.

The history is important. The oceans had long been subject to a freedom of the seas doctrine, a principle dating back to the 17th century essentially limiting rights and jurisdiction over the oceans to a narrow belt of sea surrounding a nation’s coastline. The rest of the seas were proclaimed to be free to all. That seems to me to be a sensible doctrine. It has been challenged by some countries, however, which have tried to claim the rights to certain seas beyond what international agreement indicates.

[Mr Nuttall]

Does my hon. Friend think there is any merit in the international community, through the auspices of the United Nations, simply stating by way of further agreement that all these international seas should be dealt with only by the International Seabed Authority, and leaving the matter of national jurisdictions out of it altogether?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and it should be considered. Again, the Minister may be able to address it.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a conscientious application to serve on the Bill Committee, where that matter, among many others to which he has briefly alluded, can be explored in further detail.

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful to you for highlighting my pitch for me, in a far more eloquent way than I was, Mr Speaker, so that nobody could be in any doubt that I would, obviously, be delighted to serve on the Committee.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am concerned that my hon. Friend might have been tempted down a dangerously internationalist path by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall). It is always important in these matters to preserve British sovereignty.

[Philip Davies]

I certainly agree with that. I am not sure that what my two hon. Friends are saying is necessarily incompatible, but I am sure they will be able to discuss that in the Tea Room at a later date. I am certainly one for upholding British sovereignty, however, as most people will appreciate.

Let me now deal with some of the points that I would like the Minister to cover. I am interested in the licences that the UK Government offer and give to people who apply for them. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North referred to the resources that the Government provide to ensure that the licences are dealt with properly and in a timely manner. I am not entirely sure what the fees are for these licences and how our fees compare with those in other countries. As he said, we want the UK to be an international leader in this field. If companies can, in effect, apply to any signatory country for a licence, in order to take that to the International Seabed Authority, we want a commitment from our Government that the fees they charge for these licences will be competitive—more competitive than those charged by other countries. I would be interested to hear whether or not they are.

This is not just about the fee; it is also about the timeliness of how a licence application is determined and a licence issued. I hope that the Government also make a commitment to ensure that licences are processed more quickly here than in competitor countries, because, again, that might be a factor in which country a company chooses to go through. I would be interested to know how many licences have been applied for and how many applications have been rejected. That would allow me to see whether the process was strenuous or whether licences were just given out on the nod.

[Mr Nuttall]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that perhaps one reason why so few licences have been applied for under the 1981 Act is that the regime it established was too onerous and companies have been going elsewhere in the world?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and we certainly would not want what he describes to have been happening. As he said, we want the UK to be a world leader in this field and to be seen as such, so I hope that the Minister can give some assurances on those points.

I would also be interested to know how the licences are policed once they have been granted and who does the policing. The international authority, presumably, polices the contract that it has agreed can be carried out. However, given that the UK Government has also issued a licence, are they happy just to accept the policing carried out by the ISA? Do they have their own policing to ensure that the licence conditions they have applied are being adhered to? If that is the case, how many of the licences that have been granted have been subject to a revocation because the conditions were not being met? Alternatively, are the licences given and that is the end of the matter, everyone just cracks on with it and nobody will bother contacting the people involved again?

I would like clarification on a further point, which relates to the heart of why it is important that we have a competitive system, particularly when it comes to time scales. What happens when different companies in different countries all want to explore or exploit the same area at the same time? That must be a fairly common situation. It is a bit like supermarkets really: when one company decides it wants to open a store in a particular place and its competitors get wind of it, all of a sudden two or three applications are made for the same place, because all the companies think, “That’s a good area. We all want a slice of that action.” Presumably the same things must apply in this field, so if different companies in different countries are all looking to exploit the same area, is the company that can do so decided on a first-come, first-served basis? Is the company that gets its licence first and gets a contract agreed with the ISA the one that gets to do the exploring? Or are more rigorous criteria used? If this is done on a first-come, first-served basis, it is crucial that we process these licences as quickly as possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall made a good job of dealing with my next point, but I just ask the Minister to say a little about whether we are unnecessarily introducing or increasing bureaucracy at the expense of UK companies. That point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset in intervention. Although we want the licences and legislation in place to allow UK companies to get involved in this field, we certainly would not want them to have to do it in an overly bureaucratic way or one that disadvantaged them in relation to what other countries would expect them to do. How has this country’s licensing regime stacked up against those of other countries?

I hope that the Minister can answer those issues satisfactorily. Many of those points are not really about the principle of the Bill but about the application of the regulations, the legislation and the licensing. I hope he will make sure that this country is at the forefront in this field, and that he will help UK companies rather than hinder them—I am sure that is the case.

Teddy Taylor is a great man and this House has a lot to be grateful to him for. I am sure that the point he made about the Foreign Office in the debate in 1981 is somewhat unfair, although probably only slightly; I am sure that the Foreign Office always has the British people and British companies as its priority and wants to do its best for them. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that, on the points I have raised, the British Government are at the forefront of making sure we are world leaders so that the Bill will what do what I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall intends, which is to ensure that this country becomes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North said, a world leader in this field.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), who have been, for a Friday, most amazingly reticent and brief in their remarks. I am worried that this Bill may not therefore get the scrutiny that it deserves, given that people who normally go into every detail have skated over some of the more important points—perhaps that will come at a later stage, however.

The great thing that we should bear in mind as a nation is that our companies and our businesses should never be disadvantaged against foreign businesses and foreign companies. Any regime we have of licensing and of regulation should be as light-touch as possible, particularly when this enormous and exciting resource is available for us. We have heard of the metals that there may be—of molybdenum, of rare earth metals. It occurs to me that at the depths of the ocean there may even be gold, and it might be possible for us, through the ingenuity of British companies, to go down fathom after fathom to explore and find the gold that could be used to replace that which was sold by a former Chancellor of the Exchequer at an extraordinarily low price and against the advice of the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell), who thought it was very unwise to sell that gold at a rock-bottom price. That is what it is really about: exploring these resources that could add to the wealth not only of the nation but of the globe at large. As we have seen the emergence of the new economies—of China, India, Brazil and Russia—so we have seen demand for resources grow extraordinarily. The demand has been for steel, obviously, and all that goes into manufacturing it: the components and the other metals that make steel of a particular strength to ensure that the skyscrapers that have gone up across Asia can be built safely.

As demand increases we will find that the traditional sources of metals and minerals can be exhausted. We will then find that economic growth across the globe slows down because the prices of commodities will rise. As you know, Mr Speaker, the laws of supply and demand would come into effect and if the supply is limited in relation to the demand, the price rises. If the price rises, the burden of higher prices will ultimately fall on the consumer and standards of living in the country at large and, indeed, in the world at large would be reduced. There could be an exciting resource in the depths of the ocean in an area where mankind has hardly dared go before—there have been limited efforts, and cables have been laid, but we have otherwise been able to do very little in terms of exploration. If we find on the base of the ocean little things the size of golf balls, or possibly even cricket balls, that could add to our wealth, that would be exciting, but we want British companies to be at the forefront. We do not want to allow the Americans, who are not following this regulatory path, to get ahead of us as they have on other occasions.

I hope that the Minister will focus on international law. I am always very suspicious of internationalism. I think that the nation state is the right way of dealing with problems. It is the right way of legislating, of representing a democratic mandate and of ensuring a fair and better economic outlook for the country. If there are international agreements to which major countries are not signed up, in what position are those countries and their companies left? International law is only enforceable by the acceptance of the people on whom it is enforced. There is no equivalent to this Parliament that can pass a law for the whole world nor is there a court that can lead a judgment against a country that refuses to accept what international law proposes.

Indeed, we discussed how, by the 17th century, the oceans were viewed as owned by everybody and as free, but we did not go on to develop how that freedom was protected. It was protected by the might of one great nation and one great navy, the Royal Navy, which went across the world ensuring the freedom of the seas. Although the argument was that the seas were global, they were global by the fiat of the British empire, which enforced internationalism and the security and safety of those travelling on the high seas. Indeed, it was a deliberate change of British policy. In the reign of Elizabeth I, letters of marque were issued to allow piracy on the high seas as a means of getting at the Spanish wealth. We changed our policy to internationalise and that is the situation that we are now in, but sadly our Navy is not what it was.

Do we have the hundreds of capital ships that we used to have? Do we have the dreadnoughts that we used to have ready to save the high seas from dangers? No, we do not. So, we must think about who will enforce the freedom of the seas. Which great navy is left today that can patrol those open spaces? The US navy, of course. Which state is not a party to the agreements that will regulate mining at the depth of the ocean? The United States, of course. So we must consider who will act against an American company that has not come along dutifully to get a licence from the Secretary of State and applied to an international body for confirmation of that licence. What if an American company goes out? Who will say no? Perhaps the Russian navy might go out, but I doubt it. The British Navy would certainly be unwise to take on the United States in such circumstances. We must consider what we are imposing on our companies and our fellow subjects that is not necessarily being applied internationally.

[Philip Davies]

Is my hon. Friend saying that, given the lack of support for internationalism, so to speak, we should not have the International Seabed Authority, and that we should have a free-for-all whereby, if our companies want to go out there and explore or exploit somewhere, they should just get on with it irrespective of what any international body might say?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

That is an exciting way of looking at it—to adopt a real free-market approach, which allows companies to go out to prospect, as they did in California in the 19th century, and as Cecil Rhodes did when he went to South Africa. He found great acres of space and he made a claim and he dug and he dug and he dug, and he found gold, diamonds and platinum, and he put them into a great company, and he made millions—in modern money, billions—of pounds by doing that. That was not through state regulation, not through international bodies, not through the United Nations reaching an agreement to say, “You may do this,” or “You may do that,” but by enterprise, hard work and energy—by all those great British virtues of which we should be so proud. Why not say that of the oceans? Why not mount expeditions? We could launch one together, Mr Speaker, to try and find the lost city of Atlantis, which we would expect to have all sorts of valuables—metals, gold, excitements—in it.

We could have other companies, perhaps, doing more careful geological surveys to locate those metals—the rare earth metals. An interesting fact about rare earth metals is that they are not particularly rare. The Chinese sold them very cheaply to start with, but they became a monopolist and then they raised the price. In doing so, they showed absolutely classic monopolistic behaviour. Those metals are not particularly rare, although they are quite expensive to gather together. People could go off as a free-enterprise endeavour, without having to pay for licences and regulations.

Every pound that is spent on a licence is a pound that cannot be spent on exploration, or on exploitation of the asset once it is found. How relieved I was to hear from Mining Weekly about the speed with which the sea bed—the mighty sea bed—restores itself to pristine condition after someone has been down and done a little digging. That conjures up wonderful images. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) say that there is always a Cornish miner involved, and that they go down and dig, even at the depths of the ocean, to find valuable assets that we may be able to exploit for the benefit of the British people. That is a free-enterprise endeavour.

Interestingly, those who spoke in the debates in the early ’80s thought there would be a great expansion of activity at the depths of the ocean. Why did that not happen? Is it not obvious, Mr Speaker? The dead hand of legislation and bureaucracy came crushing down on those who wanted to be enterprising in their prospecting activities. So there was no equivalent of the Californian gold rush. There was no shout of, “There’s gold in them there hills,” or anything of that kind, of the undersea hills.

As we are talking about geology, it is worth mentioning that the great father of geology, a Mr Smith, started all his work in North East Somerset, in the village of High Littleton. Going down in a mineshaft, he saw the different layers of the earth and worked out—

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Because so many other Members are keen to speak in the debate, I shall keep my remarks short. I know the Benches are not currently filled, but people are waiting in their offices to come racing down into the Chamber the minute the Minister has said a few words, such is their excitement to talk about the details of the Bill.

The details of the Bill are of course crucial. Its worst aspect is that it removes the Secretary of State’s ability to repeal legislation. If there is one thing that I take particular exception to, it is the idea that legislation that was temporary and could be removed is now to become a permanent burden on our statute book. When we look, in the No Lobby, at the statutes of this great nation, we see one volume covering the first few hundred years of the existence of Parliament, and now we see a volume barely doing a Session of Parliament. How glorious it would be if more Bills gave Secretaries of State power to take them off the statute book—to deregulate. I would urge that the Bill should have a more deregulatory ambition, and therefore in the early stages of its consideration we should delete the conversion of the 1981 Act from temporary to permanent, because the temporary nature of legislation is one of the pious hopes that all legislators should have. We should wish our legislation to deal with a temporary problem and then restore the liberties of the British subject as soon as possible. That would be my first concern over the Bill and the regulations within it.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend knows that I agree with him about this, and in my time I have unsuccessfully tried to introduce sunset clauses or expiry dates into Bills. But will he concede that, in essence, every Bill is temporary in the sense that it can be repealed at any time?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

If only that were true. I would hope that Bills would be repealed at any time, but sadly the House is much keener to pass new Bills than it is to repeal old and defunct ones. Every so often a Session will pass 20 repeals of ancient Bills. I think we had one earlier in this Session or at the end of the last Session, which repealed some Bill relating to the purchase of the Isle of Man from whoever previously owned it to make it part of the Crown territory. That does happen, but not often enough.

A sunset clause in this Bill would be particularly attractive, especially if the Americans are not part of this. I rather like the American approach to internationalism; that is to treat it with the deepest caution, and not to sign up to every international body that comes along. My hon. Friend mentioned what Sir Teddy Taylor said about the Foreign Office. It is interesting that in the United States the State Department almost always wants to sign up to any bit of internationalism that is going. But the sensible people in the Senate who have to ratify treaties almost never do, because they do not think it is in the interests of the American people. Because of our system, we seem to be rather too keen to sign up to international agreements, when, as I was saying earlier, we should do things by free enterprise, which will often ensure more success, riches and wealth for the nation at large.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr. Speaker has done a long stint and we are glad to have you standing in for him.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Philip Davies Excerpts

Friday 5th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[James Wharton]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), but then I must make some progress, as I want to draw to a conclusion.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I absolutely support my hon. Friend, who is doing a massive service not only to Parliament, but to the country as a whole. May I suggest one improvement to the Bill that I think would find favour with the Prime Minister? It relates to a question I asked him recently. If the British people voted in a referendum to come out of the European Union, is it my hon. Friend’s intention that that should be that, so we would not have the usual European Union tactic of having yet more referendums until they get the result they want? Perhaps it would be better to make it clear in the Bill that if the British people voted to come out of the European Union, that would be that.

[James Wharton]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention and have no doubt at all that whoever is Prime Minister at the time—I am confident that it will be the current Prime Minister—would be unable to defy a vote of the British people in a free and fair election with a proper debate. If the British people voted to come out, I am sure that that would happen. I am conscious, however—this point was made earlier—that this is a private Member’s Bill and so has limited time. Any amendments or changes, or anything that lengthens our considerations, will give the minority of Members who wish to wreck it, not by force of democratic argument, but by misuse of parliamentary procedure, too much opportunity to do so. I would therefore resist further amendments, but I understand and sympathise with my hon. Friend’s important comment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

Opposition Members will have to do better than that. The policy of the Government, which was set out in detail in the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, is to achieve a reformed European Union and a better settlement with it. We do not agree with the status quo and we want to be able to campaign for Britain to stay in a reformed European Union.

[Philip Davies]

For the avoidance of doubt, I would vote to leave the European Union. The Foreign Secretary said that he was not speaking for both parts of the coalition. Is he sure about that? Surely he recalls how, in the last Parliament, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the Deputy Prime Minister, marched his MPs out of this Chamber when they were denied the opportunity to move an amendment to have an in/out referendum. My right hon. Friend cannot be telling us the exact truth when he says that he is not speaking for both parts of the coalition. Perhaps he will clarify that, because I thought he was speaking very much for the Liberal Democrats as well.

[Mr Hague]

When my hon. Friend said that he would vote to withdraw from the European Union, he was not avoiding doubt—I do not think we were in any doubt about that at the beginning. He makes a fair point about our hon. Friends the Liberal Democrats. I will helpfully explain my view on their position during my remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Denham]

As I will explain to the hon. Gentleman and the House, the reason for that is that this is a Bill about the private problems and the private political difficulties of the Conservative party, so it is not surprising that so many Conservative Members are here today. These matters do not really affect the rest of us very much, except for—I will come to this—the damage that is being done by the antics within the Conservative party to the interests of this country.

[Philip Davies]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the oddities of today’s Bill, and there are certainly some oddities in today’s proceedings. The greatest one I have heard so far is the shadow Foreign Secretary asking the Foreign Secretary how he will vote in a referendum in four years’ time, when the shadow Foreign Secretary cannot answer how he will vote on this Bill in less than four hours’ time.

[Mr Denham]

For my part, I very much doubt that I will be here in four hours’ time to vote at all on this Bill. Let me explain why.

Afghanistan

Philip Davies Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

That is an important issue, which the Ministry of Defence continues to pursue. Our facility will be located next to a major United States facility. That will mean that we have access to the best possible medical care, which is the MOD’s intention.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May I press the Foreign Secretary on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) and touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher)? How dependent are the nature and extent of the Government’s involvement in Afghanistan on the outcomes of the elections in Pakistan and Afghanistan this year and next?

[Mr Hague]

I can assure my hon. Friend that they are not dependent on that. It will be important for us to work with the Governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan, whoever is elected this year and next year, because we have vital strategic interests and it is vitally in our national interests for us to continue to do so; and it is important for whoever stands for election in those countries to know that we are prepared to do so. The imperative to support—in a new and different way, after 2014—the building of peace and prosperity as well as security in Afghanistan will continue, and it is not dependent on those two elections.

European Union (Approvals) Bill

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

It is a pleasure to move amendment 1, and to consider amendments 2 and 3 with it. As hon. Members who are following the Bill closely will realise, the substance of the amendments lies in amendment 3, which proposes to leave out paragraph (b) of clause 1(2). That would have the effect of making the Bill apply only to subsections (1) and (2)(a). It would no longer include any reference to

“the draft decision to establish a Multiannual Framework for the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights for 2013-2017 (document number 10449/12).”

On Second Reading, the Minister expressed the view that we would be able to go into the issue of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights in more detail in Committee, and the amendment gives us the opportunity to do just that. I want to reassert the concern that I expressed last week on Second Reading that, although this Government and this country were always against having such an agency, we are tremendously relaxed about extending its budget and its range of activities now that it has been established. There must come a time when we say to the European Union, “Enough is enough. You have gone too far already and we want to rein back the range of activities of the Agency for Fundamental Rights in the coming five-year period.” I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some words of encouragement on the action that our Government are taking to rein back the activities of the agency and, in particular, to prevent it from encroaching on the competences and activities of the Council of Europe, which covers 47 member countries, including the 27 members of the European Union.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend tell the House exactly what this Agency for Fundamental Rights does? As I understand it, its job is to collect and give evidence on data regarding fundamental rights in all the EU countries. Given that we are all already signed up to the European convention on human rights—much against my will, but there we are—which apparently has nothing to do with the European Union, can he explain why on earth we need this body in the first place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I do not intend to detain the House for long, but I wanted to support my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who, yet again, has done a great service to this House. I rather fancy that the Government hoped to sneak this Bill through without any real scrutiny; they hoped it would be nodded through without anybody looking at the detail. Of course, my eagle-eyed hon. Friend has spotted some of the nasty parts of this Bill that the Government were hoping to sneak through, and he has done us a great service by highlighting them.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I am shocked at my hon. Friend’s suggestion that such an important Bill could have crept through this House without being carefully scrutinised. Many of us spoke on Second Reading and have considered the Bill carefully, as it is a sensible advancement of the European Union Act 2011.

[Philip Davies]

While my hon. Friends the Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and for Christchurch are in the House, I can be confident that legislation will be properly scrutinised. Without their services, I cannot always be so confident, and we owe them a great debt of gratitude for the work they do.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is absolutely right about the Fundamental Rights Agency, and I hope that the Minister will make it clear where the Government stand on this issue. Bizarrely, we face enacting something and, in doing so, supporting a wholly unnecessary agency. It is unnecessary because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, it does the work that the Council of Europe already does. We are already signed up to the European convention on human rights, which is bad enough—if I had my way, we would not be signed up to that—but now it appears that the Government want us to have an EU version of exactly the same thing.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I rise to speak because I am shocked by what the hon. Gentleman has just said. The European convention on human rights came about at the initiative of the British Government in the beginning; it was done to bring people together to find ways of applying common standards across the whole of Europe in order to prevent what had happened leading up to the catastrophe of the second world war. Surely he is not saying that he thinks the UK would have been better off not having taken that initiative and that Europe should remain a place of conflict where people do not agree on what human rights everyone deserves in Europe.

[Philip Davies]

I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a pride in living in the past, and that is fine and dandy, but of course he was talking about what the convention was set up to do in the first place, many years ago, whereas I am talking about the present. I am sure that he did not envisage our having to have ridiculous things such a votes for prisoners as a result of our membership of the European convention on human rights. I do not want to get sidetracked on to something that is not, strictly speaking, dealt with in this group of amendments, Mr Evans. The hon. Gentleman was tempting me down a path that I fear you might have intervened on had I pursued it any further. My point is that whether we are in the convention rightly or wrongly, we are in it and so it is utterly pointless to have the agency trying to mimic what is already being done there.

My second point relates to the agency’s desirability. Even if it was not pointless, it would certainly be undesirable. Let me give hon. Members an example of the types of issues the agency is trying to interfere in. It had a speaker on a panel discussing:

“Guaranteeing access to healthcare for undocumented migrants in Europe”.

We now have a new term—undocumented migrants. I think my constituents know them as illegal immigrants, but in the politically correct-speak of the EU they are undocumented migrants these days. Of course what the agency is trying to do is encourage all these illegal immigrants to access health care in countries such as the UK. My constituents are sick to the back teeth of the national health service being used by illegal immigrants and rather prefer these people to go back to the country that they should be in to access the health care in the country they come from. I hope that the Minister will address the following question: are the Government really using taxpayers’ money to fund an agency within the European Union that is actively encouraging people from within the EU illegally—this discussion was on illegal immigrants—to access this country and use the services provided for people in this country? It would be a ridiculous state of affairs if it was the official policy of Her Majesty’s Government to use taxpayers’ money to fund an agency to give out that kind of advice. If the Government’s policy is that they do not like this particular organisation and do not approve of what is it doing, what on earth are we doing with this Bill? Why are we being encouraged, in effect, to allow taxpayers’ money to be spent this agency?

[Mr Chope]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will not welcome this information, but this all goes wider than what he has described, because what is often being suggested is that these people seeking to access health care should be able to do so without disclosing their own identities.

[Philip Davies]

Absolutely, and again I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The situation makes the Government’s position on these matters unjustifiable and completely ridiculous. If the Government do not support all this, why on earth are we in this situation? If we are in this situation because the Minister is utterly powerless to do anything about it because he has no influence whatsoever, I hope he will admit that. When our referendum comes, in 2017 or thereabouts, it will be another argument for why we should leave the European Union.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole idea of an EU quango to lecture member states on how we should behave on human rights is nonsense? This is a group of democratic states, so surely it is the job of the Parliaments of the individual member states to decide on and uphold the human rights in their countries, rather than to be instructed by EU quangos.

[Philip Davies]

My right hon. Friend, as ever, is absolutely right. We certainly need no lectures from other countries in the EU about how to protect people’s freedoms; this country has a far better track record than member states of the EU will ever have. I suspect that the Minister will be trying to defend the indefensible, but it is a sad state of affairs when it appears that we in this House are powerless to do anything about these sorts of bureaucracies. We all know what happens with these types of bureaucracies: they grow and grow, and they empire build. They will grow their influence and they will try to do things that they are not supposed to do—things they were not set up to do. They will grow the number of staff and grow their budget, and it appears from what I have heard so far that we are utterly powerless to do anything about it. If the Minister can give me some comfort that we can and will do something about it, fair enough, but it seems to me that either the Government approve of all this nonsense, which would be a terrible state of affairs, or we are powerless to do anything about it, which in my view is equally unacceptable. I look forward to the Minister explaining which it is, but whichever it is, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is right to draw the matter to the attention of the Committee and to pursue his amendment, which I support with gusto.

[Michael Connarty]

I rise because I am quite exasperated by speeches of the kind made by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). If I really believed that the people of Shipley did not want to have human rights and participation in a convention that tries to guarantee for people across the wider Europe the same human rights that we—as he said, proudly—think we have in our own country, I would be shocked, but I believe that the people of Shipley deserve better. They deserve to hear an explanation of what this is about.

As a Member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I hear these issues debated at every quarterly session and, I hope, participate with colleagues from both sides of the House to try to point out to many countries that are not in the EU that they are not giving human rights in the right quantity to their citizens, but this is about saying that the EU will have an organisation that will also monitor those things. Some might say, “If you have it in the Council of Europe, why require it in the EU?” The reality is that unless a body has economic and legal might, such as exist in the EU, many decisions, such as those taken by the Council of Europe, do not, I am afraid, carry much weight.

There are thousands of cases against countries in the Council of Europe, which have been found in the Court of Human Rights to be in breach but which are not acted upon by the countries covered by it. There are many cases raised by Conservative Members of countries within the EU where there is a requirement for some muscle to be applied so that people cannot be locked up without trial. One case raised by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), who sadly is not in his place, relates to Malta—our own constituents locked up in other countries.

The point of introducing the change that has been made in the EU is to allow the EU to start to participate in that activity—a role that I believe will be parallel to and supportive of what is happening in the Council of Europe and what is debated in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

[Philip Davies]

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate the nonsense of this country being lectured about fundamental rights and human rights by an organisation such as the EU, which has as the initiator of all its legislation an unelected European Commission? Surely one of the most basic rights is being able to elect people who make all the decisions. The EU has not even got that far.

[Michael Connarty]

I hope that the people of Shipley are not believing the mythical nonsense that has just been spoken. I have sat on the House’s European Scrutiny Committee since 1998, and the reality is that the European Commission can initiate proposals for legislation, but legislation cannot be agreed in the EU unless it is passed by the European Council, and we are one of 27 countries that take those decisions. A number of people do not like the fact that many of those decisions are now taken by qualified majority voting and there is no veto—I know that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) is keen on the return of the veto on everything—but that is the decision that was taken by the House through the Lisbon treaty and, before that, through many other treaties. We have participation in a Council that makes the legislation, not the Commission.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is the second of the points that I want to make, which is about subsidiarity. We hear a lot about subsidiarity, yet in practice the European Union goes the other way, rather than saying, “Look, these are the matters which you will probably be concerned with. We’ve had a look at the UK and you’ve got plenty of organisations within the UK to deal with all these matters. There is no need for an EU body.” That applies across all 27, soon to be 28, member states.

[Philip Davies]

Has my hon. Friend thought about what situation we would be left in if the UK got a positive judgment from the European Court of Human Rights, but was then told that it was falling foul of the EU’s Agency for Fundamental Rights?

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which gets to the heart of one of my major concerns about the organisation and why I support entirely the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. It highlights the confusion in the minds of our constituents.

I wonder how many of our constituents even know that that body exists. I suspect that if I conducted a poll on the streets of Bury, I would have to wait a very long time and ask a large number of people before I found anyone who had even heard of the agency, never mind understood what it was intended to do. That is not surprising, because it was introduced in 2007 by the back door. It was introduced under the provisions of section 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, the Lisbon treaty, which allows for such new bodies to be established without any proper discussion. As I say, it was introduced through the back door.

The EU goes on about the principle of subsidiarity, but then we find that it is creating an EU-wide body to do things which, as we have heard in tonight’s debate, are not only being done elsewhere in Europe, but ought to be and can be done properly here in the UK. This is not a cheap body. We know that in 2013 the agency will get a subsidy of €21.3 million from the EU budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a telling point, and I am sure that the Minister will respond to it with the benefit of his knowledge when he winds up. So often we talk hard on these EU issues—sometimes the Government and Ministers talk hard on them—but when we have it in our power to do something about them, we pull our punches and let the matter slide away. Especially now, in the build-up to the decision that the British people will be invited to take on whether we should leave the European Union, it is vital that the Government do not duck these issues, but face up to them.

I very much welcome what the Prime Minister said in his statement to the House earlier today. It was against the background of it being pointed out in the German newspaper Die Welt that the Prime Minister was wrong to suggest that hundreds of eurocrats were paid more than him or Chancellor Merkel, because its research had shown that the actual figure is 4,365. The Prime Minister said how disappointed he was that the administrative costs will still be some 6% of the EU budget, and he said that reducing the level of those costs would be “a long-term project”. Well, this modest amendment would be a start.

Just because there will be more EU Commissioners, it does not mean that the expenditure incurred by them should increase pro rata. The amendment does not ask for any real-terms reduction in the total spent on EU Commissioners, but it suggests that the total amount spent at the moment should be redistributed among the 28 or 29 Commissioners.

[Philip Davies]

Obviously this is a sensible amendment that is totally in line with the Prime Minister’s announcement earlier today, and I presume that the Government cannot possibly disagree with it. Does my hon. Friend think that he has stumbled across another area in which the Government might have to admit that they do not in fact have the power to do what my hon. Friend would like them to do?

[Mr Chope]

I hope that that is not the case, although I do not know whether my hon. Friend has been tipped off about what the Minister will say in response to the debate. I cannot see the point of the Bill if we cannot pass an amendment that has been accepted as in order. The amendment would simply make it a condition of our acceptance of having an EU Commissioner for each member country that the total budget should not be increased if the number goes above 27, but should be shared among however many Commissioners there are. I would be amazed to be told that such a modest amendment was not within our power, especially when we know that it would be going in the direction of travel—to use that ghastly expression—of many other members of the European Union who are concerned that its administrative expenditure seems to absorb far too much money.

[Philip Davies]

Given the Minister’s form tonight, does my hon. Friend not expect him to say that even if the amendment were accepted, the EU would just carry on anyway and recruit the number of staff and expend the resources it wanted to, because it does not take any notice of decisions in this Parliament?

[Mr Chope]

That is a fair point, and it was reflected in what the Prime Minister said earlier. He said that the European Commission simply has not looked at what it can do to constrain its administrative expenditure. He has a lot of knowledge about that issue because he sees it face to face every time he goes to Brussels or any other European institution. He can see the amount of money wasted on bureaucracy in Brussels. There is obviously scope for a modest reduction, and that is why I had hoped that I would have already received notice that the Government intended to accept my amendment.

[Mr Chope]

Absolutely, and I would have thought that this amendment would be supported by Opposition Members too, as they have been in the forefront of calling for a reduction in expenditure by the European Union. Whether or not they believe that sincerely, they have been calling for that.

[Philip Davies]

Is not the opposite point to the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) more pertinent? What message would it send to the European Union about the Government’s determination to clamp down on administrative costs in the EU if they resisted such a modest amendment as this?

[Mr Chope]

That is a very powerful point. By their actions shall people and Parliaments be judged. This is how we are going to send out a message to our European partners. Are we really serious about these issues, or are we just going through the motions? I look forward to hearing from a Member of this House who thinks it is wrong to limit the expenditure of the European Commission to what it is at the moment so that it cannot be increased. If there are such Members, I hope that they will have the courage of their convictions and stand up. If that does not happen, then I hope the Government will accept the amendment. It gives me great pleasure to have moved this modest amendment. Looking at it, I wonder whether it is too modest. On the other hand, it would be better to get this on the record than to create too much controversy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

That brings me to my second point, which is that if British Ministers were to open that kind of conversation with our partners, their immediate response would be to say that such is already provided for in the European Union’s budgetary set-up. Even if the number of Commissioners increases to 28 or beyond, that cannot result in any increase in the ceiling set by the multi-annual financial framework, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister negotiated last week at the European Council; nor can an increase in the number of Commissioners lead to an increase in annual spending limits. To paraphrase what I think my hon. Friend said in moving his amendment, if there has to be additional expenditure to provide for a new Commissioner and his or her team, it would need to be found from elsewhere in the European Union budget, subject to the ceilings set unanimously by the European Council in respect of the multi-annual framework and, subsequently, each annual budget negotiated and agreed by qualified majority vote on a 12-monthly basis, so there is a measure of safeguards already.

Let me also make this point to my hon. Friend. I am the first to agree that when we look for efficiencies and economies, we should not be shy about looking for savings in small matters as well as large. However, we also need to be clear about what an extra Commissioner would entail. It is true that it would mean providing somewhere in the budget for a salary for that Commissioner and their immediate cabinet. That money would have to be found, within the ceilings, by sacrificing spending opportunities elsewhere, but the process would not mean the creation of entirely new directorates-general. Indeed, I can tell the House that the discussions already under way about provision for a probable new Croatian Commissioner involve the splitting up of existing directorates-general and parcelling them in a slightly different way, not adding to the overall number of new people working for the Commission. We are talking about a redistribution of responsibilities among a larger number of Commissioners.

[Philip Davies]

I am enjoying my right hon. Friend’s gymnastics in trying to resist the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). Am I right in thinking that my right hon. Friend is saying that we should not worry because the overall EU budget is capped and, therefore, that if the EU wastes more money on a European Commissioner, that will just mean it has less to waste on something else? Is that really the thrust of his argument?

[Mr Lidington]

What I am saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is that the objective that is explicitly sought in the amendment—to ensure that the budget does not increase as a consequence of the appointment of additional Commissioners—is a principle that is already embodied in the European Union’s budgetary arrangements, both multi-annual and annual.

My third point is about what is perhaps the most important area. It should remain a key priority for the Government of the United Kingdom—and, I should add, for a fair number of other national Governments around the European Union—to look for ways to make the European Union more efficient in everything it does and to look for every opportunity to eliminate wasteful or unnecessary expenditure. There are a number of ways that that could be done.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) talked about a possible reconfiguration of the Commission along a senior Minister/junior Minister model. That is not something to which the UK Government are committed at the moment, but it is certainly one idea that is being discussed in think-tanks and elsewhere as a means of trying to impose not just greater efficiency, but greater coherence on the operations of the Commission. If we look at the Commission today, to provide one illustration, we have a Commissioner for External Relations, who is the High Representative on foreign policy, and we have separate Commissioners for international development, for disaster relief and for European Union enlargement. One conceivable model would be to see those four portfolios given to a Commissioner who was head of department and to subordinate Commissioners reporting to that more senior post holder. That is one way of seeking greater efficiency, but there are many others, too.

Antarctic Bill

Philip Davies Excerpts

Friday 18th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael]

I am grateful for that intervention. The Bill looks into the marine aspects of Antarctica as well. Obviously we would be building on such measures in different ways, and although the Bill is specific about the provisions that the hon. Lady has already outlined, I take note of what she has said. Indeed, my interest in this area will lead me to discuss later the matter of promoting the protection of the Southern ocean.

Let me emphasise the value of clause 5 in connection not just with preparation, but with contingency planning. That is where clause 5 comes into its own, because it makes it clear that contingency planning is necessary, and it is easy to justify in connection with the rest of the Bill.

[Philip Davies]

I absolutely accept my hon. Friend’s point, but surely he would accept that under the current arrangements, with the 1994 Act and annex V, people are already required to produce a management plan, which, as I see it, is not greatly different from what is proposed in clause 5. Does he therefore accept that there is still some doubt about whether clause 5 is as necessary as he says?

[Neil Carmichael]

Clause 5 extends the preparation from simply producing a management plan to contingency planning. Contingency planning requires one to assess risk—to be well aware of what the risks are and how great they can be in the Antarctic. I believe we are extending something that is already good, and I am grateful for the suggestion, which we have heard today, that we are building on existing good practice. Clause 5 is a significant step in the right direction in ensuring that contingency measures are taken, because as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) noted, we have had accidents. Those accidents have involved shipping and they have been significantly damaging to the ocean, and we do not want to see more of them, especially on Antarctica.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I take the Minister’s point on new clause 1. If there is no cost-benefit analysis, post-legislative scrutiny or whatever we want to call it, how will the Government assess whether the Bill is effective or whether we need to put more measures in place to protect the Antarctic?

[Mark Simmonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to clarify that point. We believe that the best place to do that analysis on an ongoing basis is under the architecture of the Antarctic treaty and at the Antarctic council, where the UK plays a significant, positive and engaged role. If opportunities emerge from that analysis in the future to add additional environmental protection with the agreement of all the other members of the Antarctic council, we will consider it extremely closely.

[Philip Davies]

Is the Minister saying that the Antarctic council will effectively be carrying out the kind of cost-benefit analysis that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) has in mind in his new clause? If the Minister is saying that, all well and good, but I was not entirely sure that that was what he was saying.

[Mark Simmonds]

The Antarctic council, as well as the UK as an important part of that council, will assess the whole gamut and remit of the working of the Antarctic treaties and the Bills that have come out of the protocols that developed out of the 1959 agreement, the 1961 treaty, the 1994 Act and the protocols agreed in 2005. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that there will be continual assessments, but the assessments the Government have made in the run-up to the Bill demonstrated, as I said earlier, that there will be no significant additional costs or detrimental impact on UK businesses or scientific operations as the Bill is structured.

Let me address the second set of remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North on amendment 1 to clause 15, which relates to historic sites and monuments as provided for under annex V of the protocol on environmental protection to the Antarctic treaty. It is important to note that any party may propose a site or monument of recognised historic value for such designation to the Antarctic treaty consultative meeting. As the Antarctic treaty system operates on the basis of consensus, the agreement of all Antarctic treaty parties is needed for such a designation to be approved. Once approved, the proposed site is added to the approved list of historic sites and monuments, which is kept updated by the Antarctic treaty secretariat. As Members will no doubt recognise, the designation of historic sites and monuments and the protection that affords them under the Antarctic treaty and subsequent protocols is of extremely high importance to the United Kingdom, as we have significant historical ties with and have taken a significant interest in the Antarctic since Captain Scott’s visit there. It is important on this day to recognise the bravery and commitment of those early explorers.

I want to ensure that the House understands that clause 15, as drafted, provides that the Secretary of State will grant a permit to any British national involved in such work. That will ensure that the work is undertaken to high standards, and that a proper system is in place to guarantee that any artefacts removed for conservation work remain protected until they can be returned to Antarctica. That is important because the British Antarctic Territory has published a heritage strategy for the conservation of the British historic huts and other artefacts in the territory, which has been agreed with the United Kingdom Antarctic Heritage Trust and the British Antarctic Survey. That sets out overall principles for heritage conservation in the territory, and the United Kingdom Antarctic Heritage Trust has developed such plans, and undertakes a programme of maintenance at some of the sites, particularly the huts, each year. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has granted the trust £100,000 in 2011 to support that important work, and the Government of the British Antarctic Territory share profits from the sale of stamps and coins, which also helps to support the trust’s important work.

I am sure that all Members of the House share the national pride in the historic discovery, exploration and scientific pioneering legacy of the UK in Antarctica. The scientific legacy of Captain Scott’s exhibition permeated many of the studies undertaken in subsequent years. British graves and other important legacy aspects are also there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

The Minister made some very good points about my amendment, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael). I am as satisfied with the explanations given on my amendment as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) appears to be with regard to his amendments.

[Mr Nuttall]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making his view clear to the House. I said that I might be persuaded by his arguments, but I am grateful that he was persuaded by the other arguments, and that clause 5 will remain in the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Third Reading

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), and to learn of his expertise and interest in this matter, particularly as it relates to Plymouth. It was a pleasure to speak on Second Reading, and I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak on Third Reading, too.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael). He has built up a significant amount of knowledge of this subject. I was particularly struck by the fact that he has visited the Antarctic in his endeavours to guide this Bill through Parliament. That shows great dedication. Buoyed by his triumph with this Bill, he may well be thinking of introducing a future private Member’s Bill on, perhaps, the Caribbean, and of making it his policy to visit every place his Bills address. If he does not do that, I am sure other Members will have noted the initiative he has deployed, and will want to build on his example.

The Bill is important, and my hon. Friend should be immensely proud of steering it through Parliament. As we all know, managing the progress of private Members’ Bills is always a challenge, and it can be difficult to guide them over all the hurdles put in their way. Fortunately, the Members who tend to erect those barriers are not present today to block the progress of this Bill, and my hon. Friend has good will from both sides of the House. He has argued for the Bill with characteristic charm, too, which has also stood him in good stead.

I certainly do not oppose this Bill. It implements an important part of the Antarctic treaty system, complementing and completing the set of internationally binding agreements. This is a noble cause. We must focus on both environmental protection and scientific research. Our country has a long and proud history of being at the forefront of both of those important endeavours, and the Bill continues that tradition. This country has always been in the vanguard of exploring the unknown and finding new ways to do things, thus revolutionising the way we live.

Antarctica is, of course, an unspoilt part of the world, which is why we need to ensure the conditions imposed by the Bill are fulfilled, and any other legislation is also enforced. It is one thing having the legislation in place, but it is quite another to make sure it is enforced. The Bill achieves the first part, and it is crucial that all the relevant authorities are involved in making sure the letter and spirit of its provisions are followed.

The Bill seeks to implement the liability annex to the Antarctic treaty that was agreed in 2005; the protocol has six annexes and, as we know, the first five are already in force, so this is the next stage of that process. Determining how the environment of the Antarctic will evolve over the next century presents challenges and has many implications for science and for policy makers. One reason why this is so important is that travelling to the most distant corners of our planet is becoming more and more popular. Such travel is becoming less of an issue, less of a challenge and more logistically possible. It is becoming more popular for adventurous people, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, who want to explore distant corners of the planet. I do not think we can call them backpackers; they are just adventurous people. That increased popularity of travel is why the implementation of annex VI to the protocol on environmental protection to the Antarctic treaty is so important. Implementation has been delayed and it is an outstanding issue, which is why it needs to be finalised.

When the Government find it difficult to find the time for certain legislation, private Members’ Bills are the appropriate route to take, and this is a very appropriate Bill to steer through, particularly given that it has all-party agreement. It amends the Antarctic Act 1994, and I wish to refer to something that the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said when that Antarctic Bill was being debated. I do not always agree with him, but I agree with the following:

“The environmental message from the Antarctic is absolutely overwhelming. There is no other place on earth where one can drill for a core sample. In the Soviet research base the deepest possible ice-core samples have been drilled. We can check what the water purity was like as long ago as 500 years…We can see what we are doing to the planet by studying core samples of ice in the Antarctic.”

He went on to say:

“The Antarctic has the largest amount of water locked up in it of anywhere in the world. The Antarctic demonstrates the fragility of the planet and the ecosystem. If we do not use the Antarctic as a place for research, we shall be denying ourselves knowledge”.—[Official Report, 25 February 1994; Vol. 238, c. 568-69.]

Those words said back in 1994 still apply in exactly the same way today. This Bill simply reflects changes that have taken place. It brings the legislation up to date and will help to ensure that other countries follow the example we have been setting.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud set out the position clearly in his excellent speeches on Second Reading and, in particular, on Third Reading today. He set out not only why this Bill is so important, but his passion for the subject; this was not just his personal passion, but British passion for this particular area, which goes back hundreds of years. The UK has been actively involved in Antarctica through the heroics of the explorers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) made clear, and this Bill is the next stage of our involvement, which is why it is so important to people in this country.

I am well aware that we are on Third Reading and therefore we are talking solely about what is in the Bill; we cannot discuss what is potentially not in the Bill or what could be in the Bill. I certainly do not intend to deviate from that, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I just want to pick out one or two clauses in the Bill that set out why it is so important and such a good piece of legislation—I do not want to go through the whole Bill, because that would be unnecessary and time-consuming.

Clause 1 is entitled: “Duty to take response action”.

That is incredibly important as it introduces a new statutory duty on those organising activities in Antarctica—importantly, both government and non-government—to take

“reasonable, prompt and effective response action”

where their activities

“directly or indirectly give rise to an environmental emergency”.

That is a key part of the Bill. It applies only to activities organised by a person based in the UK or activities “connected with” the UK—that would obviously be the case as that is all we can provide for. Nevertheless, the provision still makes a very important difference.

In addition, the failure to comply—to make such a response—is made a criminal offence, with an associated maximum two-year custodial sentence or fine, or both. It is worth pointing out—this has not been done so far—that we are introducing some serious offences in this Bill. It takes an awful lot to be sent to prison in this country, as many of our constituents know only too well. The fact that breaching this part of the Bill is made a criminal offence with a two-year custodial sentence reflects how seriously the House takes these matters.

Clauses 2 to 4 and the schedule concern the civil liability for failure to respond to an environmental emergency. That is a key part of the Bill and something that we should all support. The liability annex encourages parties to take response action to environmental emergencies when those causing them have failed to do so. That takes me to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) made about the belief that the polluter should pay. One of the key parts of the Bill is the fact that it entrenches that principle in legislation. He made the point that too often in the past that has not happened and the Bill is an important step in ensuring that it does. It also enables the Government to recover costs in those situations where they might have had to take action to respond to an environmental emergency, allowing them to get the cost back. That is crucial.

Clause 3, on the liability to the Antarctic environmental liability fund, is an important part of the Bill, and that probably did not come out in the debate as much as it might have done. It is essential, because it requires the operator responsible to pay into an Antarctic environmental liability fund the equivalent costs of the response action that should have been taken. That measure is more important than many people might understand and it was previously lacking.

We must accept that such emergencies are not remote possibilities that will probably never happen. We have already experienced accidents in Antarctica that have raised ecological and safety concerns. Indeed, in recent years some kind of incident has taken place most years and the Bill might well help to deal with such situations. In November 2006, a Quark Expeditions ship ran aground on Deception Island in the South Shetland Islands. In January 2007, we had another incident in the same area—and so on, and so forth. I shall not go through all the examples, Mr Deputy Speaker, as there is no need to at this point. However, accidents are not just remote possibilities. There is every chance that the provisions in the Bill will need to be invoked at some point.

I want to touch on clause 5. We had a fairly long debate on Report about the merits of the clause and I set out the case that it was perhaps not necessary, but having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and the Minister, both of whom are experts in this field and know far more about it than I do, I think they made a persuasive case that clause 5 is an important part of the Bill. The duty to take preventive measures and make contingency plans is necessary and although there might be some requirements under the 1994 Act, the clause moves things further forward, puts more requirements on people and is a belt-and-braces approach to what is required. The Minister made the point—and I was particularly persuaded by this—that putting something in legislation so that it applies to everybody, not just to people who are applying for permits through the FCO, means that there is no doubt about people’s liabilities. That was a very good point and certainly persuaded me of the merits of clause 5.

I do not want to delay the House too much further as other colleagues wish to contribute to the debate, but we can be very proud of the fact that we are continuing a long tradition in this country of playing our part in protecting a very special part of the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud should be commended. I know that when people do well in the ballot for private Members’ Bills they are bombarded with people wanting them to introduce one measure or another. Many people in this House will believe that my hon. Friend chose wisely and picked a noble cause. He is into the home straight—into the final furlong, as some might put it—and that is down to his skill. He should be commended for that and for introducing this important piece of legislation.

Antarctic Bill

Philip Davies Excerpts

Friday 2nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash). I cannot guarantee Members that I shall talk about anything as interesting as his wife’s family history, and I am sure we are all sorry that he cut his long story short, but perhaps we will hear the rest of it another time.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) on being successful in the private Member’s Bill ballot and making progress with his Bill, and I am sure he will be heartened by the widespread support that it has received. I certainly do not intend to do anything to prevent it from making further progress today. Therefore, as is customary on these occasions, I shall try to keep my remarks relatively brief.

This Bill makes

“provision consequential on Annex VI to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty”

and amends the Antarctic Act 1994. That Act implements most of the Antarctic treaty requirements in domestic law, and this Bill seeks to implement further treaty measures.

The Bill has two parts. The first addresses liability and the annex, and deals with environmental emergency liability and the concept that the polluter pays. The second part amends the 1994 Act to allow the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to permit foreign nationals on British-led expeditions and to give additional protection for the Antarctic environment, including its marine life and other living creatures.

Antarctica is a fascinating and important continent. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud had a Westminster Hall debate on the Antarctic.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am sorry for interrupting my hon. Friend so early in what I hope will be a fine and Gladstonian-length speech, but I was wondering whether the requirement to allow foreign nationals on British expeditions is a requirement of EU law, and whether, once again, the European Union is getting its grubby mitts on our legislative process.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a good point and, as he knows, I share his horror of the European Union sticking its nose into our affairs. His question might be best answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, as this is his Bill, but I think that provision is intended to allay the concerns of universities who might have foreign nationals on teams wanting to carry out research in the Antarctic. At present, the required process is quite difficult, and involves having to get foreign nationals’ own countries to sort things out. The idea is that it would be a lot easier for research institutions in this country if the British Government could sort everything out. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is, however, always wise to be on the look-out for encroachment by the European Union, the consequences of which are hardly ever in our favour.

[Neil Carmichael]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making this speech in support of my Bill, and I can assure him that the EU is not involved in this in any way at all.

[Philip Davies]

I think we are all grateful for that clarification. My hon. Friend may be disappointed that the EU is not involved in some way, however, as I know his views on Europe are somewhat different from mine. It is a great pleasure to me and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset that the EU has not got its grubby little hands all over this Bill.

Before discussing the details of the Bill, it is important to look at where we are now and how we got there. The Antarctic treaty was ratified on 1 December 1959 in Washington DC and came into force on 23 June 1961. It established international co-operation to protect and preserve Antarctica. The UK enacted its obligations through the Antarctic Treaty Act 1967. There were 12 original signatories of the 1959 treaty, including the Governments of the UK, Australia, Belgium, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, the Soviet Union—as it was then—and the USA. As the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) made clear, the other signatories were Argentina and Chile.

[Mr Cash]

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has just reminded me that last week in the European Scrutiny Committee we had a document before us that confers observer status on the European Union—no doubt to complement the Soviet Union, which my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has just referred to as being a party to these international bodies. It is extraordinary, and I hope we can find out exactly why it is, that the EU should be given that status. We are primarily dealing here with the British Antarctic, but perhaps as the Bill goes through Committee we will find out.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that; he is as vigilant as ever on these matters. I understand why the mention of the Soviet Union drew his immediate thoughts to the European Union, as there is very little to choose between the two.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the European Union has just issued a new logo with the hammer and sickle at the very top of it, which makes the connection explicit?

[Philip Davies]

I am sure that we are all grateful to my hon. Friend for that update, and that we are all alarmed, if not surprised, by that development.

In addition to the treaty signatories, we now have “other consultative parties”, such as Brazil, China, India, Germany, Italy, Holland, Finland, Sweden, Spain, and even Ecuador, Uruguay, Peru, Bulgaria, Poland and South Korea. There are also other “non-consultative parties”, including Austria, Belarus, Canada, Colombia, Cuba and the Czech Republic. I will not read them all out, Mr Deputy Speaker, but suffice it to say that plenty of other countries are also involved on a non-consultative basis.

The treaty parties meet each year at the Antarctic treaty consultative meeting, for the purpose of consulting and exchanging information on matters of common interest pertaining to Antarctica. The reasons for the treaty were competing territorial ambitions—my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) made much mention of those—and claims by various countries, including the UK, that sometimes overlapped each other. At the same time, Antarctic scientific research was becoming more important, which encouraged the need for the negotiation of a peaceful agreement establishing spheres of interest and the permanent presence of national teams conducting scientific research. The UK made its first territorial claim in 1908 and has had a permanent presence since 1943. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, our zone of presence is called the British Antarctic Territory, which was established to provide survey and meteorological information in the south Atlantic ocean—this is known as the British Antarctic Survey. The BAT is administered by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and, as I am sure we all know, it is located in the coldest and windiest part of the Antarctic and it has no indigenous population.

The main objectives of the treaty can be defined as follows: to demilitarise Antarctica; to establish it as a zone free of nuclear tests and the disposal of radioactive waste; and to ensure that it is used for peaceful purposes only. That is set out in the introduction to the Antarctic treaty 1959, which states:

“Recognizing that it is in the interest of all mankind that Antarctica shall continue for ever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or object of international discord”.

Nuclear explosions and the disposal of radioactive material are prohibited under article V(1). However, article V(2) states:

“In the event of the conclusion of international agreements concerning the use of nuclear energy, including nuclear explosions and the disposal of radioactive waste material”—

by—

“all of the Contracting Parties...the rules established under such agreements shall apply in Antarctica.”

Although, hypothetically, this might be allowed and executable, it is rather unlikely that all the parties to the treaty would agree on such actions at the same time.

The second objective is to promote international scientific co-operation in Antarctica, which we have heard quite a lot about today, so I will not dwell on that. The third objective is to set aside disputes over territorial sovereignty. The treaty preserves the incompatible views regarding territory that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford spoke about earlier, but prevents any action from being taken to create, extend, support or deny claims to territorial sovereignty. All these factors make the governance of Antarctica slightly more complex than anywhere else in the world. It is important to say that the treaty is already in force indefinitely.

As with other international treaties and agreements that have been adopted by a large number of states, more than 300 recommendations have been adopted by the Antarctic treaty parties which negotiated separate international agreements, of which three are still in use. These three treaties are collectively known as the Antarctic treaty system—ATS. The three international agreements are the convention for the conservation of Antarctic seals 1972, the convention on the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources 1980, and the protocol on environmental protection to the Antarctic treaty 1991. I will come to each of these separately.

What is important to all these agreements is the geography of Antarctica, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud referred at the beginning of his remarks. He pointed out that the Antarctic was about one and a half times the size of the USA. It is also one and a third times the size of Europe. It is a huge area, bigger than China and India combined. The Antarctic icecap contains 90% of the ice on earth. It is almost impossible to live there, but Antarctica is well known for its biodiversity, which is one of the reasons why my hon. Friend is so keen on the Bill—whales, seals, mammals, emperor penguins, albatross, vertebrates and microscopic organisms are well adapted to the cold climate. In contrast with the Arctic tundra, the Antarctic tundra lacks large mammal fauna.

According to the convention on the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources, the first Antarctic marine living resources to be exploited were fur seals and elephant seals early in the 19th century. Subsequently great whales were hunted in Antarctic waters. Most, if not all, Southern ocean whales are migratory. They head into warmer waters during the Antarctic winter and the calves are born in these more hospitable seas, as they would struggle to survive in polar waters during their first few months. No native bird or mammal may be killed or captured without a licence from the competent authority. Thanks to the British Antarctic Survey, I know a great deal more about seals than I did before, but given that time is pressing, I will not indulge the House by passing on some of the facts that I learned about seals, but I commend my hon. Friends to read them.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am sure the subject of seals will be of great interest to the House. Will my hon. Friend make a copy of his research available in the Library?

[Philip Davies]

I am not sure the demand would justify making the research available in the Library, but I am happy to send it to my hon. Friend. He can do with it what he wishes. I would not want to trouble the House of Commons Library with it, although it is interesting.

The extremely cold and dry climate does not allow rich vegetation, but some flora exists on the continent, which creates the Antarctic tundra in some parts of the continent, particularly the Antarctic peninsula, which has areas of rocky soil that support plant life.

The protocol on environmental protection to the Antarctic treaty is of great importance to the Bill. A ban on mining was imposed in 1998. The protocol, which was introduced in 1998, will be reviewed in 2048.

Part 1 of the Bill introduces a number of new statutory duties on those operating in Antarctica, relating to appropriate response action, preventive measures and contingency planning and information. It will come into force when it is officially approved by all the consultative parties which signed up to annex VI in 2005. I would imagine that this would be quite a difficult and lengthy process as there are 28 separate signatories and it is hard to envisage that they would all be content with every single part of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what progress has been made in getting agreement with all the consultative parties that signed up, because that could be one of the most difficult parts of bringing this into operation. In 2009, the previous Government launched a consultation on a draft Antarctic Bill, and the version that we see today deals with issues raised by that consultation and includes some of the subsequent recommendations.

Clause 1 says that

“the person who organised the activities must take reasonable, prompt and effective response action.”

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has something precisely in mind on what would constitute such action—whether that would be left for the courts to decide, or whether the Government have formulated any definitions. At the moment, it is not particularly clear. The clause also says that the costs that would have to be incurred

“are the costs that the person would have incurred had the person taken reasonable, prompt and effective response action.”

That seems to be rather difficult to determine, and it would be helpful to know exactly how it would be done. How would we know exactly what the costs would have been if people had taken such action in the event that they are before the courts because they have not done so? I do not know whether my hon. Friend wants to deal with those matters now or in Committee.

[Neil Carmichael]

I think that they would be more appropriately dealt with in Committee. The definition of

“reasonable and prompt response action”

has to be seen in the context of the difficult and unpredictable circumstances in the region that we are talking about, and that should be borne in mind.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a fair point. Legislation of this kind is problematic in that it is easy to be too vague and easy to be too specific. I understand that he is trying to leave enough flexibility for individual circumstances to be taken into consideration. Perhaps he had in mind the similar provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which asks employers to make reasonable provision without specifying what “reasonable” means so that it can be considered on a case-by-case basis. However, it would be helpful if at some point we had a better understanding of what might be considered to be reasonable and who might decide that, or whether it would be left to a court to decide.

The liability annex obliges state parties to take preventive measures and to establish contingency plans for responses to incidents with a potentially adverse impact on the Antarctic environment. It imposes strict financial liability for the polluter to pay the costs of response action. Concerns may well arise about the level of liability that might be incurred by smaller expedition operators who do not have the financial muscle of some of the big corporations. In the case of commercial fishing operators, for example, would the expedition organisers or their employees be liable for any damage? Would there be corporate or individual responsibility for these liabilities if the corporation concerned could show due diligence in what they expected of their individual employees?

The potentially heavy burden that the sanction might place on individuals might not be realisable. Would individuals have to pay or would the sanction be limited to companies? Would the ability to pay also be factored into any costs and fines incurred? The Bill makes it clear that the money taken would be based on the costs of cleaning up or the costs that would have been incurred had the people concerned acted properly. Will there be a provision to cover circumstances in which they do not have the money? I urge my hon. Friend to address this issue in Committee. Rather than accept that they do not have the money and that, therefore, nothing can be recovered, it might be worth while to have a provision stating that the company or people concerned have to be able to afford the payment; otherwise, the big hammer with which we hit them might end up being meaningless and worthless.

According to the Library research paper, part 1 also has measures that

“enhance contingency planning to reduce the risks of ‘environmental emergencies’ in Antarctica i.e. accidents with significantly harmful environmental impacts such as oil spills.”

I have mentioned that Antarctica does not have great natural resources sufficient for exploration, so it is hard to imagine environmental emergencies such as oil spills in Antarctica. Not only are the temperatures extremely low for oil to sustain its qualities—in contrast with extracting it elsewhere in the oil-rich world—but there is also a deficiency of oil for adequate extraction. Drilling would be totally ineffective and economically unfeasible for oil companies due to the remoteness and hostility of the climate and related conditions, which would make it exceptionally difficult for any such businesses to operate. How big an issue will that be?

[Neil Carmichael]

My hon. Friend is making some interesting points. He is right that these matters are likely to be considered in Committee, but the Bill does mention insurance for expeditions as part of their preparations. On oil, I commented in my speech on 600,000 litres of diesel being spilled by a ship. That also needs be borne in mind.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend’s point about insurance is a good one. We need to encourage people to take out the relevant and necessary insurance before they start and the Bill considers what happens if they do not do that. Perhaps that should be explored in more detail in Committee.

The explanatory notes state that the protocol on environmental protection to the Antarctic treaty, which was signed in 1991 and entered into force in 1998, already

“provides for the comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment. Its Article 7 prohibits any activity relating to mineral resources other than scientific research. Until 2048 the Protocol can only be modified by unanimous agreement of all the Consultative Parties to the Treaty and, in addition, the prohibition on activity relating to mineral resources cannot be removed without a binding legal regime on Antarctic mineral resource activities being in force.”

It is important to state that considerable protection is already in place in the Antarctic. I accept that my hon. Friend is seeking to strengthen that protection in order to address unforeseeable future circumstances, but will the Minister explain what additional protection the Government think the Bill necessitates that is not already covered by the international treaties?

The British Antarctic Territory is the UK’s largest overseas territory and is administered by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as an overseas dependent territory—an arrangement that dates back to 1908. Rather than dwell on that point, I take this opportunity to support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford. I think it is fair to say that he is the leading authority in the House on the British overseas territories and does a fantastic amount of work to defend and speak up for them, often when very few other people are prepared to do so. We should commend him for what he does, and particularly for what he said today about the British Antarctic Survey and the Natural Environment Research Council. I endorse everything that he said. I do not want to go over old ground, but his points were particularly well made.

The BAS operates its research stations in the Antarctic throughout the year, and it should also be commended for its fantastic work in South Georgia, Adelaide Island and Coats Land. We were right to be concerned about the merger that my hon. Friend discussed at length, and everybody welcomes today’s statement about it.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his generous remarks. Does he agree that when we discuss the British presence in that region, the sovereignty of our three overseas territories there—the Falklands, the British Antarctic Territory and South Georgia—should be paramount? He mentioned the Antarctic peninsula, and he will know that in South Georgia there is a peninsula called the Thatcher peninsula. I have no doubt that he would celebrate the name of that part of that overseas territory.

[Philip Davies]

Absolutely. I can think of no better name for it; it is greatly honoured by having that name, as far as I am concerned.

My hon. Friend makes a good point about sovereignty. As he knows, I absolutely agree with him on these matters, as I am sure the Minister does. It is important to make the point that the existing treaties make it clear that nobody can question our sovereignty over those territories. Others may have their own claims, but nothing in the treaties can encourage them to make them aggressively.

One might think that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud had brought a niche issue before the House today. I think it is a big issue, but people might consider it a niche one in parliamentary terms. Nevertheless, it has generated quite a bit of interest in the form of parliamentary questions. It is a shame that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) is not here today, because I know that he takes a close interest in it. I commend him in his absence for his work in pressing the Government on the mission and scientific research of the BAS. He has pressed both the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Foreign Office on that and has raised some interesting points about the funding of the work that is carried out. I should point out that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) has also done so. He has a constituency interest, given where the BAS is based.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I associate myself with my hon. Friend’s comments about the work of colleagues who are not here, as well as those who are, in highlighting the important work of the BAS. Will he also draw attention to the work of the Science and Technology Committee, which undertook an investigation and published a report this week? [Interruption.] It made a useful contribution to the final decision to put on hold decisions about the future of the BAS, which is completely the right thing to do. Will he encourage the Minister—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. An intervention is meant to be very short. The hon. Lady had a good go, and I tried to give her a nudge, but she wanted to carry on. I am sure that Mr Davies, with his ability, has got the message. If needs be, the hon. Lady can intervene again shortly.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. It is a shame that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset is not here, as he could add the Science and Technology Committee’s report to the reading material on seals with which I will supply him. I am sure that piece of work will trump anything I can produce, and that my hon. Friend will be particularly interested in it.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex has been pressing the Government on the British Antarctic Survey, and in particular its cost to the public purse over the past few years. Given the financial situation we are in, it is understandable that expenditure has been considerably reduced over the past five years or so. Does the Minister have any thoughts on what an optimum amount of money would be to ensure that BAS’s work continues? Total resource and capital expenditure has fallen from £56 million to £46 million over the past six years.

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Evans. I am sure that your predecessor, Mr Hoyle, was sad to leave during such an exciting part of the debate. Clause 14 amends the Antarctic Act 1994 to enable the UK to grant permits to non-British nationals on British expeditions, and it concerns an important point that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset raised earlier. The legislation will enable foreign scientists working in the UK to apply to the UK for authorisation, rather than to their national Governments. As I understand, non-UK nationals are not currently eligible for a UK permit, even if their activity is to take place on an expedition organised by a British scientific institution. The Bill’s explanatory notes highlight that that has previously “caused inconvenience” to some UK institutions that employ non-UK nationals, and could even prevent a national of a state not party to the protocol from being issued a permit. That anomaly clearly needs to be resolved, and this Bill is a useful mechanism for dealing with it.

Part 2 of the Bill also implements agreed revisions to annex 2 of the environmental protocol on the conservation of Antarctic fauna and flora. It tidies up the implementation of the original treaty, which was signed in 1959 and came into force in 1961, and subsequent agreements. The Bill proposes to

“give marine plants and invertebrates protection for the first time”—

I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud is proud to do that—

“introduce measures to conserve British Historical Sites and Monuments in Antarctica better”,

which I am sure all hon. Members support, and

“update the Antarctic Act 1994 to facilitate better regulation of British activities in Antarctica, including to respond to the increasing internationalisation of Antarctic expeditions.”

Other matters tend to be fairly straightforward. I am anxious about time and to hear what the Minister has to say, and I am sure that all hon. Members wish to see other important business progress. In conclusion, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud on his Bill, which has the support of the whole House. I would like to think that my contribution has been helpful—people do not always say that my contributions to Friday debates are helpful, but on this occasion I hope it has been useful in raising issues that we may wish to consider further in Committee. We must ensure that we end up with a Bill that gives the best possible protection to an important part of British overseas territories, which is what we all want.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Simmonds]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I hope that he will be patient, because I will address that issue in a moment. I am going to go through the points that have been raised in a logical, chronological order.

In his well-informed contribution earlier, the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) asked about the military presence in Antarctica, and he was absolutely right to seek clarification on that important point. I can inform the House that the Antarctic treaty prohibits military testing or exercises there. However, military help with the logistics of national programmes is allowed. That is why HMS Protector will be in the Antarctic this year to assist with UK programmes in such areas as hydrographic charting, to give logistical support to the British Antarctic Survey and to provide a search and rescue capability.

The hon. Gentleman just raised the important point about the unfortunate breakdown in the negotiations in Hobart yesterday. It is extremely disappointing that there has been a failure to reach agreement on the new marine protected areas, particularly those in the Ross sea, which I think was the area to which he was referring. The UK has an excellent reputation, under both Governments, for the creation of marine protected areas. We were instrumental in setting up the first one in the Southern ocean around the South Orkneys, and we have announced a new one around South Georgia in the Southern ocean as well. Our commitment to the protection and sustainable use of the Southern ocean is undimmed and undiluted. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we will continue to work to persuade other countries to reach an agreement on the creation of appropriate marine protected areas, and that we are pressing hard for an opportunity to bring the process back on track in anticipation, hopefully, of an agreement at the conference next year.

The hon. Gentleman also made a point about whether the Bill’s application is to only part of Antarctica or to the whole of it. I can assure him that it will cover British expeditions and activities anywhere in Antarctica. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), he asked about the time scale for the Bill’s ratification by all members. I can give an assurance that the UK will push for ratification by other members as fast as possible. Indeed, some—including Finland, Peru, Poland, Spain, Sweden and, recently, Australia—have already ratified the protocols before the UK. All 28 consultative parties to this particular liability index have signed article 6 of the environmental protocol. This Bill, along with other national Bills, is merely a ratification of what has already been signed up to, so we anticipate no significant issues or problems there.

In response to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) about the EU’s possible interest in British expeditions or other aspects of the Antarctic, I can confirm that the Bill’s amendment to existing legislation reflects the growing international nature of science teams and the necessity for universities—mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley—to secure easier recognition of world-class British expeditions, which inevitably have an international flavour nowadays.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone was absolutely right to highlight the importance of clause 15, which provides for orderly regulation and conservation of historic and monumental sites, and of clause 16, which increases the environmental protections of flora and fauna, along with marine plants and invertebrates. He raised the issue of the EU’s application for observer status. I can confirm that it is not for the Antarctic but for the Arctic Council that the EU is trying to gain such status. I can confirm, too, that this has not been agreed and that the EU has no status in the Antarctic treaty system.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley gave a very forensic and detailed analysis of the legislative architecture surrounding this Bill. It will not come as a surprise to him to hear me say that many of the points he raised deserve thorough and detailed consideration in Committee. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and I will be interested to discuss these issues to ensure that the Committee is happy with the thought process and detail, supplied by my hon. Friend and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, that have gone into the Bill.

It is important to say that the Government are supportive of the Bill. We see it as making a significant contribution to organising Antarctic expeditions and other tours to take preventive measures and establish contingency plans to reduce the risk of environmental emergencies and to secure all-important insurance. The Bill is important, too, for updating existing Antarctic legislation to recognise and respond to the increasingly international flavour of scientific activity and to provide better protection through clauses 15 and 16.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley asked about the liability annex, which mirrors the issue raised by the hon. Member for Islington North. My hon. Friend asked about ratification, too, and I can confirm that once the annex is ratified, we will be able to show leadership, alongside those who have already ratified the environmental protocol, in the Antarctic treaty consultative meetings and actively lobby all countries to ratify at the earliest opportunity.

My hon. Friend raised a series of detailed but very important issues, which I do not intend to go into now unless the House absolutely wants me to. I get the impression that it probably does not. If it would help, I should be happy to write to my hon. Friend in the meantime—especially if he is not here—

[Philip Davies]

I am here.

[Mark Simmonds]

I apologise. He is here, sitting on the Front Bench. I shall write to him setting out the details, if he is happy with that. He may find himself on the Committee, in which case we can dig into some of the issues if he is sufficiently interested.

In response to the point correctly made by the right hon. Member for Warley, I can confirm that the provisions in the draft Bill on which consultation took place in 2009 regarding search and rescue can be implemented by means of the existing permitting regime as contained in the Antarctic Act 1994, and that primary legislation is therefore unnecessary. I am sure he agrees that there is no point in legislating when legislation is not necessary, or when the position is covered by existing legislative frameworks.

The Government believe that the Bill provides a real opportunity and gives proportionate support to the Antarctic environment. This country is rightly proud of its Antarctic heritage in the form of exploration, international co-operation and good governance. I am delighted to support the Bill on behalf of the Government, and I urge Members to give it their active support in Committee in order to ensure its expeditious passage on to the statute book.

Antarctic Bill

Philip Davies Excerpts

Friday 2nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael]

My hon. Friend asks a useful and important question, which, ironically, lies at the heart of the Bill. We have a treaty relationship which effectively controls our relationships with other nation states and our activities in the Antarctic. By ensuring that the treaty is applied to domestic law and is strengthened, we are strengthening our own British presence, and thus issuing a challenge in any dispute that we might have with the Argentine Government. That is one of the key reasons why the Bill should be allowed to proceed.

There are two more general points to be made in connection with the Bill—

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Before my hon. Friend moves on, this is probably my fault rather than his, but I am unclear as to whether the Bill will have any real impact, given that there are all these other international treaties. How will it make any impact whatever on our current structure of international obligations?

[Neil Carmichael]

That is an important question, and there are two points to make in response. First, by showing British leadership and demonstrating that the existing treaty arrangements are important to us and should be important to the other signatories, we will signal that we mean business in respect of international control, ownership and responsibility in the Antarctic. That will make dealing with the challenges we face easier. Secondly, we must be aware of other nations, notably China and Korea, becoming interested in the Antarctic for obvious reasons. We therefore need to protect and enhance our international structures to deal with that.

North Korea

Philip Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

Order. Two more speakers are seeking to catch my eye, and I intend to call the shadow Minister no later than 10.40 am.

National Referendum on the European Union

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

The European Union Act 2011 deals with the future, but this motion deals with where we are today. People already feel that too many powers have been passed on. At a time when people pick up their phones and spend their own money voting week in, week out to keep their favourite contestants on programmes such as “Strictly Come Dancing” and “The X Factor”, many will be baffled as to why the Government and all those who oppose this motion seem keen to prevent them from having their chance to vote on Britain’s future relationship with the European Union.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Does he agree that people will be even more baffled to understand the position of the Liberal Democrats? They stood on an election manifesto to have an in/out referendum and actually marched out of this House in the previous Parliament because they were denied one, so does he not agree that people will be particularly baffled as to why none of those charlatans over there will be voting for this motion?

[Mr Nuttall]

I am sure that millions of Liberal Democrat voters would appreciate having the chance to have their say.