European Union Referendum Bill
Stephen Phillips Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Gethins
Not at the moment; I will make some progress.
On the example of the Scottish Bill, for which we must give due credit to the Scottish Parliament, Children in Scotland said:
“Children in Scotland believes that it is vital that 16 and 17 year olds are able to participate directly in the democratic process, and strongly supports the extension of the franchise to young people. This Bill will play an important role in addressing the discrepancy that young people aged 16 and 17 continue to face as far as their democratic rights and responsibilities are concerned.”
Young Scot said:
“In line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child…we believe that young people should be involved in making decisions that directly affect them, and that one of the best ways of getting involved in decision-making is through voting. Therefore, Young Scot strongly supports extension of the franchise for all elections”.
We have a responsibility across this House to try to engage people as fully as we can in the democratic process. Each one of us, of every political colour, knows the challenge that we face. Scotland has some good ideas, believe it or not. When we came to this place, we came to be constructive. We know there will be good ideas from Members from other parties, and we look forward to hearing them, but we also want to look at areas where Scotland has been ground-breaking, and this is one of them.
Voltaire said, once upon a time:
“We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation.”
Obviously, we know that the Labour leadership candidates are all looking for ideas on leadership from Scotland’s First Minister, but perhaps this is an area on which we can work together. The Electoral Reform Society puts it succinctly:
“There is a widening gulf between people and politics—we see lowering the franchise age as vital to nurturing more active citizens for the future health of our democracy.”
It then makes a good point:
“If they vote early, they vote often!”
That has been our experience in Scotland and we think that extending the franchise will result in it also being the experience of the rest of the United Kingdom.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called so early in this debate. With no disrespect to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), I will speak to amendments 12 and 13, which stand in my name.
On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary indicated that this is an important matter for the United Kingdom—it is indeed—and therefore that the appropriate franchise is the general election franchise. That, in my respectful judgment, is absolutely correct.
This Bill extends the franchise to Gibraltar because it is part of the south-west constituency of the European Parliament. Clause 2(1)(c) states that those entitled to vote will include
“Commonwealth citizens who, on the date of the referendum, would be entitled to vote in Gibraltar as electors at a European Parliamentary election in the combined electoral region in which Gibraltar is comprised.”
The difficulty, however, is that the proposed franchise for Gibraltar is not the general election franchise, because it leaves out of the count those who are citizens of the Republic of Ireland.
I know not how many people that may affect—it may affect three, five or a dozen, or it may affect none—but if we are going to pass legislation, it should be consistent. I suspect that, because this is a new extension of the franchise, the issue was overlooked by the Government and the Foreign Office lawyers when they considered how the Bill should be drafted to extend the franchise to Gibraltar.
I do not intend to push the amendment to a vote, but, because this House aims for consistency and because the Government’s stated aim is to use the general election franchise, the franchise extended to Gibraltar, with the consent of its Government, should be the same franchise as that which is used for general elections in this country. That is why I ask the Minister to consider amendment 12 and perhaps table it as a Government amendment. It would insert words designed to ensure that those who are citizens of the Republic of Ireland but who are none the less domiciled in Gibraltar are entitled to vote in the forthcoming referendum.
Amendment 13 seeks to deal with the definition of “Commonwealth citizens”. I have searched long and hard in electoral law, including the Representation of the People Acts, and, indeed, in this Bill and other sources to try to ascertain who is and who is not a Commonwealth citizen. There is, obviously, a broader debate to which this House may wish to turn in due course, particularly given the accession of Mozambique and Rwanda to the Commonwealth, about whether Commonwealth citizens should continue to be part of the franchise for general elections in this country. There is also, however, an entirely different problem, which relates most acutely to nationals of Zimbabwe who are resident in this country and in Gibraltar.
At the moment, Zimbabwe is not a member of the Commonwealth; it has simply withdrawn from it. The Commonwealth ministerial action group is charged with deciding who is and who is not a member of the Commonwealth, who is suspended and whose membership is terminated, and it is unclear whether or not some countries—for example, Fiji—are currently members of the Commonwealth for all purposes.
I know not whether there is non-statutory guidance for returning officers, but the law is unclear whether they are supposed to afford the right to vote in a general election to a national of Zimbabwe, which, as I say, is not currently a member of the Commonwealth.
As I understand it, a previous Government indicated that no Zimbabwean should, as a result of that country’s withdrawal, suffer in respect of their ability to vote in general elections. However, in the absence of a definition, who is and who is not entitled to vote among Commonwealth citizens of countries that have been suspended from the Commonwealth or that have terminated their membership is, in practice, entirely unclear. We might therefore end up with the position where in one place in this country, a Zimbabwean national is on the electoral roll and entitled to vote, whereas in another place, a Zimbabwean national is not entitled to vote because the returning officer takes the view, rightly or wrongly, that Zimbabwe is not a member of the Commonwealth and therefore that that person is not a Commonwealth citizen.
There is a much broader debate to be had about this matter, but the Government need to ensure that there is consistency across the entire country and to make it clear whether the national of a Commonwealth country that has withdrawn from the Commonwealth or been suspended by the Commonwealth ministerial action group who has permanent leave to be here and should therefore be entitled to a vote is able to vote. When the Minister responds, I would like to hear what his plans are in this area.
Amendments 12 and 13, although they originate from the Back-Benches, are meant to be helpful to the Government, in the sense that they will provoke debate and ensure that there is consistency across the legislation. For that reason, I look forward to hearing from the Minister what the Government’s attitude to them is.
Mr McFadden
As I said, the rules of the hon. Gentleman’s own party allow people to join at 15, but we have related our amendments to the age at which legal responsibilities and rights are conferred. There is a slight difference between the general argument about the age of the franchise and its applicability to important constitutional referendums.
Stephen Phillips
The right hon. Gentleman says that he is fixed on 16 as the age at which legal rights accrue to the individual, but that is true only of some rights. It is not until an individual is 18 that we treat them as being a full member of society. Surely that is the point at which they should be enfranchised and be able to contribute to our national life through a full democratic debate.
Mr McFadden
We could argue that there are some rights that people do not get even at 18. In the end, it is a matter of judgment. I do not want to go through the list again, but when people can start to work, pay taxes and do many other things, there is at least a reasonable case for giving them the right to vote.
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Phillips Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Ellwood
We need to focus on the Arusha agreement. The UK Government are extremely concerned about the instability in Burundi that the hon. Gentleman articulates and are working actively within the region, with the African Union and the international community, to resolve the crisis.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
23. The instability is principally being caused, of course, by President Nkurunziza’s desire to avoid the constitutional term limits, which threatens not only Burundi but the region as a whole. What discussions has my hon. Friend had with Ministers in Burundi’s neighbouring countries about their attitudes to that extension to the constitutional term limits?
Mr Ellwood
First, I acknowledge my hon. and learned Friend’s interest in and understanding of that part of the world. He is absolutely right that there needs to be a regional solution, and I believe that the only way forward for future stability involves President Nkurunziza stepping down and a political solution in line with the Arusha principles.
Sri Harmandir Sahib
Stephen Phillips Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
As set out in my statement, there was the destruction by the Ministry of Defence of one file in 2009, but it has turned out that some of the documents that would have been in it are in other files around the rest of Government. The reassuring thing, I think, is that all of the documents show a consistent picture. There is not, in the Cabinet Secretary’s analysis of these documents, something that remains unexplained. It is a consistent picture: of the one visit in February 1984 by one military adviser; of no decision by the British Government to give any further assistance beyond that, either in nature or in time; and of the actual operation in June 1984 being very different from the advice given by that one UK military adviser. All the documents are consistent with that in every Department across the whole of Government in all 200 files. So, when we think about it in that way, it is a consistent picture and it should be reassuring.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
May I commend my right hon. Friend on a very frank statement? I am afraid that I must press him on one point. During the statement, he said that “the adviser’s assessment made it clear that a military operation should be put into effect only as a last resort when all attempts at negotiation had failed.” It is therefore clear that there was an assessment in February 1984 of the potential military operation. One thing that causes such hurt to the Sikh community across the world was the use of artillery, both at one of the holiest sites in Sikhism and in the wider region. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that no British adviser, either this one or anyone else, ever gave advice that artillery should be used, and that, insofar as any advice was given, it was that a military solution was not the right way forward?
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Phillips Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
1. What steps his Department is taking to protect minority Christian communities in the middle east.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Hugh Robertson)
Government Ministers regularly speak out against abuses of the right to freedom of religion or belief. I met minority Christian communities in Egypt in December and in Algeria during my visit there last week precisely to highlight this issue.
Stephen Phillips
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the plight of Christians in Iraq, which often goes unreported in the western media. The scale of the exodus of Christians owing to sectarian violence is unprecedented and those who remain often flee to Kurdish-controlled areas to escape violence in Baghdad. However, although they are physically safer in places such as Irbil, they are struggling to survive. What steps is the Department taking to encourage the Iraqi Government to protect Christians in that country and to improve their security?
Hugh Robertson
My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely correct. The security situation of Iraq’s Christians, and indeed other minorities, remains precarious. We continually urge the Iraqi Government, through ministerial contacts and by all other means, to protect all communities and to deal appropriately with those who are found responsible for acts of violence and intimidation because of political, ethnic or religious affiliation.
Middle East Peace Process/Syria and Iran
Stephen Phillips Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
The conflict clearly presents a danger to the stability of Lebanon, Iraq, and, in a different way, Jordan, because of the pressures on its border. That is why we are placing such emphasis on our work in those countries, and particularly on what we can do to reinforce the stability of Lebanon and Jordan. We give them a lot of help, not only in the form of the humanitarian aid that goes through international agencies, but directly. We have given assistance to the Lebanese armed forces on their border; we have sent equipment to help the Jordanian armed forces to cope on their border. Ensuring that, during the period in which we cannot resolve the crisis, we at least help other countries to contain it, is a very important aspect of our policy.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Let me also pay a personal tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). He responded on behalf of the Government to the debate during which I made my maiden speech, and my sadness at seeing him leave the Front Bench is matched only by my great pleasure at seeing him back here in the habitation of us lesser mortals.
Some time ago, I asked my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary how long the two-state solution had. He told me then that it had 18 months, but I cannot remember how long ago that was. Can he tell me how long the two-state solution now has before it becomes unviable?
Mr Hague
It does not have long. It has many half-lives, I suppose. None of us ever wants to say that it is impossible and cannot be achieved, but I think that this is the last best chance. If we reach next year without having made the progress and achieved the breakthrough that so much hard work is going into now, that will clearly be an enormous setback, and many people will question very seriously whether a two-state solution could ever be arrived at. That has why it has been so important to get everyone together this year for the bilateral negotiations, and that is why we must do all that we can to help those negotiations to succeed.
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Phillips Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Swire
The hon. Gentleman follows these matters closely, and he is referring to the 949 Rohingya in southern Thailand who were allegedly waiting for their escort to smuggle them across the border. It is worth saying that the embassy in Bangkok has raised the issue of the Rohingya with the appropriate Thai authorities, both bilaterally and through the European Commission, and that it continues to follow the issue closely, including in close conjunction with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is well aware of the plight of the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. Will he update the House on the specific steps that the Government are taking, with the Burmese and Bangladeshi Governments, to ensure a permanent, stable future for those people?
Mr Swire
My hon. and learned Friend makes a good point. My response can be divided quite neatly into two parts. First, in the short term, humanitarian access, co-ordination and security must be improved for the Rohingya people in Rakhine. I have seen that for myself and I am satisfied that that is happening. Secondly, in the longer term, those responsible for the violence must be held publicly to account for what they have done. Ultimately, the Burmese have to deal with the issue of citizenship, and that matter is being reviewed at the moment. The Bangladeshis need to play a better part in helping out those Rohingya who are on that side of the border.
Palestinian Resolution (United Nations)
Stephen Phillips Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
This is the other side of the argument. I have pointed out that as well as our criticism of Israel, which has been very strong, I am also critical of Palestinians for sometimes, including over the last year, setting preconditions for going back into negotiations that meant that such negotiations did not take place. I believe in their wish to enter into and conclude such negotiations, so I do not go as far the other way as the hon. Lady. Since those negotiations are the only way to bring about a settlement of the issue for Israelis and Palestinians, we must promote them, however difficult they are.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has correctly told the House that time for a two-state solution is running out. He has also told the House that that is the only thing that can guarantee statehood for the Palestinians and peace for Israel. How long have we got?
Mr Hague
I think that we do not have very long and that is why urgency has been expressed across the House. The pace of settlement building is steadily reducing the time available for a two-state solution, as has the sheer time that has been exhausted over so many years of trying to bring it about. Although I would not count the time in months, we do not have many years. We might have only one or two years to bring this about, hence the urgency of restarting negotiations.
UK-Turkey Relations
Stephen Phillips Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
One of the reasons why Turkey is such an exciting subject is that it is an exemplar not just for the whole middle east, but for British foreign policy. Turkey is a strange place for us. We have a huge great embassy—now the consulate general—in Istanbul, and it would impress hon. Members. It is more magnificent than this Chamber and even than the other place, with wooden parquet floors and beautiful marble courtyards.
Only 20 years ago, that all seemed a bit out of date and out of proportion. For all the reasons my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) pointed out, the embassy was conceived when the Ottoman empire was at its height and when Lord Palmerston, based in this House, was charging around frenetically, shelling the coast of what was then part of the Ottoman empire to seize Acre and play incredibly complicated games with Russia and France—and, indeed, Afghanistan and Persia on the Turkish borders.
By a decade ago, we could see that the Foreign Office had almost given up, and that is a real parable in what goes wrong in long-term British foreign policy planning. Ten years ago, the desk officer for Turkey, in London, said very confidently that there was absolutely no point in the Islamic department of the Foreign Office doing Islamic communication or anything in Turkey because in 2001 we were absolutely confident that Turkey was a secular state and that in Turkey there was absolutely no interest in Islam. Almost immediately after the desk officer made that comment, a Government with strong conservative Muslim roots, and a leadership with a history of political Islam, were elected to office in Turkey.
Even two years ago, the situation in our embassy in Turkey was still one of pretty extreme crisis. As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee has pointed out, we were shifting towards the system that eventually came about, involving the closing down of the BBC Turkish service and the British Council in Turkey hiding at the back of a large shopping mall with almost no evidence of Britain on display. It has an energetic, dynamic and dedicated Turkish staff who, understandably, struggle to communicate British culture to a Turkish audience, given that a significant number of them have never visited the United Kingdom.
As the report makes clear—last year the Foreign Office gave us the figures—we have 25 extensive Turkish speakers in the British diplomatic network, of whom exactly one was in the embassy in Turkey. That is the top level of Turkish language. We also had 23 operational Turkish speakers—and again, exactly one of them was to be found in Turkey. That is comparable with having 46 fast-jet pilots trained at great expense to the UK taxpayer and only two of them flying aeroplanes.
In addition, the focus has been taken from political work towards other forms of work. Why does that matter? It matters for all the reasons on which others in the Chamber have so eloquently held forth. Turkey is now a major exemplar for the region, a place of interest and importance to the United Kingdom and somewhere we ought to be able to exercise some influence.
Politically, of course, Turkey represents something that confounded our fears and predictions. Many commentators, looking at Turkey in 2001, were terrified, just as we were terrified about Islamic movements in Egypt, by the possibility of some kind of Islamist movement in Turkey which reliable commentators described in 2001 and 2002 as some form of new Taliban or even new al-Qaeda. Indeed, that was swept up by secular voices in Turkey, that focused on the worst-case scenario in terms of what the AKP would be. The reality is that those fears were not confirmed; in fact, that change is perhaps the strongest example worldwide of a democratic transition from a military Government—considerably more impressive even than the transition achieved in Indonesia.
As others have so eloquently pointed out, on the economic side the Turkish economy, in per capita GDP terms, is now larger than that of Bulgaria or Romania. It has grown considerably faster in the past decade, and the Istanbul littoral—the 20 million people around Istanbul—have a GDP per capita larger than that of Poland.
As regards the AKP’s conduct of foreign affairs, despite the opposition party complaining that it would be an unruly, destabilising force, we have found that although it has taken an independent policy on Israel and an unexpected policy on Syria and on Iran, it has not proved to be a dangerous force in the region at all. In fact, in Libya the AKP has proved to be an extraordinary example in being more generous and flexible than many other NATO members, and it has got considerably more credit from the Libyan people as a result.
Of course, this does not mean that everything is sunny in Turkey. As many people have pointed out, there are serious problems. From a foreign policy point of view, there is no point in our treating Turkey as though it were a superpower, because it remains a middle-ranking power. We cannot vest in it all responsibility for the middle east. We cannot imagine that it has the key to the solution in Afghanistan or in Syria. Despite Turkey’s extraordinary development over the past 30 years, there remains a significant gap in terms of human, financial and institutional capital that prevents it from occupying that kind of role. Economically, as the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) pointed out, there are considerable problems in eastern Turkey, where people have a GDP per capita that is one sixth that of people in Istanbul; in other words, they often have per capita incomes of about $4,000 to $5,000 a year. Turkey is not a wealthy country.
In terms of politics, we need seriously to consider the fact that despite the great advances and the extraordinary tightrope action of the AKP Government in the way that they improvised with the constitution, negotiated challenges with the judiciary, and took certain moves that were on the risky side, we have ended up—despite all the progress made with the military—with the scandal of what is happening with the terror laws. Turkey should, and can, be an example to the region, but that ought not to involve locking up peaceful dissidents, journalists and academics. That is not a necessary part of a counter-terrorism policy.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I think that 10% or more of the cases in the European Court of Human Rights emanate from Turkey. My hon. Friend and others have spoken about the steps that Turkey has managed to take in improving human rights. Will he tell the House what further measures he thinks necessary? The Minister could then tell us what steps the Government are taking to encourage those measures.
Rory Stewart
The central element is to focus on making sure—we in Britain have experienced this and people have gone through it in Spain—that the terror laws are not applied to peaceful protesters such as academics and journalists but targeted at people who are genuinely involved in armed struggle. Perhaps Britain, which has built up a good relationship with Turkey through taking a friendly attitude towards EU accession, has more leverage over that issue than countries such as France.
What can Britain do, though? The core question is not “Whither Turkey?” but “Whither Britain in Turkey?” What is the Foreign Office supposed to do? What sort of reforms are we supposed to introduce? How are we supposed to change our attitude towards the country to get more out of the relationship? The first thing we need to do is very difficult. It is all very well the Foreign Office saying that it has designated more speaker slots in Turkey, but the unfortunate reality is that if a slot has been designated for a Turkish speaker, there is no way of compelling anyone to fill it. Therefore, across the diplomatic network we have a number of slots designated for Arabic speakers or Turkish speakers that remain unfilled. If we are serious about making sure that out of 25 Turkish speakers a quarter, say, are in Turkey, we have to change the human resources procedures of the Foreign Office. We have to move from a situation where everybody is allowed to bid for posts towards one in which a manager can tell people that they should be going to Turkey given that the taxpayer has invested considerably in training them in the language.
That also necessitates difficult HR changes to the core competency framework that governs promotion within the Foreign Office. Currently, the second secretary for political affairs at the embassy in Ankara does not have a direct interest in continuing in political work. Despite good sounds coming from the Minister and the Foreign Secretary, saying that political work is increasingly important, and despite all the good messages about the diplomatic excellence initiative, the brutal reality remains that one’s career in the Foreign Office is determined by management expertise.
All the incentives are driving ambitious young people out of political work and into getting management experience. I can name two cases in the diplomatic network in Turkey of people who have chosen to go into UK Trade and Investment management roles because they do not believe that they will be promoted on the basis of political roles. The core competency framework, which governs promotion, does not take into account linguistic expertise or deep country knowledge in any way; it measures people purely—and is only allowed to measure people—on the basis of their management skills. That must be changed if we are fundamentally to change the culture of the Foreign Office. It is not enough for us to say that these things matter; we must promote people on the basis of them.
To deepen this further, we might need to change the criteria on which people are rewarded. We should have indicators of how many Turks, for example, somebody in the embassy meets. We should have indicators of how often they get outside Ankara and Istanbul to remote areas of the country. That should be part of the criteria for their assessment and promotion.
Finally, on commercial opportunities and UKTI, it is all very well our saying that we want to double UK trade and investment with Turkey, but how is that going to happen? Where are the people and where is the drive? It is difficult to make that happen. Italy is currently outperforming us twofold in Turkey—Italian trade to Turkey is nearly twice that of British. Sixteen flights a day go from Italy to Turkey, almost all of them from Milan. Big Italian infrastructure companies are building roads and getting involved in dams, and small and medium-sized Italian companies are outperforming British small and medium-sized enterprises on the ground.
I propose, modestly, that it might be worth looking at seconding 25-year-olds from major UK financial and consultancy companies, with proper incentive structures and targets, to try to achieve the difficult aim of boosting UK trade and investment. I do not want to pick out a particular company, but I would imagine that McKinsey would be quite happy to second somebody at the age of 25 to UKTI for two or three years, with a decent incentive structure, to see whether they could meet those targets.
All this is necessary because Turkey matters. It matters to Britain, and Britain’s leverage in Turkey is still potentially large. If we introduced those kinds of reforms in Turkey and other countries, we could achieve something extraordinary. The danger is that, having been worried 20 years ago that the great palace on a hill that we occupy was too large for Turkey and that Britain’s interests were elsewhere, we run the risk of being that other great building in Istanbul, which is of course the great representation of Venice—a palace even larger than ours, stuck up on the hill. That now seems out of date for a different reason—because Turkey is too big for Venice. Let us make sure that that does not happen to us.
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Phillips Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
The Opposition might need to take a closer look at some of the things that President Hollande is advocating, because he is saying that France must balance its budget by 2017. He is also saying that growth cannot come from state spending and that it must be reined in—to use his words—so perhaps the Opposition might care to decide whether they truly support the words of President Hollande.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
6. What steps his Department is taking to encourage inward investment from developing economies through the diplomatic network.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)
We are strengthening the UK’s diplomatic network to increase substantially our presence in emerging markets. This will transform relationships in the fastest growing cities and regions, and reinforce work on investment opportunities, which is obviously a key part of repositioning our economy and our drive for export-led growth.
Stephen Phillips
I welcome the Government’s commitment to the expansion of our commercial-diplomatic network, but given the pressure on budgets, including that of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, how are these measures and the programme of opening new embassies to be funded?
Mr Bellingham
We are already in the business of opening new embassies. We have opened two this year in Africa—I opened one in Abidjan the other day—and we are opening embassies in Mogadishu, Monrovia, Antananarivo, in Madagascar, Bishkek, in Kyrgyzstan, and San Salvador. This will be paid for through a gradual reduction of our footprint in Iraq and Afghanistan and the closure of various subordinate posts in Europe.
Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Governance
Stephen Phillips Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I rise not to detain the House, as I know that the Minister will shortly be on his feet, subject to other contributions, but because it seems to me, having listened to the majority of speeches in the debate, that the issue under discussion is extraordinarily important—so important, in fact, that I am disappointed not to see more Members on the Opposition Benches.
Be that as it may, and given that the Minister will, on behalf of the Government, shortly respond to the debate, I think it important that he give a direct response to three points that I have listened to during our proceedings. First, there is the point, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) made so ably, about the procedure by which the matter has come before the House. We are fortunate indeed that Mr Speaker yesterday acceded to the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), whom I too congratulate on securing this debate under Standing Order No. 24. It is perfectly right that he should have sought that liberty and, therefore, that we debate the matter today.
But for the fleet-footedness, as another hon. Member described it, of my hon. Friend, there would have been no opportunity for the House to discuss the matter before the end of the week, when the treaty will be signed by those who choose to do so. Given its provisions, to which I shall turn in due course, that would have been a matter of very grave concern not just to those of us on the European Scrutiny Committee, who look at such matters with great interest and, I hope, care, but to the whole House, albeit that it would have been in ignorance of some points that have been made about the importance of precisely what is going on.
It is a great shame in those circumstances that Government time was not scheduled in advance of the end of this week for the debate to take place. Although I know that it is not directly my right hon. Friend the Minister’s responsibility, I have no doubt that he, who will answer for the Government, has discussed the matter with the Leader of the House, and it is perfectly appropriate that the House be told why no debate was scheduled in Government time. That is the first point that he must answer.
The second point concerns the legality of using the European Union’s institutions in the context of the treaty to which those 25 countries will become signatories. We know, because the Prime Minister has told us, that the Government have their own concerns about whether it is appropriate that EU institutions be used outside the framework of the treaties that already exist for the governance of the European Union.
I understand and accept—the Government are entirely right—that there must be a degree of pragmatism in relation to the aims of the treaty, which we hope will succeed in stabilising the euro, although many Government Members, many Opposition Members, I suspect, and, indeed, many people in the country are concerned that it is just yet another piece of paper, and that all we are doing is putting off the evil day when the euro finally unravels and countries such as Greece, Portugal, Cyprus and perhaps even Italy have to drop out.
Let us assume in favour of those who have put the treaty together and framed its provisions and that it stands some chance of making things better in the eurozone. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) indicated, that is important to all our constituents, because we all want to be able to trade with a successful eurozone. Let us therefore make that assumption in favour of the treaty and those who have framed it.
Even in those circumstances, there still exists the problem of the legality of the use of the institutions of the European Union. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will make it absolutely clear to the House, and through the House to the British public and our partners in Europe, that the Government will not countenance anything that not only damages this country and its interests but is unlawful under the treaties to which we have already subscribed. That is the second point with which he must deal.
The third point is the most important. The treaty is potentially the thin end of a very large wedge. Other Members have alluded to the fact that when the European Union and the faceless bureaucrats in Brussels do not get their own way, they simply look for a solution that is not necessarily lawful but is at least pragmatic, to ensure that what happens is precisely what they want, rather than what the people of Europe want. That has been the hallmark of European governance since the EU was established, and certainly since the Maastricht treaty. We see it very clearly in this case.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was absolutely right to veto the suggestion of any further European treaty that would have damaged the interests of this country and the City of London. When Opposition Front Benchers ask, “What was vetoed?”, as they did earlier in the debate, I say that it is very clear. It was a further European Union treaty that this House does not want and that, more importantly, the people of this country do not want. It would have been damaging to the interests of Britain and all our constituents. It would have been extraordinarily straightforward for the Leader of the Opposition to stand behind the Prime Minister, but he chose not to do so. Perhaps he is fearful of Europe, and perhaps the fact that none of his Back Benchers and almost nobody from the Labour party is here for the debate indicates that Labour is perfectly willing to see imposed upon the British people the same sort of treaty that it gave us in Lisbon without a referendum, having promised one in the first place.
Emma Reynolds
Can the hon. and learned Gentleman explain to the House what in the fiscal compact treaty would have applied to the UK, and therefore why the Prime Minister felt the need to veto it?
Stephen Phillips
If the hon. Lady had actually read the fiscal compact treaty, and if she had been here when my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) made his speech—I do not think she was—she would know that article 8 of the treaty provided for penalties in relation to countries that are not eurozone members. She would also know that article 16 required the treaty to be rolled into the treaty on the functioning of the European Union within the next five years. That is the thin end of a wedge and indicates clearly to me and other members of the European Scrutiny Committee that in the current case it is possibly being contemplated that the provisions of the treaty will in due course become binding on the United Kingdom, notwithstanding the fact that the UK is not a member of the eurozone. That is the direct answer to her question.
When the Leader of the Opposition says that he would have negotiated further on the treaty, Conservative Members are entitled to ask with whom he would have negotiated. The negotiations had come to an end. Is the hon. Lady saying that the Leader of the Opposition would have negotiated with himself? The Opposition need to stop opposing just for the sake of opposition, and instead stand behind the Prime Minister and his veto and behind debates such as this. With that said, I hope that the—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order.
I have three speakers still to call, and we have 10 minutes before the wind-ups.
Mr Lidington
I do not know whether we will have time to explore that this afternoon. I may write to my hon. Friend setting out the answer in greater detail, but I do not believe that his fears are justified. Treaty change can take place only under the procedures for treaty change in the treaty on European union and the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. It cannot take place under enhanced co-operation, which can, in any case, bind only those countries that choose to participate in it. That is clear in the treaties.
The role given to the European Court in the compact in relation to the balanced budget rule—and, indeed, the imposition of that rule—could not be introduced under enhanced co-operation. Although the compact declares that it has the objective of being incorporated in the EU treaties in five years, that is only an aspiration, not a given. Any changes to the EU treaties would have to be agreed by all 27 member states, using the procedures under the EU treaties themselves for treaty amendment. Change cannot be made through the EFSM treaty, which is to be signed intergovernmentally by the eurozone members only.
Mr Lidington
Forgive me, but I will not because I want to press on and try to answer more of the questions asked during the debate.
It is a fact that the compact says that it is a treaty that shall be applied in conformity with the obligations set out in the EU treaties. The declared intent of the signatories is that they shall act at all times in accordance with EU law.
It is a matter of legal fact that the primacy of EU law laid down in the EU treaties is not and cannot be affected by the drafting of an intergovernmental treaty. Article 2 of the compact explicitly states that if there is any conflict or overlap, the EU treaties will prevail. In any case, even if that phrase were absent from article 2, it would be against EU law for EU member states to enter into any kind of international agreement that contradicts the EU treaties and EU law.
However, it is also true that elements of the fiscal compact give us serious concern. Our concerns relate to certain tasks accorded to the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. I set out our concerns in greater detail in my evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee last Thursday. In fairness, it is worth alluding to the fact that others who gave evidence to the Committee—I am thinking of Professor Dougan, of Martin Howe, who is by no means a euro-enthusiast, and of the Council Legal Service written evidence to the Committee—presented a different interpretation and argued that article 273 of the EU treaties could be interpreted as justifying what was set out on the use of the institutions under the fiscal compact.
The concern of the British Government is that the example set under the compact for the EU institutions, the role and functions of which are determined by treaties agreed by all 27 member states, could be used in future either to set unwelcome precedents or to impinge on the integrity of EU law and the arrangements set out in the EU treaties. That is why we have reserved our legal position. That in turn means that we are vigilant and ready to act, including by taking legal action in the European Court of Justice, if we believe that the EU institutions are being used in a way that is contrary to the provisions of the EU treaties and that harms our national interest.
The Prime Minister made clear at the informal January European Council that the EU institutions can be used outside the EU treaties only with the consent of all member states. He also said that the treaty should not undermine the operation of the single market or otherwise infringe on areas of policy that are properly for discussion by all member states in the EU context. That position was repeated in writing by Sir Jon Cunliffe, our permanent representative to the EU, on 22 February. I deposited that letter in the Library of the House on the same day.
The actions the Government have taken in respect of the compact have been informed by advice from across Government. I will not be drawn into a detailed discussion of what the Government’s legal analysis says, not least because reserving our position means that we might at some stage wish to go down the path of legal action. I do not want to say anything that might prejudice or reveal a position that we might take in court in such circumstances.
I am sure most hon. Members realise how foolish it would be to speak in such a fashion, but I am confident that reserving our position is the best way of protecting UK interests. It enables our partners to undertake economic and political tasks that we hope will help to stabilise the eurozone while preserving our right to take legal action should that become necessary.
The problem all our economies face in Europe is a lack of growth. That growth will not come from increased Government spending, nor will it come from consumer spending funded by increased private indebtedness; it can come only from structural reform and a growth in trade, both within Europe and beyond. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), and my hon. Friends the Members for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), spoke strongly in the interests of their constituents when they urged the Government to press forward with an innovative and assertive agenda for economic reform and growth in Europe. We are working with our partners to do that, as was evidenced by the letter to which the Prime Minister added his signature to those of 11 other Heads of Government, and for which Bulgaria, Slovenia, Portugal and Lithuania have voiced support. The Government intend to be active in promoting our economic interests in Europe and the wider world, and I commend our approach to the House.