International Court of Justice's Advisory Opinion (Kosovo)

David Lidington Excerpts

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I welcome the delivery of the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) Advisory Opinion on 22 July on the accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo.

The ICJ decided, by 10 votes to four, that Kosovo’s declaration of independence did not violate international law. In coming to this opinion, the ICJ considered general international law, UN Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) and the Kosovo constitutional framework.

The Government are a strong supporter of Kosovo’s independence. The United Kingdom submitted arguments to the ICJ in support of the conclusion which the Court eventually reached.

The Milosevic regime’s campaign of ethnic cleansing in 1999, which led to the forced exile in neighbouring countries of around half the entire Kosovo Albanian population, with thousands of deaths and other acts of brutal violence at the hands of Serbian forces, meant that Kosovo could never again be integrated back into Serbia. Kosovo has been functioning as an independent state for two and a half years and the UK holds firm in its conviction that Kosovo as a sovereign state defined by its existing borders is a positive force for stability in the Western Balkans.

Despite differences over Kosovo’s status, EU member states agree about the next steps. Kosovo’s and Serbia’s long term futures are in the EU. All EU member states are backing Baroness Ashton’s offer to facilitate talks on matters of practical co-operation between Kosovo and Serbia. This will help both countries take steps together which will improve the lives of ordinary people of all communities and move them towards their EU future. The Government have made it absolutely clear that any attempt to encourage the partition of Kosovo or re-open status talks threatens stability in the entire Balkans region and will be strongly resisted. We believe that the Opinion’s publication should mark an end to discussions on Kosovo’s status.

The Government will continue to lobby for further recognitions for Kosovo. We believe that the ICJ Opinion will encourage those states who have not yet done so to recognise Kosovo.

General Affairs /Foreign Affairs Council

David Lidington Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

The General Affairs Council and Foreign Affairs Council will be held on 26 July in Brussels. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will represent the UK. I will also attend.

The agenda items are as follows:

General Affairs Council (GAC)

Belgian EU Presidency

Chairing his first GAC under the new Belgian presidency, Foreign Minister Vanackere will present the presidency’s programme for the next six months programme. Other Ministers will have an opportunity to question him on Belgium’s priorities. We believe there are number of areas in which we can work well with the Belgian presidency including on trade and free trade agreements (FTAs), particularly with countries such as India and Korea.

European External Action Service (EEAS)

Ministers will discuss the EEAS decision, which was passed by the European Parliament on 8 July, and has been scrutinised by both Houses of Parliament. The decision provides a framework for the establishment of the EEAS, as provided for in the treaty of Lisbon. It sets out a framework for the nature and scope of the service, its functions, its central Administration, and the management of its staffing, budget and programming.

There remain a number of implementation-related issues to be worked through over the coming months. We shall support the Baroness Ashton in establishing the EEAS as a body which enables the EU to pursue agreed common positions in a cohesive and effective way. We shall be both vigilant and determined to ensure that the EEAS respects the competences of member states for foreign and security policy as set out in the treaty, and that it provides value for money. We will keep Parliament updated regularly on progress.

Iceland

The GAC will agree the EU’s general position on the negotiating framework for Iceland’s accession negotiations. Official opening of the negotiations will take place on 27 July. The negotiating framework reflects UK objectives that stipulate that Iceland implements its EEA obligations, including those identified by the EFTA surveillance authority (i.e. Iceland’s breach of the deposit guarantee directive).

Follow-up to the June European Council

We expect there to be a short review of the key conclusions from the June European Council: Europe 2020 strategy, the G20 summit, millennium development goals (MDGs), and climate change. There may also be a discussion about the frequency of European Councils and the role of the GAC in preparing for them.

September European Council

Ministers will discuss the forthcoming September European Council (16 September), which will be themed around foreign policy and attended by both Leaders and Foreign Ministers. Baroness Ashton or Herman Van Rompuy may outline their understanding of the scope of discussion in September, and solicit views. Ministers may seek to debate the EU’s strategic relations with emerging powers.

Foreign Affairs Council (FAC): Foreign Ministers

EU’s strategic relationships (India/Brazil)

Following the morning GAC discussion on the September Council, Baroness Ashton will chair a discussion over lunch on the EU’s relationship with Brazil and India.

On Brazil, Ministers will discuss the recent EU-Brazil summit, and the longer-term vision of the High-Representative/Vice-President for this important strategic partnership. Ministers are likely to discuss the relaunch of EU—Mercosur free trade agreement negotiations, and the potential benefits of increasing trade with this large and dynamic region.

On India, Ministers will assess the prospects for delivering more from the EU’s relationship with this emerging power. We would like to see the EU-India free trade agreement finalised this year, though this will not be easy given some of the difficult issues to overcome, particularly on migration and EU political clauses. Ministers may also discuss other areas highlighted by the November 2009 EU-India summit, including counter terrorism. Ministers will look ahead to the 2010 EU-India summit, on 21 October in Brussels.

Sudan

Ministers will discuss the challenges facing Sudan over the coming months as the comprehensive peace agreement (CPA) reaches its conclusion. We expect Ministers to agree conclusions that support:

the upcoming referenda processes in South Sudan and Abyei through substantial technical and financial assistance;

peaceful implementation of the CPA, reaching an agreement on post-referendum issues and working towards long term regional stability;

the work of the African Union high-level implementation panel;

capacity building and assistance to meet the challenges faced by South Sudan;

efforts to address insecurity and reach a lasting peace settlement for Darfur;

the work of the International Criminal Court; and,

continued development and humanitarian assistance across Sudan.

On international coordination, we expect Ministers to agree to coordinate closely with the Sudanese parties, the African Union (AU), the United Nations (UN), IGAD, the United States and other national, regional and international partners.

Iran

Ministers are expected to agree to a Council decision setting out a comprehensive package of EU sanctions against Iran in response to the challenges posed by Iran’s nuclear programme, and in line with the dual track strategy of engagement and pressure.

Gaza/Middle East Peace Process

Ministers will discuss the response from Israel and the international community to the situation in Gaza following the flotilla incident. Baroness Ashton will give an update on her recent visit to Gaza and discussions about how the EU could assist with the opening of Gaza. Ministers will also discuss the wider peace process including the American-led proximity talks and their progress. Depending on the outcome of the discussion, the Council may issue a conclusion statement.

Kyrgyzstan

Ministers are expected to discuss the ongoing crisis in Kyrgyzstan and adopt conclusions welcoming the successful conduct of the 27 June constitutional referendum. Foreign Ministers Kouchner and Westerwelle visited Kyrgyzstan on 16 July and tabled a joint paper at the OSCE Informal Foreign Ministers meeting in Almaty, which we understand they are likely to raise at the FAC.

Georgia

On Georgia the aim is to ensure continued EU focus as we approach the second anniversary of the Russia-Georgia war. The Council will not have to take any decisions and discussion is likely to focus on a debriefing by EUHR Catherine Ashton on her recent visit to Georgia. If time allows, Ministers might discuss Georgia’s relations with the EU following the launch of negotiations on an association agreement on 15 July and the recent signature of a visa facilitation agreement. There may also be discussion of the Georgian Government’s action plan for engagement with Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Western Balkans

Ministers are expected to discuss Kosovo, given the forthcoming advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Kosovo’s declaration of independence. The Government firmly support Kosovo’s independence and believe that both Kosovo and Serbia should use the ICJ outcome to reinforce and not undermine stability in the Western Balkans region. Ministers will also discuss the EU’s policy towards Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). The Government strongly support BiH’s ambition for future EU membership but are very concerned about the current reform blockage and nationalist rhetoric. We believe that the EU military force, EUFOR Operation Althea, continues to play an important role in underpinning stability in BiH.

Cuba

The Spanish Foreign Minister, Miguel Angel Moratinos may update the Foreign Affairs Council on the recent release of a number of political prisoners in Cuba, and Cuban Government assurances that 52 in total will be released over the next few months. Discussion may then touch on the EU common position on Cuba.

Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe

David Lidington Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

On 16 to 17 July 2010 I attended an informal meeting of OSCE Foreign Ministers in Almaty, Kazakhstan. The overriding aim of the Kazakh OSCE chairmanship-in-office was to secure political endorsement of their proposal for an OSCE summit. During my interventions at both the dinner on 16 July and the two plenary sessions on 17 July I stressed the need for a substantive agenda, if there was to be a summit, and for the OSCE to demonstrate the capacity to act across four specific areas of OSCE activity: conflict prevention and resolution; arms control; human rights and democracy; and transnational threats, including those linked to Afghanistan. On the afternoon of 17 July Ministers reached consensus on a summit taking place in Astana, Kazakhstan by the end of 2010.

During my time in Kazakhstan I was able to have bilateral meetings with 14 Foreign Ministers and other Heads of Delegation¹, the director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, and the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media. In my meeting with the Foreign Minister of Kyrgyzstan I underlined the need for the Kyrgyz authorities to take forward the difficult process of reconciliation and reconstruction, particularly in terms of organising a credible investigation into the tragic events in April and June. I also noted that DFID would represent the British Government at the 27 July donor conference in Bishkek.

The ongoing crisis in Kyrgyzstan was taken up by a number of delegations during the plenary session, including the Foreign Ministers of France and Germany, who arrived in Kazakhstan direct from a joint visit to Kyrgyzstan. They tabled a paper on the role the OSCE could play across the board in Kyrgyzstan and the need to despatch a Police Advisory Group (PAG). I am placing a copy of this paper in the Library of the House. I and many other delegations welcomed the proposals. The Kyrgyz Government and the OSCE reached agreement on the arrangements for the PAG subject to agreement by the OSCE Permanent Council on 22 July.

¹Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, Moldova, Montenegro, Russia, Serbia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, US, Uzbekistan.

European Union: Explanatory Memoranda 9 June 2010 - 9 July 2010

David Lidington Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

Further to my written ministerial statement of 21 June, Official Report, columns 4-5WS. In the interest of the House and on behalf of Government I am depositing in the Library a full list of explanatory memoranda submitted by the Government from 9 June to 9 July. The House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee has yet to be established and has not met during this period. Meetings of the Lords Select Committee on the European Union commenced on 29 June 2010.

I would invite Members to examine this list and to raise any questions of policy in the usual way or via correspondence. It is vital that the House have a chance to scrutinise the work of Government and to consider policy. This is particularly true of our EU business.

European External Action Service

David Lidington Excerpts

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of European Document Nos. 8029/10 and 11507/10, draft Council Decisions establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service; European Document No. 8134/10, draft Regulation on the Financial Regulations for the European External Action Service; and an unnumbered draft Regulation amending Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the conditions of employment of other servants of those Communities; and supports the Government’s policy to agree to the Decision establishing the External Action Service at the Foreign Affairs Council in July 2010.

It was the European Scrutiny Committee which, during the last Parliament, called for a debate on the measures to establish the European External Action Service. I am pleased to have the opportunity to update the House on recent developments, and to give Members on both sides of the House a chance to debate this important issue.

The EEAS was established by the Lisbon treaty, which came into effect last year. As the House will know, my party did not support either the treaty or the creation of the EEAS, but, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told the House in June this year, the EEAS is now a fact. The challenge for the Government has been, and remains, to help to shape the service so that it both respects the competence of member states over foreign policy, and at the same time provides for a more cohesive and effective diplomatic voice for the European Union collectively on issues on which the EU, speaking as a whole in support of an agreed common position, carries more clout than member states acting on their own.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

What will happen on the many occasions when the United Kingdom is on a completely different page from the European Union, which seems to be the case more and more frequently? Will the EEAS be making proposals with which this country vehemently disagrees?

[Mr Lidington]

If the High Representative, Lady Ashton, and the EEAS are to represent a common EU position on an aspect of foreign policy, they can do so only on the basis of a foreign policy mandate that has been approved unanimously by all 27 member states. We have the safeguard that if the United Kingdom wishes to exercise a right of veto and prevent a common position from being reached on a particular aspect of foreign policy, that power remains with us.

[Philip Davies]

I do not wish to delay the Minister unduly, but I do not understand for the life of me why he has so little faith in British ambassadors’ ability to represent this country’s opinions, given that presumably the diplomatic services of other countries are perfectly capable of representing those countries’ views.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend misunderstands me if he thinks I have any lack of confidence in the capabilities of our network of ambassadors and high commissioners around the world, but it is the Government’s judgment that there are areas where it makes sense for the 27 member states of the European Union to speak with one voice if they can. Later in my speech I will give some examples of where I believe United Kingdom national interests have been well served by such a common approach.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

That seems to be a change of policy from when the current Foreign Secretary was on the Opposition Benches, when he said exactly the opposite.

[Mr Lidington]

I know that my hon. Friend has adopted a position that is profoundly sceptical not only of the EEAS but of Britain’s membership of the European Union and of the EU as a whole, but I must tell him that the key difference between then and now is that the treaty of Lisbon has been ratified by all 27 member states of the EU, and it is therefore now in force as a matter of both European and domestic law. As our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear at the time when ratification was completed, that alters the terms of trade, and we as a party agreed while still in opposition that if we formed a Government we would work within that new basis established by the Lisbon treaty.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I too am a huge respecter of British ambassadors, but the last thing I would want them to do is design development programmes, which was at one stage the suggestion for the role of the EEAS. Negotiations shifted that position, but can the Minister give the House any further information now as to whether there is clarity yet about who will have responsibility for the programming of development spending?

[Mr Lidington]

Yes. In the division of duties set out in the decision we are debating this evening, the EEAS and the High Representative will have responsibility for strategic decisions about the priorities of the EU’s development programme, but the Development Commissioner and his team within the Commission will remain responsible for the design and implementation of particular development programmes.

For this to work effectively, there clearly needs to be a meeting of minds between the High Representative and the Development Commissioner. Certainly when I have discussed this matter both with Baroness Ashton and with the Development Commissioner—whom I met in Brussels last week—they were both very confident that the package that has been agreed provided for a sensible division of responsibility, and also that the transfer to the EEAS of a number of staff working in the Commission on development would give the EEAS the expertise in development policy to enable it to take those strategic decisions.

I have to say to the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), however, that this is one area where the British Government continue to have reservations about the final package. We would have preferred a slightly larger shift of people with development expertise into the EEAS to make certain that it had the required expertise, but the two people most directly responsible for implementing this policy seem to be satisfied with the measure in its current form.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentioned Baroness Ashton, which reminds me that there was a big fanfare when the positions of EU President and Foreign Minister were announced, to the point where the Labour Government at that time said that when these characters visited London they would stop the traffic. On the numerous occasions when either of them has visited London, have there been any congestion issues?

[Mr Lidington]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

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

[Mr Lidington]

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

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Iraq war, would it not have been an interesting situation if the High Representative had been in place and had been trying to represent the whole of the European Union at that time, because different countries were taking very different positions? I would like the Minister to spell something out. When the High Representative is going around the world putting a particular slant on a European policy that we oppose completely, how are we going to make sure that we can tell the world, and a particular country, that we have a position different from that of the European Union?

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, because he brings me to the next passage in my speech. The important point is that the EEAS will have two key functions, the first of which is to speak on behalf of a common position on foreign policy agreed unanimously by the Council and embodied in a mandate given by the Council to the High Representative. So in the case of Iraq, or any comparable foreign policy issue where member states were divided, that unanimity—and hence that mandate—would not exist. Therefore, the High Representative and the EEAS would not be entitled either to speak or to act in the way that my hon. Friend fears.

The second responsibility of the EEAS is to support the Commission in implementing the external aspects of policies over which the Commission already, under the treaties, has competence, such as international trade. The fact that the High Representative is now, in effect, wearing two hats, whereby she is accountable to the Council for common foreign and security policy decisions but also works as a Commissioner on those matters that are properly the responsibility of the Commission, means that we have the potential for a rather more cohesive international engagement by the EU than has previously been the case. The Government would like this new institutional arrangement to complement our own commitment to an active British foreign policy and help to deliver the diplomatic objectives of the United Kingdom.

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

I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box for the first time when I have been in the Chamber. I believe that Labour went through eight Ministers for Europe, so he may have a longer tenure than some of ours; I am sure that he will do his best. Just for the record, when we sent this document for debate before the election there was, as he mentioned, a bid from the European Parliament for three deputies—I believe it calls them secretaries-general—and hearings. Could he explain to the House exactly what the final agreement was on the accountability of the EEAS to the European Parliament? I note that this has all gone through and been rubber-stamped by this Government, without this Parliament having a European Scrutiny Committee to ask them to make themselves accountable to their Parliament. So nobody knows what the Minister agreed when he went to Europe.

[Mr Lidington]

I regret the fact that the European Scrutiny Committee in the Commons has not yet been re-established, so there has not been the opportunity for a debate within that Committee before the House as a whole was invited to take a decision. I took responsibility for deciding that the best way forward in the circumstances was to make provision, through the usual channels, for a debate on the Floor of the House, so that all Members had the opportunity to debate this matter before the recess. Had we delayed bringing this forward for debate until the autumn, there would have been at least equal cause for complaint on the part of right hon. and hon. Members.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about the accountability of the EEAS to the European Parliament. It will be accountable in financial terms to the European Parliament, in the same way as other organisations within the EU are accountable for the way in which they spend European Union money. The High Representative is going to make verbal reports to the European Parliament at regular intervals, but she is not accountable to it in policy terms, nor will it have the right to vet, or hold the equivalent of confirmation hearings on, the appointment of heads of EU delegations to various capitals around the world.

[Mr Ellwood]

I am pleased to see my hon. Friend in his place and starting to scrutinise EU legislation in a way that we have not seen before, rather than taking the tick-box approach that we saw from the Labour party. Concerns are expressed on both sides of the House about the duplication in the EU. It still has two Parliament buildings, it has a European Defence Agency that tries to mimic what NATO does, and it is still trying to build a satellite system, Galileo, which duplicates the free global positioning system operated by the United States. Will my hon. Friend ensure that he keeps the EU’s ambitions in check, that there is a threshold for how far European countries can come together and work together, and that there is clarity about where that stops and sovereign power takes over?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend invites me to trespass on some policy areas that are properly the responsibility of other Government Departments, but I will not be tempted too far in that direction. The Government are collectively committed to seeking the greatest possible value for money from every part of the European Union organisation and to ensuring that pressure from within European Union institutions to extend competence is resisted. I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured, too, if I repeat to him now that it is the Government’s intention later this year to introduce legislation, as promised in the coalition’s programme for government, to require a referendum and a vote by the people of the United Kingdom before any future treaty change that transfers further powers from this House to European institutions.

[Michael Connarty]

In keeping with what has been called the “tick-box approach”—an approach that won the European Scrutiny Committee the inquisitor of the year award, which has never been won when a Conservative has held the position of Chair—I want to point out that the Minister has not answered the question. The bid from the European Parliament was to have three deputy secretaries-general from each of the political parties in the European Parliament who would substitute for the High Representative. What happened to that bid?

[Mr Lidington]

That proposal did not succeed. The position on deputising when the High Representative is absent will depend very much on the area of competence involved in that meeting. The High Representative will have three options. She will be able to appoint a senior member of her official team, once that team is in place, to speak in her place. She will be able to ask a fellow commissioner to represent her when the item being discussed is something that properly under the treaty falls to the competence of the Commission. When it comes to a matter to do with foreign or security policy, she is also free to invite the Foreign Minister of a member state to act on her behalf. I hope that I am not breaking some confidences if I say that she is already making good use of that last option. She has asked the Foreign Minister of Hungary to stand in for her at a forthcoming meeting between the EU and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. We have an example there of member states being seen to be clearly in the driving seat and of powers not simply being ceded automatically to the supranational institutions.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I am concerned about value for money. I am surprised that the European Union will be able to achieve the development of the EAS on the basis of budget neutrality, unless it has already put in a massive budget. I am also concerned about the duplication that has already been mentioned. Will my hon. Friend assure me that we might even try to get a rebate if we do not need the EAS to do certain things on our behalf, including military planning, military missions and so on?

[Mr Lidington]

I was going to say more about the budget a little later in my speech. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me if I try to make some progress. I shall respond later to the points that she was making about the budget, and if she wants to intervene again I shall try to make time for her to do so.

In response to what my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said, I want to give a couple of examples to illustrate that it is possible for the new institutional arrangements to complement an active British foreign policy. The first example concerns political stability in the western Balkans, which is incomplete and fragile. The Government strongly believe that it is in the United Kingdom’s interests to have political stability, human rights and the rule of law entrenched in that part of our continent, but that is not a goal that the UK can secure on its own. It is not an exaggeration to say that the situation in the western Balkans is a litmus test of any EU aspiration to take on an effective diplomatic role. We hope that the EAS will make the Balkans one of its highest priorities and that the new institutional arrangements will make it possible to pursue our common objectives with greater cohesion and consistency than was possible before.

My second example is the threat to maritime trade and the safety of voyagers posed by pirates operating off the coast of Somalia. Already, the different arms of the EU are beginning to work more effectively together: security is a member state and Council responsibility, but development falls to the Commission. The new arrangements maintain the focus on poverty alleviation, but better co-ordination within the single framework of the EAS makes it possible to get development money spent on building new prisons in Kenya to incarcerate pirates, which helps us to achieve our shared security objectives. If the EAS works effectively, the bringing together of the Commission and Council arms of EU external policy under the aegis of the High Representative, instead of their remaining in separate institutions as now, ought to make it possible to achieve a more joined-up policy in tackling other challenges, such as Afghanistan and Kosovo.

The EAS is not going to be some kind of elixir to cure all diplomatic ills and we have to be realistic about what it can achieve. It will be able to act only where there is a common position, as the High Representative can advocate a foreign policy position only on the basis of a unanimous mandate from the Foreign Ministers of member states. As the example of Iraq, which my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) cited, illustrates, there are no institutional solutions to problems that, at root, require both political will and consistent, shared views.

The High Representative has made a very good start to her challenging role. She has an impossible job—almost three jobs, in fact: High Representative, British Commissioner in Brussels and chair of the Foreign Affairs Council. She has been criticised for not being at two different ministerial meetings that were held in two different countries at the same time, but that seems more than a little unfair. I am told that she has 400 days of appointments in the year, and she does not yet really have a proper department to help her. The Conservatives wished her well when she embarked on her task and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I are already working closely with her.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has touched on a number of the difficulties for the High Representative in terms of timing and her programme. Does she not have another problem in that some of her functions are based on democratic decision making, such as those in the Council, while others are based on her role in the Commission, which is an undemocratic function, and others still involve a kind of quasi-democracy? Does he acknowledge that that is likely to create a great deal of confusion and uncertainty and that it could cause considerable damage to the clarity that is needed in the very complicated and extremely dangerous world that we now inherit?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

Those differences in competence exist already in the structure of European external policy that is being replaced by the EAS. I have been impressed by the High Representative’s determination to address seriously the problems that my hon. Friend identifies. He is correct to warn of the risk that the creation of the EAS will be taken by some as an opportunity for competence creep and to establish a more active and ambitious role for supranational European institutions than was envisaged when the EAS was set up or than is provided for in the treaties. The assurance I give him is that the British Government are absolutely determined to ensure that the rights and competences of member states are fully respected, not just by the High Representative, but by every other institution that forms part of the European Union.

[Mr Bone]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Lidington]

If my hon. Friend will allow me, I want to make some progress, although I will try to give way again a little later.

We are content for EU delegations to take on some representational roles, when we want them to do so and have mandated them to do so. Supporting the EU in having enhanced rights in the UN General Assembly is a good example. We want the High Representative to be able to do what the rotating presidency used to do: to speak and act in support of an agreed common position. The Foreign Secretary explained that policy in more detail in a written ministerial statement earlier today. If the General Assembly agrees, the High Representative will have the rights necessary, and no more than the rights necessary, to fulfil the representational role previously carried out by the rotating presidency. That includes the right to speak after the member states have spoken, but not the right to a seat among individual UN members and certainly not the right to vote in the General Assembly. These arrangements will not give EU delegations enhanced rights in United Nations agencies or in other international organisations.

The Government will judge any further proposal for the EU to act in a representative capacity case by case and on its merits. Critically, we will take a view on whether such a move would help to achieve British interests and whether any proposal would compromise the lead role for member states over foreign policy that is explicitly provided for in the treaty.

Some bodies, including the Commission and some of the smaller member states, want EU delegations to take a greater role in representing EU positions around the world than we think is either desirable or legally consistent with the treaty. Those ambitions are not secret. For example, the Commission has made it clear that it wants EU delegations to take over responsibility to act not only on policy areas where there is clear EU competence, but on those areas where competence is shared by the EU and member states, even if competence has not been exercised at EU level previously. In our view, such a move would not be acceptable. I have written to the Chairs of the two Scrutiny Committees today to highlight that risk and to make it clear that the Government will be vigilant to defend the interests and treaty rights of not only the United Kingdom but all member states.

The initial EAS decision was taken by the Council on 26 April, after negotiations between Lady Ashton, the European Parliament and the Council. The European Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour of the draft decision very recently. Subject to the views of the House and other national Governments, the General Affairs Council of 26 July should be in a position to adopt the decision. Agreement on the accompanying changes to the staff and financial regulations will follow in the autumn, and Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise those later measures.

I should add a word on the staff. In his speech on 1 July, the Foreign Secretary emphasised the need to increase the number of UK nationals in European institutions. The establishment of a new service gives us an opportunity to promote British officials right from the start, and we have a large number of British diplomats with an interest in moving across to the EAS for part of their career. Staff in the institutions are independent, but we all know that different nationalities bring different perspectives, and we need more people with a British outlook to help to secure the UK interest for the long term. Our starting point in the EAS is good: already, about 8% of the staff of Relex—the Commission directorate that will initially form the bulk of the new service—are British; they are concentrated at the more senior levels and include about a quarter of the directors.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

On value for money, will my hon. Friend indicate the cost and resource implications of the further staffing of British diplomats in the European Union as a result of setting up the new institution?

[Mr Lidington]

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

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

[Mr Clappison]

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

[Mr Lidington]

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

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

The Minister did not answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) about overall cost. Will he give the House a guarantee that if there is to be any breach of budget neutrality, he and his Government will resist that by vetoing any increase above current expenditure?

[Mr Lidington]

We will certainly resist any further increase in current expenditure because we want maximum value for money from the EAS, as we do from every other arm of the European Union. I welcomed Baroness Ashton’s pledge on 8 July that she would do everything possible

“to maximise cost efficiencies, avoid duplication and strengthen financial discipline.”

She said:

“I want a lean and efficient Service that assures best value for money, staffed by the best and the brightest from across the European Union.”

The Government worked hard to defend the national interest and did all that we could to ensure that the service continued to respect national competences and recognised the central importance of intergovernmentalism in framing the European Union’s common foreign policy. Through a robust and pragmatic approach, we have secured a framework for the EAS that respects UK interests, that can strengthen and support national diplomacy, and that will not lead to additional costs in the long term. This is only the start, however, and we now need to work intensively with our European partners to make it a reality. I commend the motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

The Commission does not have any choice, because the staff will be automatically moved into the EAS. The same applies to the Council. If each country approves the measure, through their parliamentary processes, the move will happen automatically, so I have confidence in the Commission. There are many areas where I do not have confidence in the Commission shedding staff, and where the hon. Gentleman is right to say that sometimes we have to ensure that it does not encroach on the powers of member states, but this is not one of them.

When I was Europe Minister, I tried to fight for some important principles. First, it was important to make it absolutely clear that the head of each delegation had full power over the whole delegation, because otherwise, in any individual deputation in any country throughout the world, different elements might compete against each other. Although Europe might have spoken with one voice, because it had established a single mandate, the individual delegation in that country might not. I am glad that we won that argument.

I am glad, too, that we won the argument to bring the politico-military structures, the civilian planning conduct and capability element, the crisis management and planning directorate and the EU military staff inside the EAS, because it would simply have been to duplicate and make the system more complex if we had left them outside.

I shall not take up much time, because I want to ensure that there is more opportunity for other Members to participate, but I must note two areas where, to be honest, I felt that I had to handbag the High Representative. Indeed, there were sharp words at April’s General Affairs and External Relations Council. First, I do not believe that the EAS should set up consular services for every country in the European Union, and I was determined to ensure that the text that came out of April’s Council made that absolutely and abundantly clear. I confess that the text that we ended up with—I am sure that all hon. Members will have read it—is slightly complex. Indeed, article 5(10) states that the Union delegation shall, acting in accordance with article 35 third sub-paragraph of the TEU, and upon request of member states, support the member states in their diplomatic relations and in their role of providing consular protection to union citizens in third countries on a resource-neutral basis.

Two elements of that are vital, but they sound misguided. First, “on a resource-neutral basis”, means that no additional money should go into the EAS to provide consular services on behalf of other countries. Secondly, the reference to article 35 of the Maastricht Treaty on European Union, as I am sure the Minister knows, means that the circumstances in which the EAS can provide consular services are very closely constrained. The Maastricht treaty—under the provisions that John Major introduced, incidentally—makes it clear that where an individual citizen of any EU member state is in a third country and their member state has no representation, other member states can provide support. That happens fairly regularly. In countries where Britain has no representation, sometimes a British citizen will be supported by other EU members. It is also true that the services of other countries are provided to us. For instance, in Laos, where we have no representation, the Australians provide consular protection.

In our discussions leading up to April’s Council meeting, I thought it very important to ensure that countries such as Estonia and Latvia, which would dearly love the EU to provide consular services and remove the power of member states to provide them throughout the world, should not see the measure as a great cash cow. While many in the room argued forcefully that we should be moving towards European consular services, I said that we would use the British veto if that proposal came forward. That is why we have the document that is now before us.

The next issue is budget neutrality. As I said, there has been considerable duplication in the system in the years thus far, whereby there are desk officers for the same country from different elements of the structure of the European Union, and that has been counter-productive. I am confident, with Cathy at the helm, that there will be a strong insistence on ensuring that those duplications do not survive, and that there is therefore no reason why the EAS should cost us more in the long term.

I note the Minister’s optimism when he says that in the short term this will cost us only £1.1 million more.

[Mr Lidington]

I am sorry—the hon. Gentleman misheard me. I said that there would be about £1.1 million, not £1.1 billion, of additional costs for the United Kingdom.

[Chris Bryant]

I am sorry, but the Minister misheard me, because I said “million” as well. It is great to be able to be entirely of one mind.

However, my anxiety is more about the Minister’s optimism than his numeracy. Pressures will inevitably come from other member states, many of which are going through the same process of retrenchment in their budgets and will find that that directly affects their foreign offices. When I was in the post that he now holds, I spoke to three of my counterparts, who talked about 50% or 60% cuts in their foreign offices. In many of those countries, there may well be a political pressure towards the European Union carrying out more of their foreign services, and he will rightly want to be very cautious about that. Throughout the whole process of the treaty going through and the setting up of the EAS, it was our clear intention that we, Britain, should be able to fight our corner, but we also wanted the whole European Union in our corner. I very much hope that that is what this measure will achieve.

My final point relates to British staff in the EAS. Like the Minister, I hope that many diplomats in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will want to work there. He said that many more suddenly want to go and work there; I do not know whether that is because they do not like working with him or because they are fearful of what is going to happen in the FCO. On a serious note, one of the complexities in trying to get British staff to work in any of the institutions of the European Union is that they often cannot see a path back. It is not only a question of whether British people speak foreign languages, but of whether they can see a career that takes them to Brussels and brings them back thereafter. I hope that at some point the Minister will be able to enlighten the House further on those matters.

I wholeheartedly support the motion in the name of the Minister and congratulate on him on his volte-face.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I thank all Members who have taken part in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) pressed me about the overall cost of the European External Action Service. The problem with putting a precise figure on that is that we are talking about an organisation to be created by bringing together activities that are funded by a number of budget heads within the existing EU set-up, and in some cases parts of expenditure under one budget head are transferring to the EEAS and others are not. The best estimate that we have at present is that about £400 million of expenditure will be required to fund the activities transferred from the Council and the Commission into the new EEAS. The much higher figure cited by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) can come about only if we assume that the whole of development expenditure is transferred, and that is not going to happen. I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere once we have more detailed estimates as the budgetary process continues in Brussels.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) asked a number of specific questions. Declarations are not legally binding. They are statements that provide a political context for a Council decision and how it will operate as it is taken forward. In response to his question about deputies, where a deputy—a Foreign Minister or anybody else—speaks on a matter covered by common foreign and security policy, that deputy must speak in support of a common position which has been agreed unanimously by all member states.

My hon. Friend also asked about the role of the EU special representative in Afghanistan. He is twin-hatted already, as both the special representative and the head of the European Commission offices in Afghanistan. He will, of course, work closely with other international organisations and representatives and will seek to complement, not duplicate, the work of, for example, ISAF. My hon. Friend further asked whether we were committed to sending 25 British secondees to the EEAS. That was an initial figure and we are keeping it under review. However, we have a number of British candidates for the first wave of EEAS posts, and many more are interested in future vacancies.

My hon. Friend asked about the instructions and advice that the FCO might send to our own British posts abroad. We will be sending them instructions and advice, and those instructions will be that they should co-operate with European Union missions to secure British foreign policy objectives and to influence the work of those EU delegations, in order to give priority to matters on which there is a common position—for example, the need for sanctions against the Iranian nuclear programme—that will secure both European and United Kingdom interests at the same time. We are also asking our posts to be extremely vigilant about any evidence of competence creep at the behest of the Commission or of other institutions or member states, and to report back swiftly to the Foreign Office if there is evidence of that happening. I can tell my hon. Friend that I have already come across examples of such reports to us, and we do take appropriate action and make representations to protect the interest of member states.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) that we are not in the business of trying to supplant or in any way to weaken the ability of British diplomats and Ministers to stand up strongly for the national interests of the United Kingdom. However, we are also acknowledging that there are on occasion opportunities to promote and enhance British interests in a way that also suits the common interests of the 27 member states—

EU Observer Rights (UN General Assembly)

David Lidington Excerpts

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

The Lisbon treaty established new structures for the management of the EU’s external relations. These are the High Representative, the European External Action Service and the rebranding and amalgamation of Commission and Council Secretariat offices overseas as EU delegations. It is in the UK’s interest that, where we have agreed a position with our EU partners, the EU makes its voice heard—complementing and supplementing our role.

A further element of the external representation question is the ability of the EU to participate in international organisations. In some cases, such as the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), the EU has the status of an observer with limited rights of participation. This means that the EU is not able to represent the EU and the member states, where we have an agreed position, to the same extent as was possible for the rotating presidency, which, of course, was a full member of the UNGA.

Following the entry into force of the treaty of Lisbon the role previously played by the rotating presidency in representing the EU externally has passed to the High Representative and the EU delegations who act under her authority. So, in order for the EU to fill effectively the role previously played by the rotating presidency in the UN General Assembly, the Foreign Secretary has agreed that, together with our EU partners, we should table an UNGA resolution which, if approved by the wider UN membership, would grant the EU certain additional rights as an observer delegation. These rights are, as the proposal stands, the right to speak in a timely manner, the right of reply, the right to circulate documents, the right to make proposals and submit amendments, the right to raise points of order, and more seats for the High Representative and her officials. As is currently the case, the EU will not have the right to vote, it will not be a full member of the UNGA, nor will it be seated among the UN member states.

The granting of such rights to the EU will not affect the UK’s position as a member of the UNGA or the UN Security Council. Furthermore, this does not change the existing balance of competence between the EU and member states.

The Foreign Secretary has also made clear through the UK Permanent Representative in New York that the UK’s support for the proposed UNGA resolution is (i) strictly limited and does not imply agreement to seek additional rights in any other fora; and (ii) does not prejudge whether the EU should actually exercise those rights on any particular issue.

Discussions are ongoing with the wider membership of the UNGA about granting the EU additional rights of participation. The intention is to table a resolution in the UN General Assembly in the coming weeks.

Court of Justice of the European Union (Correction)

David Lidington Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

A written ministerial statement on 22 June 2010, Official Report, column 13WS made by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs stated that Otto Czúcz, a Hungarian judge was to be reappointed to the General Court on 23 June 2010. The reappointment did not take place on that date and is to be considered at a conference of representatives of Governments of member states on 8 July 2010.

The Foreign Secretary agrees to the reappointment having consulted with the Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Justice and Attorney-General.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lidington Excerpts

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

10. What recent discussions he has had with the government of the Kyrgyz Republic on the political situation in that country.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

Our ambassador is in regular contact with the authorities in Kyrgyzstan. We are deeply concerned by recent events in that country where the situation remains fragile. Both we and our international partners believe that the political process now under way represents the best chance that we have to ensure peace, the rule of law and democracy for all the people of Kyrgyzstan.

[Mr David]

Clearly, the situation in Kyrgyzstan remains difficult, but does the Minister agree that it is vital that we have maximum co-operation between the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the United Nations and the European Union?

[Mr Lidington]

I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that next week, when I attend the OSCE ministerial meeting in Kazakhstan, I will be able to talk to colleagues from all those parts of the world about the way forward.

[Mrs Moon]

I join the Minister in welcoming the outcome of the 27 June referendum, in which the Kyrgyz clearly outlined their desire for a parliamentary republic and a new constitution. However, will he join me in calling on President Otunbayeva to reduce tensions between the Kurds and Uzbeks by initiating an open and transparent inquiry into the killings in Osh and Jalalabad, and by releasing the Uzbek human rights activist Mr Askarov and the journalist Mr Abdusalomov?

[Mr Lidington]

It is precisely because the British Government accept the need for reconciliation between the different communities in Kyrgyzstan that we co-sponsored a resolution on 18 June, at the UN Human Rights Council, calling for a transparent investigation into the events of April and the recent inter-ethnic violence, and urging the Kyrgyz authorities to promote inter-ethnic reconciliation as a key priority.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

Has high-level corruption in the political system not been one of the real problems facing Kyrgyzstan since independence? What more can the British Government do, whether through the EU, their own good offices or the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, to promote good governance in this important country in central Asia?

[Mr Lidington]

We in the United Kingdom have to accept that there are practical limits to our ability to put right all the problems that my hon. Friend has identified. Nevertheless, the British Government will continue to do all within their power, not just bilaterally but through the various multilateral organisations to which we are party, to bring about reconciliation and a free and stable democracy in that country.

[Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)]

I visited the city of Osh eight years ago, and I have to say it was a desperately poor place. The Minister will recall that five years ago, with the Andijan massacre in Uzbekistan, there were international calls for a full investigation that ultimately came to nothing. Will he reassure us that the calls now for an investigation into the present case will lead to fruition and something proper happening?

[Mr Lidington]

I share my hon. Friend’s hope for a positive reaction on the part of the Kyrgyz authorities to the resolution at the UN Human Rights Council. I shall be making that point in my conversations with Kyrgyz and other regional leaders next week.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

7. What recent discussions he has had with Her Majesty’s consul general in Greece on the case of Mr Luke Walker.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

This is a tragic case, which I have discussed with officials. Our consular staff in Crete have visited Luke Walker in detention, and they are providing him and his family with ongoing assistance.

[Margot James]

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Photographs and papers promised by the court in Crete to Luke Walker and his family, which are legitimately required by the UK coroner, are being subject to unacceptable delays. Does my hon. Friend agree that the reluctance of the Greek Interior Department to co-operate with UK coroners in general might be contributing to these delays? Can he assure my constituent, who has now been in prison for 66 days, that all possible steps are being taken to resolve these matters?

[Mr Lidington]

In the case of Luke Walker, consular officials in my Department are doing everything they can to expedite the process, within the limits placed on us by our inability to interfere in the judicial processes of other countries. On my hon. Friend’s more general point, the Foreign Office has established, together with the Ministry of Justice and the Greek Ministry of Justice, a working party that will look at the problem that she has identified—namely, how to ensure that important case documents are shared between the different jurisdictions.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

9. What recent discussions he has had on governance of the Turks and Caicos Islands; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

11. When he next expects to discuss the European Commission’s work programme for 2011 in the General Affairs Council.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

The European Commission will publish its work programme for 2011 towards the end of this year, and I will ask the presidency to table a discussion of it at the following General Affairs Council. I am also looking forward to a debate in Westminster Hall on the Commission’s 2010 work programme.

[Miss McIntosh]

Is the Minister aware that the Commission is agreeing a Green Paper on pensions imminently, which will presumably form part of the work programme for next year? There is an issue about those who are self-employed and those who are employed working in different member states that needs to be addressed. The Green Paper does not address that, however, but other issues such as having a one-size-fits-all for pensions, which is not acceptable. Will the Minister press for the correct law to be in place, not one that we could do without?

[Mr Lidington]

I can assure my hon. Friend that not just I, but my hon. Friends in the Department for Work and Pensions will press to make sure that any proposals suit the interests of the United Kingdom. When the Green Paper is published, it will, of course, be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in its own right.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

One element of the Commission’s work programme is the implementation of treaty change. Will he confirm that the Prime Minister agreed at the June European Council to a special intergovernmental conference, but has yet to notify this House of that matter? That meeting has already taken place. Will he also confirm whether the Prime Minister, or the British representatives at that intergovernmental conference suggested the repatriation of any powers from the European Union to the UK?

[Mr Lidington]

I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman has been dozing a bit. If he had looked at the Order Paper this morning, he would have seen a written statement about the transitionary protocol on the composition of the European Parliament. It is hardly a secret, given that this matter has more than once been referred to on this side of the House in debates about Europe and foreign policy since this Parliament first convened. The proposed small treaty amendment does not involve any transfer of powers from the United Kingdom to Brussels institutions.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I have read the written ministerial statement because I tabled an urgent question about it earlier this morning and I am sure that he was consulted on the matter. However, let me raise another matter that arises from the Commission’s work programme—trade with Latin America. The Minister knows that Labour Members support a free trade agreement with Peru and Colombia, but we know that there are very significant human rights abuses in Latin America, which is why it is important that the text of the trade agreement deals not just with trade issues. Will he make sure that this is ratified not just by the Commission, the European Council or by Europe, but by each member state so that we in this House have a chance to vote on that trade agreement?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the Minister answers, let me say for the record that no reference should be made on the Floor of the House to the fact of an urgent question having been tabled. I say that gently.

[Mr Lidington]

There will be an opportunity for the House to debate the free trade agreement to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The Government’s view, as he knows, is that it is important for the EU to continue to champion free trade agreements with Latin American countries and those in many other parts of the world. He will also know that it is normal procedure for any EU free trade agreement to include a significant clause on human rights.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

12. What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the EU’s policy on Iran’s nuclear programme; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

14. What recent assessment he has made of the prospects for enlargement of the European Union; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

We strongly support further enlargement of the European Union but also believe that countries that want to join must clearly meet the membership criteria. We welcome the progress made during the Spanish EU presidency, including the decision to open negotiations with Iceland, and the progress on accession negotiations with both Croatia and Turkey.

[Gordon Henderson]

Rather than encouraging an enlargement of the EU, will the coalition Government consider helping to reduce its size by holding a referendum that would allow the British people the opportunity to decide whether we remain a member of the EU?

[Mr Lidington]

The Government believe that British membership of the EU is very much in the national interests of the UK, and—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I just say to the shadow Minister for Europe that I want to hear my constituency neighbour?

[Mr Lidington]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We believe that EU enlargement, which has been championed by the Governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, as well as by the Labour Governments of Tony Blair and the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), has entrenched democracy, human rights and the rule of law in central and eastern Europe in a way that was not achieved throughout the 20th century.

[Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)]

Three months ago, air traffic was brought to a standstill throughout the EU because of the Icelandic ash cloud. What appraisal has been made of the work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and of the services given to travellers during that period?

[Mr Lidington]

The matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised relates very much to the work of our consular department rather than to the enlargement process, but I will take advice from consular officials and write to him about the detailed matter that he has raised.

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

15. What recent representations he has made to the Government of Brazil in support of their efforts to end forced labour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)]

16. What recent discussions he has had on the future of the Office of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

The Peace Implementation Council, which met in Sarajevo at the end of June, discussed progress towards the conditions necessary for the closure of the Office of the High Representative but, as those had not been met, no decision on closure was taken.

[Mr Holloway]

What discussions has my hon. Friend had with his EU counterparts on the future accession of Balkan states to the EU?

[Mr Lidington]

Both my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have raised during, I believe, every bilateral conversation we have had with European counterparts and at formal sessions of the Foreign Affairs Council the importance that we accord political and constitutional progress in the western Balkans and the need for the EU to make as one of its highest priorities the strengthening of both the incentives and disincentives in respect of those countries pushing forward with further reform, so that their welcome into the family of European nations can be given as soon as possible.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

T8. What alternative arrangements are being made to ensure that an inter-parliamentary scrutiny role is carried out in future, which is currently carried out by the European Security and Defence Assembly? What is being done to make sure that that vacuum is not filled by the European Parliament?

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

My hon. Friend is right to identify that need. We are considering a number of options for scrutiny involving different national Parliaments. We will bring in our proposals for debate by the House as soon as we are able to do so.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I have a specific question about a former constituent of mine, Matthew Cryer, who, aged only 18, was unlawfully killed on the island of Zante in Greece. What are the consular services doing to ensure that bereaved families in the UK get the justice in Greece that they deserve?

[Mr Lidington]

I would be happy to discuss that case further with the hon. Lady, if she would find that helpful. What I hope the working group of the UK and Greek Ministries of Justice and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will achieve is to make it much easier to transfer evidence from one jurisdiction to another, so that fair and swift trials become the norm.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

T9. Will my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary please inform the House of the next option for Her Majesty’s Government when sanctions against Iran fail?

European Parliament Transitionary Protocol

David Lidington Excerpts

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

The EU treaties, as amended by the treaty of Lisbon, provide for the allocation of 18 extra MEPs to 12 member states, including the UK which gains one extra MEP. The number of MEPs from Germany is also reduced by three. Last year’s European Parliament elections were held under the provisions of the Nice treaty, given that the Lisbon treaty had not at that stage entered into force, and so these additional MEPs were not elected at that time. To allow the extra MEPs provided for to be elected in the current 2009-2014 European Parliament and without the three German MEPs having to stand down in the middle of a term of office, transitional arrangements are needed to enable the number of MEPs to exceed temporarily the limit of 750 plus the president which is laid down in article 14(2) of the treaty on European Union.

In order to make the required transitional changes, the member states of the EU agreed a protocol containing transitional arrangements concerning the composition of the European Parliament, via a very limited intergovernmental conference (IGC) in the margins of the 23 June meeting of the Committee of Permanent Representatives of EU member states.

As with all treaty changes, the protocol now requires ratification from all member states before it can enter into force. Any amendment to the EU treaties can only be ratified by the UK if it is approved by Act of Parliament. This is set out in section 5 of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008. Parliament therefore needs to pass primary legislation before the protocol can be ratified in the UK and the Government intend to include the necessary provision in the forthcoming European Union Bill.

This is a technical change to the treaty relating to numbers of MEPs and does not transfer any power or competence from the UK to the EU. The additional numbers of MEPs are entitled to take their seats in 2014—this protocol simply means that they will be able to do so earlier than this date.

Details of the process to be undertaken to elect the UK’s extra MEP will be announced in due course.

General Affairs Council and Foreign Affairs Council

David Lidington Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd June 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

The General Affairs Council (GAC) and Foreign Affairs Council (FCA) were held on 14 June in Brussels. My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Development Secretary represented the UK at the FAC. I also attended, and represented at the GAC.

The agenda items covered were as follows:

Foreign Affairs Council (Development Ministers)

The provisional report of the meetings of both Development and Foreign Ministers, including conclusions, can be found at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/App/newsroom/loadbook.aspx? BID=78&LANG=1&cmsid=1850

Development Ministers discussed the millennium development goals (MDGs), an EU gender action plan, and development and piracy in East Africa.

Ministers adopted conclusions on the MDGs (see web link above) which will form the basis for EU negotiations ahead of the New York UN MDG summit in September 2010. The Development Secretary strongly encouraged EU member states to uphold their collective commitment to provide 0.7% ODA/GNI by 2015, and called for annual leaders’ discussions on ODA.

The Development Secretary also stressed the importance of maternal and child health, two of the most off-track MDGs, and was supported in his recognition of the importance of policy coherence, aid effectiveness and transparency. The Development Secretary further supported the adoption of an EU gender action plan for 2010-15, and welcomed the High Representative’s (Baroness Ashton) aim to launch a comprehensive strategy for the horn of Africa to deal with the problems of piracy and development in this region.

Foreign Affairs Council (Foreign Ministers)

Gaza

Tony Blair, representing the quartet, briefed Ministers on Israel’s undertakings to ease the Gaza blockade and to hold an inquiry on the Gaza flotilla incident. Following a substantive discussion of the flotilla incident, Ministers set out their views on wider middle east process issues including Gaza access, and the helpful role played by other states in the region. The Council agreed conclusions that can be found at the web link quoted above.

Western Balkans

Ministers heard a presentation from International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Chief Prosecutor, Serge Brammertz, on Serbia’s and Croatia’s co-operation with the court.

Ministers agreed to submit Serbia’s stabilisation and association agreement to their respective parliaments for ratification. They also agreed to return to the issue of Serbia’s accession application at a later time.

The Council agreed conclusions welcoming the outcome of the high-level meeting on the Western Balkans in Sarajevo on 2 June, which emphasised the EU’s commitment to the European perspective of the Western Balkans countries in line with the Thessaloniki agenda. Ministers also expressed concern about the political situation in Albania and discussed the situation in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Iran

Ministers discussed Iran following the adoption of United Nations Security Council resolution (UNSCR) 1929 concerning Iran’s nuclear programme. The Foreign Secretary set out his strong support for the UNSCR and advocated an endorsement of a draft declaration for the June European Council.

Ministers agreed conclusions (see web link above). They also agreed a draft declaration for the June European Council inviting the next Foreign Affairs Council to agree measures to implement UNSCR 1929 and a range of additional EU measures.

Child Labour

Ministers agreed conclusions on child labour (see web link above).

Somalia/Piracy

Over lunch, Ministers heard a presentation from Rear Admiral Hudson (UK), the outgoing operational commander of the EU’s counter-piracy mission (Atalanta) now replaced by Major-General Buster Howes RM (UK). The Council agreed that the EU should extend the operation for a further two years and the Foreign Secretary stated the UK would be willing to offer Northwood as the operation headquarters until the end of 2012. When the formal Council decision to extend is prepared later this year, it will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the usual way. Ministers agreed conclusions (see web link).

Cuba

Ministers discussed Cuba in the context of the evaluation of the EU’s common position. There were no conclusions, but Ministers may revert to the issue in September.

Haiti and Disaster Response

The Commissioner for International Co-operation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response, Kristalina Georgieva, presented lessons learned on the EU’s Haiti disaster response. The Commissioner noted opportunities under the Lisbon treaty for better co-ordination and institutional management of responses and ensuring planned rather than ad hoc humanitarian, civil protection and military responses.

Corfu Process

Baroness Ashton set out priorities ahead of the informal OSCE ministerial in July which will discuss the Corfu process.

Kyrgyzstan

This was added to the agenda following recent violence over the weekend. Ministers adopted conclusions that stressed the need to restore public order and respect for the rule of law, to pursue the political process, and underlined the need for dialogue. The conclusions also reflected the EU’s readiness to respond to the most urgent humanitarian needs.

General Affairs Council

The provisional text of the Council’s discussion and agreed conclusions can be found at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/App/newsroom/loadbook.aspx? BID=72&LANG=1&cmsid=1851

European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI)

The presidency sought agreement for a revised “general approach” to its proposal implementing the ECI: an initiative from the Lisbon treaty that will enable EU citizens to ask the Commission to bring forward legislative proposals if there are at least 1 million signatories from a significant number of member states.

I supported the principles of the ECI, but expressed concern about the level of bureaucracy in the proposal; specifically, dual admissibility checks, verification processes and the lack of an impact assessment. However, I noted that this was only the start of a process, and that the “general approach” would evolve. As parliamentary scrutiny is still outstanding, I said that the UK would abstain from supporting at this time. The presidency concluded that it had sufficient support to proceed with the “General Approach”, but acknowledged the UK’s concerns and recognised that the UK had captured the mood of the Council.

June European Council (JEC)

Ministers examined draft conclusions for the European Council meeting to be held on 17 June. The discussion covered: jobs and growth and the adoption of the Europe 20202 strategy; preparations for the G20 summit in Toronto millennium development goals; and climate change. The Prime Minister will report to Parliament on the outcome of the JEC.

I set out the UK’s positions on MDGs, economic governance and education targets.

European External Action Service (EAS)

The presidency and the High Representative set out progress in the ongoing negotiations with the European Parliament on the establishment of the EAS.

The Council also agreed conclusions on:

economic and social cohesion in the EU;

the EU’s outermost regions;

common practices in consular assistance and crisis co-ordination;

maritime policy.