North Korea

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that very important case, on which a number of my colleague parliamentarians have made representations. I believe that the Minister is aware of that case, and I look forward to hearing his comments. I also hope that further representations can be made to the North Korean Government about the release of Dr Oh’s family as part of the amnesty.

The amnesty announcement emphasises what many see as a fresh opportunity, at the start of a new era, to forge further relationships with the people of North Korea. That is the hope of many people in Britain who have worked often for years to develop relationships, and indeed friendships, with people in North Korea to share knowledge, understanding and support. Several of my parliamentary colleagues from the all-party group on North Korea have visited the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea—the DPRK—in recent years, as have many other delegations from the UK. Interestingly, in 2010, that included the Middlesbrough Ladies football team, who apparently attracted a 20,000-strong crowd of spectators.

On a more modest level, but no less importantly, the Speaker of the House of Commons has met the Speaker of the North Korean Assembly, Choe Thae-bok. Mr Speaker was able to raise human rights concerns with his DPRK counterpart in a very constructive discussion. Most recently, the DPRK authorities extended an invitation to the Archbishop of Canterbury to visit their country soon, and I hope that he accepts.

The most recent visit of the all-party parliamentary group was in autumn 2010, after which it produced a report, “Building Bridges Not Walls: the Case for Constructive, Critical Engagement with North Korea”. The report describes a welcome commitment from DPRK officials to dialogue, with particular reference to negotiating a peaceful resolution as regards the relationship between North and South Korea. “Building Bridges Not Walls” also states that the APPG had

“the opportunity to see some encouraging developments, including the establishment of a Russian Orthodox Church in which Russian diplomats freely worship; a Protestant seminary; the work of British Council teachers; English-language teaching at Kim il-Sung University…a newly opened e-Library at Kim il-Sung University; and the establishment of the impressive Pyongyang University of Science and Technology (PUST), with a faculty of teachers from the United States, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. These are welcome developments which we hope will…contribute towards the establishment of a more open and prosperous society for all the people of North Korea.”

I believe that I speak on behalf of many people in this country who fervently hope that the accession to leadership of Kim Jong-un will further pave the way for that.

The APPG delegation also voiced concerns that cannot be batted away with diplomatic niceties about the need to discuss grave human rights issues in North Korea through a process of constructive critical engagement. That should be done in the same way that President Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher established the Helsinki process with the Soviet Union. The APPG reports says:

“It is time for peace, and ‘it is time for Helsinki with a Korean face’.”

In other words, as the human rights researcher David Hawk says, a process is to be encouraged that would

“pursue peace, engagement, and reconciliation in association with the promotion and protection of human rights”.

That sums up more eloquently than I ever could the process that many in Britain desire to see develop in this new era. I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on how the British Government can help to facilitate dialogue to that end.

I turn to the protection of human rights, on which it has to be said that North Korea has, by any international standard, a deplorable record. I was stirred to call for this debate by a visit two months ago to the UK Parliament by a remarkable young man who is now in his late 20s, Shin Dong-hyuk. I understand that he is the only person ever to have escaped from a North Korean prison camp. On hearing Shin’s story, I was moved, by compassion for the North Korean people, to highlight their dignified suffering in order to encourage support for them in their plight. May I record that I called for this debate holding no hatred of the people of North Korea? I am motivated by a deep love for the North Korean people, and by concern for their needs and their deep suffering over decades.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Fiona Bruce]

I will certainly give way to my hon. Friend, particularly as he is chairman of the Conservative party human rights commission, of which I am privileged to be a serving member.

[Mr Buckland]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. May I reinforce her remarks about the evidence of Shin Dong-hyuk, which was not only moving but informative? He taught us that life in the prison camps was very often the only way of life that families who had been born into captivity knew. When he came to the west, he learned for the first time about the Nazi holocaust, and it instantly reminded him of some of his experiences in North Korea. Is that not very powerful testimony of the depth of deprivation of human rights from which the people of North Korea are suffering?

[Fiona Bruce]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. If you will indulge me, Mr Davies, I shall shortly go into further details of Shin Dong-hyuk’s testimony to us.

It was in meetings with the Conservative party human rights commission, and at an event that I chaired on behalf of the Henry Jackson Society, that Shin Dong-hyuk told his life story. It is the personal testimony of someone who was born into a North Korean prison camp, lived there for 23 years and then escaped. As my hon. Friend says, his story was authoritative, valuable and deeply moving.

Shin Dong-hyuk was born in camp 14 in 1982. Shin described the conditions he endured for the first 23 years of his life. When he was 14 years old, his mother and brother were executed in front of him because they tried to escape. He was held for seven months in solitary confinement. The torture he faced was unimaginably inhumane. With extraordinary dignity and lack of bitterness, he described to us how he was hung upside down by his legs and hands from the ceiling, and on one occasion his body was burned over a fire. His torturers pierced his groin with a steel hook; he lost consciousness.

On another occasion, Shin was assigned to work in a garment factory. Severe hard labour is a common feature of North Korea’s prison camps. He accidentally dropped a sewing machine, and as a punishment the prison guards chopped off his middle finger. According to Shin, couples perceived by the authorities to be good workers are arbitrarily selected by prison guards and permitted, even forced, to get married, with a view to producing children who could, in turn, become model workers. Children born in the prison camp are, like Shin, treated as prisoners from birth. As a child in the prison school, Shin recalled the teacher, who was also a prison guard, telling the children that they were animals whose parents should have been killed. He told them that, by contrast, he, the teacher, was a human, and that they should be grateful to be alive.

Shin also recalled seeing, while at school, a seven-year-old girl in his class being severely beaten because she was discovered to have picked up a few grains of wheat on the way to school. The beating continued for two hours, and her classmates had to carry her home. She died the next day.

In 2004, at the age of 22, Shin met a fellow prisoner who had seen life outside the camp. This prisoner described the wider world to Shin. Initially, Shin did not believe him. His entire life until then had been spent behind the barbed wire of the prison camp, and he thought that this was the extent of life. Eventually, the other prisoner convinced him, and Shin’s curiosity developed. Together, they decided to try to escape, and in 2005 they put their plan into action. What then followed is a story of agony and ecstasy. In a written testimony available on the internet, Shin recalls:

“I had no fear of being shot at or electrified; I knew I had to get out and nothing else mattered at that moment. I ran to the barbed wire. Suddenly, I felt a great pain as though someone was stabbing the sole of my foot when I passed through the wire. I almost fainted but, by instinct, I pushed myself forward through the fence. I looked around to find the barbed wire behind me but Park”—

his friend—

“was motionless hanging over the wire fence! At that desperate moment I could afford little thought of my poor friend and I was just overwhelmed by joy. The feeling of ecstasy to be out of the camp was beyond description. I ran down the mountain quite a way when I felt something wet on my legs. I was in fact bleeding from the wound inflicted by the barbed wire. I had no time to stop but sometime later found a locked house in the mountain. I broke into the house and found some food that I ate, then I left with a small supply of rice I found in the house. I sold the rice at the first mining village I found and bribed the border guards to let me through the North Korean border with China with the money from that rice.”

Shin described to us first seeing the country of North Korea outside the prison camps, and said that, to him, it looked like paradise.

Shin’s story will be published in March this year, in a book called “Escape from Camp 14”. I hope that many of us will read it. I am aware that the Minister met Shin, and I look forward to hearing his reflections on their discussions. The Archbishop of Canterbury and Mr Speaker also met Shin, and expressed what an impact that encounter had on them. Shin, however, is by no means the only North Korean defector to have spoken in Parliament; earlier this year, Kim Hye-sook addressed a meeting organised by the APPG. She spent 28 years in the North Korean prison camps, and was first jailed at the age of 13. Kim was forced to work in coal mines even as a child, and witnessed public executions.

What Shin Dong-hyuk and Kim Hye-sook have in common is that they were victims of North Korea’s appalling “guilt by association” policy, which punishes people for three generations for the alleged crimes of a family member. Kim’s grandfather had gone to South Korea during the Korean war, and for that reason her family were regarded as hostile elements by the regime, and jailed. According to lists of detainees, which I have been sent, many others in the camps are jailed for being Christian.

It is estimated that there are approximately 200,000 prisoners in such camps, and over the years human rights reports by organisations including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Christian Solidarity Worldwide have catalogued stories from survivors of the camps, who testify to the widespread use of forced labour, executions, torture, rape, sexual violence, forced abortions, infanticide and religious persecution. One, Kim Wu-yeong, told CSW:

“Christianity is public enemy number one in North Korea. If someone is a Christian in North Korea they are a political enemy and will be either executed or sent away to a political prison camp.”

Further information can be found in the book “North Korea: a Case to Answer, a Call to Act”, published by CSW in 2007 and available on the internet.

One of the most remarkable books I have ever read is “Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea” by Barbara Demick. If hon. Members read just one book on North Korea, I would recommend this one. It is available from the Library and tells the life stories of several escapees from North Korea to South Korea—people who have not lived in prison camps, but who have none the less suffered greatly over the past several decades in many ways, in a country where freedom of speech and movement is minimal and malnutrition is commonplace. I remember reading and being so saddened by one mother’s story; I identified with her. In the 1990s, when there was a severe famine in the country, she was forced to search the countryside for grass and bark, which she would mash up and feed her family. Both her husband and her loved son died during that famine.

Despite the passing of that terrible famine, malnutrition still affects many millions of people who live in North Korea. The current humanitarian situation is dire and food aid is desperately needed. The World Food Programme and UNICEF conducted an assessment last year that shows that food needs are acute. The problem has continued over many years with such serious implications for growth that the North Korean army has, I understand, now reduced its height requirement for men from 4 feet 8 inches to 4 feet 3 inches. Our fellow men and women are living at this time, in the 21st century, when there is so much plenty in so many other countries, but they live in another part of the world with such shortages in a country that, as the book “Nothing to Envy” describes, was once a developing nation but is now going backwards. Compassion should surely move us to do all that we can to provide food aid and to support international aid agencies that are willing to help.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, in a debate on a subject other than Europe. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for securing the debate, and for the passionate and compassionate way in which she introduced it. Her speech was one of the most moving that I have heard this Parliament, and some of the points were very well made. The story she told of Shin Dong-hyuk was inspiring and horrifying in almost equal measure.

Many international comparisons have been made of the regime in North Korea. The hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) said that it stood comparison with the Nazis, and the re-education and prison camps do indeed bear comparison with those under Hitler. In North Korea, there are disappearances, torture and violent repression, carried out with as much ruthless efficiency as there was under any of the old Latin American military dictatorships. We see there the “duce” ideology, as totalitarian and intolerant as that of the Khmer Rouge. The cult of personality is as extreme as that of Ceausescu or Bokassa. The reckless mismanagement of the food supply has caused a self-induced famine as devastating as that experienced by China during Mao’s terrible “great leap forward”. To those traditional state crimes can be added terrorist acts that bear comparison with those of al-Qaeda, abductions like those by Somali pirates, and a nuclear programme that is as threatening as anything in Iran.

That is an extraordinary list, and in many ways it probably adds up to the most completely ruthless dictatorship in modern history. That poses a bit of a problem for those trying to focus opposition, or to support those campaigning for any sort of freedom in North Korea. In Burma, attention can be focused on a figure such as Aung San Suu Kyi; in eastern Europe, there were figures such as Walesa and Václav Havel, and there was Nelson Mandela in South Africa, but their equivalents in North Korea were annihilated long ago, or imprisoned and forgotten. That poses a problem.

[Mr Buckland]

To reinforce the point that the hon. Gentleman is making so eloquently, the last special rapporteur of the UN Human Rights Council classified human rights abuses in North Korea as sui generis—that is, as a completely separate category from any other abuses in the world. The hon. Gentleman has encapsulated why the rapporteur’s findings were absolutely right.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman’s point is absolutely correct.

It is important to focus on the people who have managed, extraordinarily, to escape from the regime, such as Mr Shin. I am pleased that the Minister has met Mr Shin personally, and that the Government are taking seriously the views, opinions, testimony and witness of those who manage to escape from the regime.

The hon. Member for Congleton asked us to focus on humanitarian and human rights issues, and rightly drew attention to Baroness Amos’s report of her visit last year, which highlighted that, on the humanitarian front, there is chronic poverty, underdevelopment, poor infrastructure, and indicators of widespread malnutrition and stunted growth in the population. Daily diets are deficient even in basic protein and essential fats. Previous UN assessments of the food supply suggested that it was very poor, with poor management of land, and as the hon. Member for Congleton suggested, there is poor access to basic mechanical farm equipment. That seems extraordinary in the 21st century. Add to that a near total breakdown in the management of public health, and vulnerability to human trafficking and perhaps even the exploitation of children, in which agents of the state may be complicit, and the picture is truly apocalyptic.

The picture is little better on the human rights front. We have heard about the widespread use of torture and possibly rape, and certainly about the regime’s use of extrajudicial beatings, imprisonment and execution in the many prisons camps. There is persecution not just of what the regime deems to be criminal acts, but of wrong thinking in a souped-up version of the Maoist red guards’ worst excesses. There is absolutely no freedom of belief, of the press, of thought or of political expression.

That poses the problem for democratic Governments of how to deal with such regimes. How can influence be exercised over a regime that is so totally beyond the pale that it is, as the hon. Member for South Swindon suggested, almost in a class of its own? There are some avenues. There is the traditional diplomatic pressure that the Government exercise through diplomatic contact with the North Korean embassy here in this country, our embassy in North Korea, and the embassies of our European Union partners. Clearly, we should continue to use those channels. We should also continue the pressure to encourage North Korea to allow access for the UN special rapporteur on human rights. We should certainly support a commission of inquiry, but there is clearly a problem in the UN Security Council, and we may not be able to obtain widespread support, which seems incredible. If China and Russia are not minded to support that, it is a damning indictment of their foreign policy. I should be grateful to hear the Minister’s latest report of any discussions that he may have had on that front with Chinese and Russian colleagues, or the UK’s representation at the UN.

There is also an issue with refugees. Some 300,000 refugees have allegedly made their way from North Korea to China. Apart from the logistical and social problems that that might cause, if they are caught, they are apparently routinely repatriated to North Korea, where they face almost certain torture and execution. A few refugees seem to reach countries such as Vietnam, Laos and Mongolia. What discussions has the Minister had with China and other regional Governments, and organisations such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, on the treatment of North Korean refugees and the protection of their human rights and their right to asylum, which are extraordinarily important in the current situation?

Beyond that, there is the exercise of what is traditionally called soft power. It is difficult to make humanitarian aid relationships conditional, and that seems a brutal and inhumane approach, but some conditionality or attempt to ensure that food aid gets to the right people and is not being used as a political tool is important. I should be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts about his Department’s latest approach to that policy, and the approach taken by the Department for International Development.

The hon. Member for Congleton referred to the British Council and the language-teaching programme, which is a positive step. I should be interested to hear whether the Minister has any news about penetration of the BBC World Service or other language services into North Korea. I know that it is standard practice in North Korea to solder the tuning dial of radios, so that they can be tuned only to North Korean stations. The extraordinary levels to which the regime goes to try to repress its people are astonishing, although it does not require a mechanical or electrical genius to undo solder, so perhaps messages are getting through.

There are limits to soft power when a regime is totally unresponsive to that approach. We must try to find a means of exerting pressure. We could hope that a new regime and a new leader might lead to some change, but I think that may be as futile as the hope that Saif al-Islam Gaddafi or Bashar al-Assad would be a new influence on their countries. The likelihood is that, in reality, Kim Jong-un is much less influential in the exercise of power than even his father, and certainly his grandfather.

The key relationship in the region, and the only one that could make a material difference, is that between North Korea and China. China’s tacit tolerance of the appalling regime in North Korea is allowing it to survive, and it is crucial to emphasise to the Chinese that if they are to be players in international relations and participate responsibly as part of the international community, they cannot be seen to be complicit in the survival of such an appalling regime.

The kind of instability that I am sure the Chinese fear more than anything is a possibility in North Korea. As we have seen in north Africa and all over the world, repression leads in the end to a kind of instability. In an utterly dysfunctional society, a repressive regime will fall in one way or another, and it is surely better for that to happen through a process of international action and intervention than in a chaotic way that may cause instability on China’s doorstep. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about any discussions he has had with China. As the hon. Member for Congleton has said, there is a moral case for not being tempted to forget and dismiss the situation in North Korea. Inaction is simply unacceptable in the face of such an appalling situation, and we should be grateful to the hon. Lady for pointing that out.

British Embassy (Tehran)

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

That is a fair question, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that this has just happened and it is too early to set out such conditions. Clearly, any reopening of the embassies could take place only in a much improved situation in respect of relations with Iran. I would not want to set out those conditions prematurely; we will have to consider the matter over time.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Yesterday’s dreadful events have attracted a proportionate and measured response from the British Government. In respect of seeking to maintain a dialogue with the Iranians, does my right hon. Friend agree that that dialogue should extend to all arms of Government and all shades of opinion within the governmental structures of Iran?

[Mr Hague]

In common with several other right hon. and hon. Members, my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that there are different shades of opinion even within the regime in Iran—of course, there are many more outside the regime. I believe, for instance, that the motives and concerns of the Iranian Foreign Ministry may have been quite different, yesterday, from the motives of other parts of the regime. We have to be conscious of that and, in our contacts with Iran, bear in mind that wide diversity of opinion.

Palestine and the United Nations

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

The hon. Gentleman makes a sharp point. The situation in the middle east has changed, not only over months but over weeks. It increases the sense of urgency with which this Government are approaching these next few days and our determination to say to both parties that, in the midst of such instability and concern, what an extraordinary event it would be to go away from the United Nations with something that the international community was confident would lead to progress and in respect of which both sides could accept that they had gained something and would therefore want to respond to the international situation of concern and the need for urgency. That is what we would like to seek.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

As someone who supports the creation of a Palestinian state, does the Minister agree with me that if there is to be enhanced or full representation for Palestine at the UN, those representatives need to be able to speak with authority for the majority of decent Palestinians as opposed to an extremist minority?

[Alistair Burt]

I am sure that the ultimate representation of Palestinians at the UN, which is clearly a matter for the Palestinian Authority, will be decided by what President Abbas said when he announced the relationship with Hamas, stating that it had to live up to the principles of a democratic future state of Palestine, with recognition of previous agreements, recognition of the state of Israel, and an end to violence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Actually, Germany has been supportive of what we have been doing. Although, as the hon. Gentleman points out, Germany abstained in the Security Council in March, it has since then been part of the contact group, and the German Foreign Minister, Guido Westerwelle, attended the London conference that I hosted at the end of March. Although Germany has not made a military contribution to the NATO effort, it has been helpful in many other ways and given political support to what we are doing. What the hon. Gentleman points out is further evidence of that consistent approach.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

In far too many parts of the world, freedom of religion and belief either does not exist or is being severely undermined. Will my right hon. Friend establish a commission on freedom of religious belief to advise the Government on these important issues?

European Union Bill

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2011 Commons Chamber

The new clause makes a plea for this House to be treated seriously and to be properly informed by Front-Bench Members. Members need to be interested and engaged in the process whereby differences can be made to our relationship with Europe.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I am attracted by the hon. Gentleman’s argument about the need for a change in the way this House deals with European policy. Is not the logic of his argument, however, that we need to go back to an earlier stage, whereby we as legislators should be involved, pre-negotiations and pre-discussions, in thematic debates and policy statements so that we can make some input to the Commission and the institutions of Europe? Does he accept that?

[Michael Connarty]

I not only accept it; I fully endorse and applaud it. There is a work programme that comes forward from the European Commission, and it is debated in Westminster Hall, but very few people turn up: that is the reality. We have tried to engage a number of Select Committees by referring to them matters of interest to the European Scrutiny Committee, which continues to be chaired ably by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash). We are trying to engage Select Committees in those issues so that the European Scrutiny Committee and then the House could be advised of any European matters of substance that should be considered.

We could therefore change aspects of the apparatus we use before reaching the point to which the new clause refers, where a Minister is recommending a referendum. When this clause is triggered, the Government will have decided that they want to do whatever it is the referendum has been called to consider. It will be a referendum on a Government proposal, perhaps for a new treaty or a new decision that will change our relationship with Europe.

Let me finish by providing one example. We took a decision a long time ago—it was probably agreed across the Chamber because it was politically sensitive for us not to opt into all of the Amsterdam treaty—whereby we did not become members of the Schengen group of countries. That group is effectively all the European Union countries apart from us. Frontex, the new border police, is now trying to throw a ring around Europe and it is going to be heavily pressurised by migration from other parts of the world—particularly from Africa, and perhaps very quickly from north Africa. We are not a member of Frontex because we are not a Schengen country. We sit on the board—Frontex has been quite nice to us, even though we did not sign up to it—so we asked whether any of our officers engaged in a Frontex operation could have the same protection from prosecution as other Frontex officers. We are told “No, because you are not a member of the Schengen group.” The train is leaving the station very quickly to protect the rest of Europe, and the United Kingdom is running at the back waving a little flag saying “Can we join? But we do not want to be full members.”

We ought to be fully informed of the consequences of decisions such as that. I am not talking about those who are, for reasons of prejudice, Eurosceptic and against doing things on an EU basis, in the belief that they can somehow be done on a bilateral basis with 26 other countries. If we had been fully informed, we would have concluded that membership of Frontex was important enough for us to take the step of joining the Schengen countries and being a real part of Europe.

Although such information and debate would be extremely useful, that will not be made possible by the new clause, and I therefore hope that it will be withdrawn. However, we need to make those changes in the Chamber if our constituents are to understand that we know what we are talking about in Europe, and that we are acting on the basis of analysis and proper information rather than prejudice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

Beautifully put, as ever, by the hon. Lady, who describes the problem exactly. The Danes’ mandate becomes an open negotiating position and they lose their ability to be flexible and to push other member states in the give and take that sits at the heart of true business or governmental negotiations.

Finland, like Denmark, does involve its national legislature, but the difference is that in Finland this is done in private. The Finnish grand committee meets in private, away from the cameras and the spotlight, so it can have that important discussion.

I do not know what other Members think, but I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) has some good points to make. He makes them with great passion and often at great length, and he is well informed. He passes the Linlithgow test, because he reads all those boring papers, whereas all the rest of us put our heads in our hands and then flip through them quickly to pick out the main points. My hon. Friend actually reads this stuff—I do not know how he does it, but he does—so he is able to have a substantial and serious discussion about the issues. I put it to the Minister—I hope that he will respond in due course—that we need a mechanism, perhaps a Committee system, whereby those hon. Members who are interested, even obsessed, with the European Union can represent the House’s interests and hold discussions in private, as the Finnish grand committee does, before a negotiation happens.

The Intelligence and Security Committee knows what goes on, and therefore builds in some democratic accountability, but it does not blab to everyone exactly what our spies are up to around the world and what our security interests are. If it were possible to have a mechanism similar to the grand committee system in Finland, so that Parliament could be involved, perhaps there would be a greater sense of trust and a greater sense not only that we have the essential transparency, but that we do not send our Ministers in to bat in Brussels with—as I think a former Prime Minister put it—one arm tied behind their backs, so that they cannot negotiate in this country’s fullest interests.

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case in relation to Finland. Does he not agree that the system in Sweden, which is quite similar to that in Finland, would provide a useful way forward? Such a committee could meet, usually in closed session, and give a mandate to the Minister. The Minister would have discretion to depart from that mandate, but the position would be clearly defined before the Minister went to the Council. That has all the attractions of the systems that my hon. Friend has been ably advocating.

[Charlie Elphicke]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I do not think that it is for me, as a Back Bencher, to find the detailed solution, but those who are senior in the House, such as Front Benchers, should consider the other models of accountability used in Europe. They should consider the fact that we want accountability and transparency, without prejudicing the United Kingdom’s negotiating position in the discussions that are held in European Councils. So long as we have to put up with being a member of the European Union—or, indeed, are enthused by that fact—we need to negotiate well and get the best possible deal for this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Gummer]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, because it is patently obvious how difficult it is for the United States, our ally, to negotiate at the moment, following the unilateral release of its documents to the world’s media, which was not its choice. If this is to be done, clearly it must be on a multilateral basis, especially with our key allies in the Commonwealth and the United States, as well as those in Europe.

I support the main aims of the Bill. I am greatly attracted to the thrust of the new clause, but I suspect that it would have more power and greater reach if it were advanced at a different stage and on a wider basis.

[Mr Buckland]

I want to make a few brief remarks about what is, on the face of it, a very laudable new clause. It is proposed by a number of Members whose reputations for seeking more openness in the transactions of government precede them. However, I hesitate to support it for several reasons, many of which have been ably outlined by other Members during the debate. In an intervention, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) really got to the heart of one problem with the terminology used in the new clause, particularly the word “relevant”, which is used in subsections (1) and (2).

[Mr David]

The hon. Gentleman may well have a point. He focuses on the word “relevant”, but does he agree that the same arguments could be used against the word “significance”, which is used throughout the Bill?

[Mr Buckland]

I disagree, because I think that the term used in the Bill in relation to significance is very well couched. It has been explained very carefully and is backed up by a careful and clear text. There is a list in the Bill of the particular aspects that will trigger a referendum. I am afraid that I do not think that our points about those two words are analogous.

The word “relevant”, which I am focusing on, causes lawyers and all those with an interest in the law much difficulty in a wide range of issues. For example, an application for relevant documentation made before a criminal trial can cause much debate and argument on precisely what the term means. Frankly, I can see the same thing happening with the new clause and the issue going before the courts. In other words, I can see a judicial review of a particular laying of documentation by a Minister as part of the process, which again would make juridicable those issues that are properly dealt with by this House. I do not think that that is the intention of the Members who tabled the new clause, but it would be an unfortunate and unforeseen consequence of the use of that terminology, because what is relevant to one person will not be relevant to another. I can see a long and exhaustive list of documents being laid before the House and yet more requests being made for further documentation, which will then have to be ruled on by a court. Those would be regrettable consequences that none of us wants to see.

Another main problem with this rather wide-ranging new clause is the fact that not all the documents would be in the possession or ownership of the UK Government. It is clear from the phrasing of the new clause that many of the documents will have been drafted by either EU officials or other member states. Therefore, they are not under the ownership or control of the UK Government; they are what we call third-party documents.

The new clause would therefore have a great impact on the position of other member states and the institutions of the European Union. As we have heard, from my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) in particular, other member states have their own procedures and ways of dealing with pre-negotiation positions, and many are dealt with in secret. Are we to say that this House has a right to interfere directly with the procedures of other member states?

My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd), in his eloquent speech, said that what is for the Danes is a matter for them, but I am afraid that the new clause would drive a coach and horses through that, because what is for the Danes would no longer be a matter for them; it would become a matter for us. In effect, we would decide to disclose documentation that they, under their procedures, did not want formally disclosed, and that would have a consequence for our relations with other member states in the context of freedom of information.

Such a decision would also have a consequence for existing regulations on access to EU documents. The current regulations, to which this country is a signatory, provide rights of access to documents held by EU institutions, and with the consent of those institutions the documents can then be disclosed to the public. The new clause would override and potentially conflict with that rule, and that is a problem—a practical difficulty—which makes questionable the fundamental deliverability of the aims of the proposed change. We cannot legislate in a vacuum, and we cannot ignore the rules of other member states or the rules and regulations to which we are a signatory.

Ironically, in an attempt to assert the power of this House to scrutinise negotiation and legislation, we risk interfering directly with the domestic arrangements of other member states, and I am absolutely sure that many who have spoken in today’s debate, who always speak so eloquently about the rights of nation states in the European Union, would not want that to happen.

I yield to no one in my fervent belief in transparency and openness. I believe fundamentally that some of the previous Government’s conduct was a negation of democracy, and, if the European Union is to be sustained as an institution that is worthy of the trust and support of not just its members but its peoples, much more must be done to increase that transparency.

Finally, I also believe fundamentally that we have to be realistic and strike a balance between the interests of openness and the interests of efficient and effective negotiation. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover, in his speech—

[Ben Gummer]

His excellent speech.

[Mr Buckland]

His excellent speech; I am happy to be corrected. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover made an important and helpful analogy between the negotiations that he as a lawyer would conduct on behalf of his clients and the work of Ministers representing this country in the Council of Ministers and in other European institutions. He quite rightly said that it would be—I paraphrase somewhat—rather absurd for him to be forced to reveal to his opponents his entire menu of options during a negotiation.

I adopt that analogy but take it one stage further: it would be even more absurd for my hon. Friend, as a lawyer justifying his decision to his clients, then to be forced to disclose not only the documents that he generated as a result of his negotiation, but the documents generated by his opponents. That would potentially prejudice not only his position but that of another party to the negotiations. Indeed, I am sure that he took part in negotiations with more than one party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Buckland]

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) meant that he was on all-party parliamentary business on human trafficking in Portugal, and I am more than happy to set the record straight on his behalf, as he has been not only my colleague, but my very good friend, for many years, including when I was fighting elections in south Wales and attracting record numbers of votes cast against me. At one time, I had an unofficial competition on that with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison), who himself had been a valiant by-election candidate in another part of the country. I think I won that contest.

In that context, I was very attracted by the speech made by the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who reminded us that, at one time, there used to be such a thing as socialist MEPs representing the British Labour party. I remember standing against one in 1994 who beat me by an Olympian margin, but whom I distinctly recall saying in a public meeting, when asked about the four freedoms, with which we are all familiar as underpinning the treaty of Rome, that he disagreed with every one of them. His approach was rather more of the school of Joseph Stalin than that of Jean Monnet. I am almost nostalgic for those days, and I am sure that there are Labour Members who share that nostalgia.

To come fully up to date, this has been a thought-provoking debate not only on Third Reading but in Committee and on Report. In particular, during consideration on Report today, we had an interesting and important debate about how the House will deal with issues relating to the EU. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) asked one of the most important questions of Ministers: how are we, together, to develop a proper system by which we not only scrutinise European proposals and legislation but behave more proactively? In other words, how do we initiate thematic debates about the future of the EU, whether that be on issues such as enlargement, external trade or the environment? We could take our pick.

It is time for a far more proactive approach to be taken. Far too often, we have simply reacted to the proposals emanating from the European Commission. Like all good democrats, a lot of us have a problem with the concept of a civil service that initiates policy. That has fundamentally over the years vexed many British parliamentarians, who are used to a system of a civil service that enacts policy initiated by elected politicians—although between 1997 and 2010 that line was sadly blurred. That is the fundamental dilemma that has faced many of us over the years when we have wrestled with the issue of the EU.

I was amused by the contribution made by the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), the shadow Foreign Secretary. After 13 years in which the locusts ate on Europe, it takes a lot of chutzpah to stand up and lecture the Conservative party and this Government on their approach to the EU. We had a 13-year vacuum—policy inertia, confusion and chaos—which was another chapter in the history of a political party whose stance on Europe has veered from the ridiculous to the even more ridiculous. I may still be a fairly young person, but I remember facing a Labour party not so many years ago that advocated withdrawal from the European Union.

The proper debate on Europe has in the main, with a few honourable exceptions in the Opposition, remained fairly and squarely within the confines of the Conservative party. I make no apology at all for the fact that at times the debate has become heated—some would say acrimonious—and difficult for the Conservative party, but in 2011 perhaps it is time for us to stand back, take stock and accept the fact that with that debate comes creative energy. I like to see the Bill as another example of that energy.

The Bill is by no means an end. It is a mere stage, but an important stage which reflects the fact that the era of professional diplomats making decisions in closed rooms has gone, as it should have done. Now is the time for a reconnection between politicians and the public. What better way to do that than via the mechanism of referendums? The Bill makes that important concession and makes it in a careful and considered way.

I have always been somebody who can be described as positive about our membership of the European Union. I make no apology for that. I made the same point on Second Reading. I have been convinced for many years about the economic and political case for our active and leading membership of that institution. I am, however, deeply sceptical about moves towards further European integration when it comes to the criminal law, for example, jurisprudential issues or the encroachment of the judiciary on matters that are properly the province of this place and of politics.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) is right when he reiterates in his eloquent way the point about judicial encroachment. He is right to say that that is not a problem peculiar to the institutions of Europe. It cuts right across the balance of power domestically. The decision of the previous Government to create a Supreme Court, which was a regrettable and mistaken decision, reinforces the creation of two cultures—a culture of judicial interference and judicial we-know-bestness, as opposed to a culture of political control and power exercised by democratic representatives of the people.

Nobody in the House can safely say that we are out of the woods on that issue. It is one of the defining issues of our times. It was wise of Ministers to accept the fact that there are aspects of the Bill that will be subject to judicial review. The Bill is no exception to a general rule that whatever Bill the House and the other place pass, we are increasingly at the mercy of applications for judicial review. That is not something that we will be able to resolve tonight, but from tonight we will be able to move forward to the new approach to the development of policy on Europe that all of us in the House want to see—an openness from Ministers at the Dispatch Box, a frankness in assessing the importance of decisions made by the Council of Ministers, and a real partnership between those of us who sit on the Back Benches as legislators and those who sit on the Front Bench as our representatives in the Councils of Europe.

I will end on this note: there is a salutary lesson from history about the dangers of Executives being too far removed from the will of the legislature on matters of foreign policy. Let us remember what happened to President Wilson when he came back from the Paris peace conference as the leader of the political world about to take a brave new stride into the League of Nations, only to find that his legislature was not with him. At a stroke, American foreign policy was changed. There needs to be a careful interlink between the will of the House and what our Ministers do in the Councils of Europe, which is why I support the Bill as an important step forward in that process.

European Union Bill

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is perfectly right to be alert to any sign of judicial activism, but I assure him that one thing that will be very much on the mind of our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Justice is to devise a policy that takes us forward in compliance with the judgment while keeping to the minimum the risks that my hon. Friend fears.

We recognise the need to ensure that Parliament and the British people have a degree of clarity now about any referendums that will take place under this Bill in future. We want to provide as much clarity as we can from the outset in order to reduce any scope for wriggle-room, and we therefore propose specific measures in this Bill to ensure that any referendums held under it are to some extent standardised. Clauses 11 to 13 include three mechanical provisions for every referendum to be held in future.

Clause 11 concerns the franchise for any future referendum held under the terms of the Bill. The most appropriate franchise for future referendums on questions of transfers of competence or powers from this country to the EU is one based on that for elections to this House, rather than on that for either local government elections or European parliamentary elections, for example. If we were to adopt an alternative franchise, we would allow for voting by citizens of other European Union countries resident in the UK, and that would sit rather oddly with the principle of having the British people decide on whether they wish to pursue further transfers of power from their country to Brussels.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Will the franchise for voting in a referendum under this legislation be extended to peers, whether or not they are Members of the House of Lords?

[Mr Lidington]

I do not know whether this delights my hon. Friend, but peers would be able to vote in a referendum; it might well delight Members of the other place. The purpose of the referendum would be to obtain views about the transfer of competence or power from the UK to the European Union, and the Government do not consider there to be a strong, principled reason for excluding peers from expressing their views as part of such an exercise. We therefore propose the same franchise as that used for the European Economic Community referendum in 1975 and that which will be used for the referendum on the voting system for UK parliamentary elections, namely the parliamentary franchise plus peers.

European Union Bill

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith]

I am saying that my constituents say that there is often detail to be considered before we can decide whether a change will have a major impact. In the Bill, there seems to be great confusion about what a power actually means. We do not seem to have clarity in the Bill. My constituents are saying, “This is the sort of work that you need to do. When you, in Parliament, can tell us whether you think an issue is significant the door is open for a referendum if that is what you think best.”

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

On the point about when the decision is made, will the hon. Lady enlighten me on the time scale over which the joint committee would report? It is part of a ratification procedure and there needs to be some defined time scale that I do not see in the amendment.

[Nia Griffith]

The hon. Gentleman raises a significant point. One difficulty about European legislation is that dealing with these issues often takes an enormous amount of time. Often, developments take place over a considerable amount of time whereas a referendum gives a snapshot of the mood of the country at one time. That might mean that people vote on different issues. It is important that the committee would have the opportunity to go through the issues and decide what is and what is not important. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do the situation in respect of Europe, what has to be decided and how it has to be ratified.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

We come to the vexed question of Lisbon, when the push for a referendum reached its apogee and the people felt that they were outrageously cheated. If there were a Lisbon question once again, and if the facts were the same or similar, could the new clause 9 committee be relied upon to sit and, in making a determination, to ensure that we had a referendum? If a Government had said in their election manifesto, “We will have a referendum on this matter, the committee will sit, and we will make sure that it recommends a referendum,” would the committee then do so? Some people have grave doubts, because of the Whips’ system, and that is why the new clause should not be the preferred way.

The Bill’s measures on a referendum lock are the way forward. The amendments are all about breaking up that lock, and they would take us back to where we were with the Lisbon treaty, which was rammed through both Houses. The new clause is a concern for that reason. It would water down the referendum lock and leave us with significance tests writ large. Do we want that, or do we want to ensure that the British people have a referendum guarantee? That is very important.

[Mr Buckland]

Does my hon. Friend agree—I tried to make this point earlier to the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith)—that in the new clause there is an absence of any time scale for a report by the committee to the House? In itself, that significant omission would lead to more delay and obfuscation and not deal properly with the matter at hand.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I agree strongly. That is the risk: the whole thing could be buried in committee. The new clause is also slightly defective, given that it would allow the committee to

“determine its own procedure…broadly in line with…the Joint Committees of the two Houses.”

That is not sufficiently precise. I defer to those more expert in how such committees are set up, but I am concerned about the defects in the drafting of the new clause.

The Government’s Bill, which the new clause seeks to amend, sets out strict and exact tests on what a referendum would be and details how it would bind Ministers in terms of the law of the land. Those provisions would not be in place if the new clause were passed. We would end up with the classic old Whips’ fix, and we would not have the people’s guarantee.

I believe—because I am a bit old fashioned—in government for the people, by the people and of the people, that that should not perish from this earth, and that my constituents should have a say on the great matters of our times. Given that, the Bill is important and the right step towards more public power. The people and their sovereignty should be recognised, and they should be given that say, which time and again they have been cheated of—to my mind, unacceptably.

New clause 9 would give Parliament more power; I believe in giving the people more power in our modern age. I do not agree with both Houses of Parliament having a veto on a referendum. I do not think that the House of Lords should have a veto on a referendum, particularly given the substantial concern that recent events have given us about what goes on there.

European Union Bill

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) said, this Bill comes at a very interesting time in our history, particularly the history of our relations with what is now the European Union. I was very much taken with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who described Britain’s relations with the EU as being the opposite of a flirt. I beg to differ with him on that. My view of Britain’s relations with the EU is quite simple: for years, we said no, then we said “Can we come in?”, and then we said yes.

Frankly, in treaty negotiation after treaty negotiation, we have been the thorn in the side of other member states. I think particularly of the drawn-out negotiations that took place at Maastricht and, indeed, after Maastricht, where Britain secured some important opt-outs, notably on economic and monetary union, which then became the euro, and the social chapter, into which the last Labour Government wrongly brought us. It is interesting that the Labour Benches are largely empty. That is symbolic of Labour Members’ attitude to the EU, which is a mixture of ignorance, indifference and their completely supine nature in negotiations on Europe.

I do not stand here as somebody who could be described as a dyed-in-the-wool Eurosceptic. In the tradition of my party, I would be described as pro-European Union. I make no apology for that whatsoever. It is because I am pro-European Union that I support this Bill, because I am also pro-democracy and transparency. The age in which the great and good could decide and determine the future of Europe in smoke-filled rooms—or air-conditioned rooms, as I should now call them—is, I hope, long gone. This Bill represents the beginning of the end of that sort of approach, because it brings transparency to proceedings.

I was interested in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Witham, who spoke eloquently about clause 3. She was right to make the point about ministerial discretion, but the clause makes it a conjunctive condition that an Act of Parliament has to be passed by this House. That is important because it will bring fairly and squarely before this House the sort of details that all too often in the past would have been the subject of covert negotiation. That is no longer acceptable to the people of this country. They no longer want decisions to be imposed upon them; they want to have an active role in decisions and to ensure that their elected representatives or they themselves have a direct say in important transfers of power to Europe. I support that, because as a pro-European Conservative who has taken part in many debates within my party—I concede that I have lost more than I have won—I am a firm believer in democracy.

Any institution that seeks to impose its will on its people without consent deserves to fail and the European Union is no exception. The great divide in Europe is no longer between member states; it is between its leaders and its people. That is why the Bill represents an important step forward and I am happy to support it.