UK’s Relationship with the EU

Debate between David Lidington and Jeremy Corbyn

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the proposal for discussion of the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union, to be published later today by the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

At about 11.35 this morning, the President of the European Council, Mr Donald Tusk, published a set of draft texts about the United Kingdom’s renegotiation. He has now sent those to all European Union Governments for them to consider ahead of the February European Council. This is a complex and detailed set of documents, which right hon. and hon. Members will, understandably, wish to read and study in detail. With that in mind, and subject to your agreement, Mr Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will offer an oral statement tomorrow, following Prime Minister’s questions, to allow Members of the House to question him, having first had a chance to digest the detail of the papers that have been issued within the last hour.

The Government have been clear that the European Union needs to be reformed if it is to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The British people have very reasonable concerns about the UK’s membership of the European Union, and the Prime Minister is determined to address those. He believes that the reforms that Britain is seeking will benefit not just Britain, but the European Union as a whole. Therefore, our approach in Government has been one of reform, renegotiation and then a referendum. We are working together with other countries to discuss and agree reforms, many of which will benefit the entire European Union, before holding a referendum to ensure that the British people have the final and decisive say about our membership.

The House will recall that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a statement after the December meeting of the European Council. At that meeting, leaders agreed to work together to find mutually satisfactory solutions in all the four areas at the European Council meeting on 18 and 19 February. My right hon. Friend’s meetings in Brussels on 29 January, and his dinner with President Tusk on 31 January, were steps in that negotiation process.

We are in the middle of a live negotiation and are now entering a particularly crucial phase. The Government have been clear throughout that they cannot provide a running commentary on the renegotiations. However, I am able to say that much progress has been made in recent days, and it appears that a deal is within sight. The publication of the texts by President Tusk this morning is another step in that process, but I would stress to the House that there is still a lot of work to be done.

If the texts tabled today are agreed by all member states, they will deliver significant reforms in each of the four areas of greatest concern to the British people: economic governance, competitiveness, sovereignty and immigration. On sovereignty, the texts show significant advances towards securing a United Kingdom carve-out from ever closer union.

On the relations between euro “ins” and “outs”, the documents offer steps towards significant safeguards for countries outside the eurozone as euro members integrate further. On competitiveness, we are seeing a greater commitment by the entire Union to completing the single market for trade and cutting job-destroying regulations on business.

On free movement, there are important ideas in President Tusk’s drafts on reducing the pull factor of our welfare system and on action to address the abuse of freedom of movement of persons.

We believe that real progress has been made, but I would stress that there is more work still to be done and more detail to be nailed down before we are able to say that a satisfactory deal has been secured.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

First, Mr Speaker, may I thank you for allowing this urgent question to be placed before the House today?

It is rather strange that the Prime Minister is not here and that only two of his Cabinet colleagues appear to be in attendance. The Prime Minister—I should be pleased about this, I suppose—seems to think that he should be in Chippenham, paying homage to the town where I was born, making a speech about negotiations with the European Union, rather than first, as is his duty, reporting to this House, to which he is accountable as Prime Minister.

The Minister says that the Prime Minister does not wish to give a running commentary on the negotiations, but that is exactly what he is doing. He has gone to a selected audience in Chippenham this morning to give a commentary on the negotiations but cannot come here to report to this House. He is trumpeting the sovereignty of national Parliaments as part of the renegotiations, but does not seem to respect the sovereignty of this Parliament in coming here today to make the statement he should have done. Also conspicuous by his absence is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Where is he this morning? He is across the road making a speech there, but cannot come here to this House—to this Parliament.

Additionally, it appears that journalists were given a very heavy briefing and copies of the document earlier this morning, if not yesterday. No Member of this House received it before them; they were given the briefing. Once again: no process of coming to Parliament, and every process about engagement with the media rather than this House.

If the Prime Minister has an unbreakable commitment in Chippenham—it is a wonderful town and I hope he enjoys his visit there—he could get back to London in about an hour by train and give a statement here later on today. Why cannot he do that?

The truth of the matter is that this whole process conducted by the Prime Minister is not about engaging with Parliament and not about engaging with the necessary questioning by MPs—it is about managing the problems within the Conservative party. I believe, Mr Speaker, that this indicates a lack of respect for the democratic process and this House. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that the Prime Minister will come here tomorrow, will take questions, and will in future come to this House first rather than going to selected audiences to say what people want to hear.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Lidington and Jeremy Corbyn

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

It is true, of course, that many of the members of the Human Rights Council, who have been elected by the membership of the United Nations generally, still have the death penalty. The United Kingdom, both at the UN Human Rights Council and in our bilateral and multilateral relationships of all kinds, continues to stress that we regard the death penalty as completely unacceptable.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister use the opportunity of the Human Rights Council to raise the human rights crisis in central America, in particular in Mexico? Will he also raise these matters with President Peña Nieto during his visit and tie any future trade developments with Mexico to improvements in its human rights record and dealing with those who killed, probably, the 43 students—but also thousands of others who have died—and the forces that have acted with impunity in that country?

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman will recall from the recent debate in Westminster Hall, in which he and I spoke, that we have a strong relationship with Mexico. We use that to seek improvements to Mexico’s human rights record and to give Mexico practical help in trying to improve its judicial and police systems in particular. That work will continue.

Human Rights in Mexico

Debate between David Lidington and Jeremy Corbyn

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Lidington]

I completely agree. Wherever one looks in the world, changes to the structure and the organisation of institutions are important. We should not deride that sort of reform, but those sorts of administrative changes need to embody cultural change, too. That is a lesson I am well aware of from my ministerial work with Governments in parts of central and eastern Europe—I am thinking of some of the Balkan countries, in particular. Changes to an organisation’s structure are necessary to trigger cultural reform of the type the hon. Lady described.

We stand ready to support the Mexican Government in their efforts to strengthen processes and mechanisms so that those responsible for human rights abuses are brought to justice. In recent years, the FCO’s human rights work in Mexico has focused on tackling impunity in particular as a way of improving human rights across the country.

The hon. Lady asked how we propose to deal with the question of human rights in the context of the forthcoming state visit. We are keen to help Mexico to strengthen its capacity to uphold its human rights obligations—it is party to all those international conventions that proscribe torture and other abuses of human rights—as well as to tackle its security challenges. We see the state visit as an opportunity to strengthen our bilateral relationship. That, in turn, will allow for continued full and frank conversations, including about human rights.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank the Minister for giving way; I know he has only a couple of minutes left. During the discussions, will he raise the impunity of the armed forces in relation to the decision taken by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on one of the cases there and whether the belief is that the new law in Mexico meets the requirements of that court?

[Mr Lidington]

I will make sure that that idea is drawn to the attention of both the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon, and the Foreign Secretary.

The war on drugs featured as a case study in last year’s FCO human rights report, and the issue of Mexico and impunity will feature in this year’s report.

During 2013-14, our embassy in Mexico City helped to fund an initiative called Citizens in Support of Human Rights—or CADHAC, to use the Spanish acronym—to support efforts to strengthen criminal prosecution and judicial processes in the northern state of Nuevo Leon, where the majority of enforced disappearances are alleged to have happened. We believe that as a result of that project, the legal framework to address enforced disappearances has been strengthened and access to justice improved, but we are continuing efforts to build and strengthen links with human rights organisations in Mexico and to secure funding for similar grass-roots projects now and for the future.

In the coming months, we will be supporting a project to strengthen the judicial system in the state of Chiapas, and in the future we particularly hope to support charities and NGOs working to tackle enforced disappearances. We believe that regular constructive dialogue with Mexico will bring the best results for human rights defenders and victims of human rights abuses and violations.

The UK enjoys a strong bilateral relationship with Mexico that allows for full and frank conversation. We have well established co-operation on such matters as climate change, transparency, non-proliferation and international development. The 2015 year of the UK and Mexico and the state visit of President Pena Nieto in early March will provide further scope for such constructive engagement. One of the messages that we raise in our discussions with Mexican Ministers and officials is that greater respect for human rights and the rule of law and improved security will lead to a better environment for business and investment. The two should not be seen as in any way in opposition. Respect for the rule of law gives confidence to business in terms of trade and investment commitments in the future.

It is right that the international community, including the United Kingdom, should respond vigorously to allegations of human rights violations in Iguala and elsewhere. We recognise the human rights challenges that Mexico faces, and through constructive dialogue as part of a positive, bilateral relationship, we stand ready to support the Mexican Government in their efforts to deliver on their international human rights commitments and ensure that those responsible for human rights abuses are brought to justice and held accountable.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I want to make one last point to the Minister. Will he assure the House that the embassy will be fully staffed in Mexico City—I pay tribute to the staff there; I have met them many times and they are always extremely helpful—to ensure that there is a good, strong and effective human rights and legal affairs team there that can take part both in European monitoring as well as UN monitoring of what is going on in Mexico? We all need to take part to improve the human rights and life chances of many people in Mexico.

[Mr Lidington]

Our ambassador and his team see human rights as a very important part of their responsibilities, but again I shall make sure that that strong message from the House this afternoon is conveyed both to him and to the officials to whom he reports.

US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement

Debate between David Lidington and Jeremy Corbyn

Thursday 6th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) on securing this debate on the mutual defence agreement, which has spread out to consider wider aspects of this country’s nuclear defence policy.

It is noticeable that the debate has been conducted by Members on all sides with a degree of seriousness appropriate to the grave subject that we are debating. I am with the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) in saying that whatever side of the argument any of us stands on—whether for or against the UK maintaining a nuclear deterrent—we are in no doubt about the consequences of nuclear warfare. All of us have seen or read about the impact on people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. We have also seen the impact of nuclear testing in some of the cases that the hon. Member for Islington North described.

I take the view, along with my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East, that there remains a need for a United Kingdom nuclear deterrent. Although the cold war has ended, significant nuclear capabilities and risks remain. Nuclear weapons cannot be disinvented. Substantial nuclear arsenals still exist. The number of nuclear armed states in the world has increased, and there is a significant risk of new nuclear armed states emerging. Moreover, several of the countries that have nuclear weapons, or are trying to acquire them, are in tense and unstable regions. There is the potential for a new nuclear threat to emerge or re-emerge.

This country’s strategic deterrent is therefore as relevant today as it has ever been. It remains the ultimate guarantee of our security and sovereignty, and a necessary insurance in an uncertain world. I want to be clear, as successive Governments of this country have been, that the United Kingdom’s nuclear weapons are not designed or intended for military use during conflicts. Their objective is to deter and prevent nuclear blackmail, and acts of aggression against our vital interests that could not be countered by any other means. Successive Governments have been clear that the circumstances in which any use of nuclear weapons might be contemplated are of the most extreme kind.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The Minister mentioned the non-proliferation treaty. It is specifically designed to prevent, as the name suggests, nuclear armed proliferation. Is he content about, or has he had legal advice on, provision for nuclear information to be shared by the USA with Britain? That is extrajudicial for both countries and therefore appears to be at odds with the terms of the non-proliferation treaty, which is designed to stop proliferation, rather than encourage it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I will address the issue of the non-proliferation treaty and the bearing it has on the MDA later. I pay tribute to him. He has always, in all his years in the House, taken an absolutely consistent and coherent approach in opposing this country’s deterrent and wanting to see immediate and universal nuclear disarmament. The right hon. Member for Warley, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East and I believe that this country’s deterrent remains necessary and important. There is no case for saying that the United Kingdom ought to have an independent nuclear deterrent, but one that was less effective and therefore of less deterrent value than the system of continuous submarine patrols that we have. That point was made more than once in this debate, but I will not pursue it further in the absence of those advocating that policy course.

I referred a moment ago to our alliance on continuous at-sea submarine patrols, and it is worth paying tribute to the fact that for more than 45 years, for every minute of every day, the Royal Navy has successfully operated such patrols, ensuring the safety and security of this country. I hope that the whole House would join me, whatever our views on the need for a nuclear deterrent, in paying tribute to the dedication of the men and women of the Royal Navy, including the crews and support staff and their families. Many of those servicemen and women are away from home for long periods, and their dedication and commitment are fundamental to the success of the United Kingdom’s deterrent operation.

While the international security environment continues to require the UK to maintain a nuclear deterrent, we have an obvious responsibility to maintain the safety, security and reliability of all its elements, including through the replacement and updating of parts of the system as they reach the end of their operational life. The mutual defence agreement has enabled us to collaborate with the United States to ensure that we are able to do that to the highest possible technical standards. The MDA underpins all nuclear defence co-operation between the UK and the US. That co-operation has been of considerable mutual benefit, allowing the United Kingdom to reduce costs significantly while maintaining an operationally independent deterrent. It is in the national defence and security interests of the UK and the US, as well as in this country’s economic interests, for the MDA to continue.

Questions have been posed about the independence of the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent and whether that independence is in practice meaningful, given the MDA and our close collaboration on defence matters with the United States. I want to be absolutely clear that this country’s nuclear deterrent is and always has been operationally independent. The command and control systems involved are UK-owned and controlled. Decision making and use of the Trident system remain entirely sovereign to the United Kingdom. Only the Prime Minister can authorise the employment of the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent, and there are no technical means by which the United States could negate or override a prime ministerial instruction.

It is true that through the MDA we have been able to take advantage of some American know-how, and of a certain amount of American material. We would have been able to provide that for ourselves, but creating an entirely indigenous source of such material, equipment and know-how would have given rise to significant additional expense. It has seemed to Labour and Conservative Governments alike over the years to be common sense to work with the United States to take advantage of its capacity in those areas of nuclear expertise to our mutual advantage, rather than incurring the extra costs ourselves when that was not necessary for the independence and capability of our nuclear deterrent. We have some procurement dependence on the US for certain non-nuclear aspects of the system, but we choose not to manufacture those indigenously because of the economic benefits of working with our closest ally.

[Mr David Amess in the Chair]

On the important question of the relationship between the mutual defence agreement and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, there have been claims in this debate and at other times that the MDA is at odds with our commitment to a world without nuclear weapons, and incompatible with the commitments we have made under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, particularly those in articles I and VI. The United Kingdom is a leading nation in securing progress in nuclear disarmament, and we should be proud of our record. We have steadily reduced the size of our nuclear forces by well over half since our cold war peak. Our nuclear arsenal is almost certainly the smallest of any of the five states recognised as nuclear weapons states under the NPT.

Our forces peaked in the late 1970s with a total of some 460 warheads of various types and delivery systems. In May 2010, the Prime Minister announced that the figure would continue to be reduced to no more than 120 operationally available warheads, with an entire stockpile of no more that 180 warheads by the mid-2020s. That reduction is already under way. The Government have also announced that we will cut the maximum number of nuclear warheads onboard each deployed submarine from 48 to 40, while reducing the number of operational Trident missiles on each submarine to eight. Those changes have already been completed on at least one of the vessels.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

May I take the Minister back to my question about the compatibility of the MDA, which is now amended and includes the observation of dangers of proliferation elsewhere in the world, with the original and current objective of the NPT, which is the non-proliferation of nuclear know-how or technology between states? Britain and the USA are not one state. As the Minister reminded us, they are both sovereign, independent nations, so the transfer of nuclear technology from one to the other is surely in breach of the NPT.

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman takes me straight to the point that I was about to make about article I of the NPT, which touches on the transfer of nuclear weapons and devices between countries. The Government regard the MDA as compliant with our obligations under article I for three reasons.

First, nuclear devices or weapons are not transferred to the United Kingdom under the terms of the MDA. As I described earlier, what we receive under the MDA is a certain amount of nuclear technological know-how and some non-lethal elements, such as propulsion systems, that are not prohibited under article I.

Secondly, article V of the original mutual defence agreement—not including the amendments—quite explicitly states that the transfer of nuclear weapons is not permitted.

Thirdly, article I of the NPT refers in particular to transfers from the recognised nuclear weapons states to non-nuclear weapons states. However, the MDA refers to transfers of things other than nuclear weapons or devices from one nuclear weapons state to another, both of which are party to the NPT. I think that that answers the challenge that the MDA is in some way incompatible with article I of the NPT.

The other criticism made is that the mutual defence agreement is at odds with the obligation that we and the other four recognised nuclear weapons states have under article VI of the non-proliferation treaty to work towards multilateral disarmament. I have already described how the United Kingdom has significantly brought down its nuclear arsenal as a contribution to multilateral nuclear disarmament, but we have also been active and continue to be active in a range of multilateral disarmament initiatives.

We remain a strong supporter of the NPT. We signed and ratified the comprehensive test ban treaty as long ago as the 1990s and remain a strong supporter of the treaty both financially and technically, operating our own voluntary moratorium on testing pending the treaty coming into effect. We actively urge the remaining states that have not yet ratified the treaty to do so. We want an early start of negotiations in Geneva on the fissile material cut-off treaty and are an active member of the group of governmental experts that is working on those negotiations, which are currently blocked not by the United Kingdom or any of the recognised nuclear weapons states, but by Pakistan for national reasons.

In addition, we currently chair the forum of the permanent five nuclear weapons states and will be hosting the next annual conference in London in February next year. The purpose of the P5 process is to build transparency and mutual confidence to make it possible for all nuclear weapons states to engage in further rounds of multilateral disarmament. At the same time, we lead an informal working group at the United Nations, discussing the UN’s role in future nuclear security work. This country therefore has a good record of active work on multilateral disarmament that sits perfectly well alongside the arrangements that we have with the United States under the MDA.

[Mr Lidington]

First, I happily acknowledge that the multilateral disarmament work that I have described has taken place under Governments of both political colours.

Secondly, I agree completely with the right hon. Gentleman that the prime responsibility for leadership in multilateral nuclear disarmament must lie with the two biggest nuclear powers: the United States and Russia. We encouraged the talks that led towards the second strategic arms reduction treaty, which will impose limits for each party of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads from February 2018. We need to see that target fulfilled and would welcome and support its implementation.

One could make a similar point about the talks on an intermediate nuclear forces treaty. There was a bilateral US-Russia treaty back in 1988, but each side now accuses the other of breaching it. For reasons relating to Russia’s conduct in Ukraine, there has been a significant erosion of trust between the US and Russia. It will therefore not be easy to get talks between Washington and Moscow back on course, but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is in the interests of all of us that Russia and the United States are able to rebuild a sufficient degree of trust for meaningful negotiations towards multilateral nuclear disarmament to take place.

I want it to be clear that the United Kingdom is not using the amendments to the mutual defence agreement to upgrade its system’s capabilities. There is no move to produce more usable weapons or change our nuclear posture or doctrine. The amendments to the MDA that we are technically debating this afternoon do not in any way provide for an upgrading of the capabilities of the Trident system. That is a decision for 2016.

The hon. Member for Islington North asked a couple of detailed questions about plutonium tests at Aldermaston and the relationship between the mutual defence agreement and the planned replacement of the Vanguard-class submarine fleet. The Atomic Weapons Establishment has conducted sealed hydrodynamic plutonium experiments, which are sub-critical, do not produce nuclear yield and are fully compliant with the non-proliferation treaty. The experiments were described in a published article in the journal Nature in February 2002. Aldermaston and its experiments are also, of course, fully in line with the commitments we have undertaken in agreeing and ratifying the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. I am therefore advised that what has happened at Aldermaston is fully compliant with our international legal obligations.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Two points come from that. First, was the plutonium from the UK, or was it imported from the USA? Secondly, were the results shared with US scientists and military personnel, either at the time or after the experiments took place?

[Mr Lidington]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand if I say I will write to him after the debate to provide him with such detail as I can.

On the relationship between the renewal of the MDA and the 2016 main-gate decision, no submarines or reactors are being built before that decision. However, it is vital, as with any major programme of such complexity, to order certain items where there would be a delay in the programme if we were to wait until after main gate. Some of those transfers will take place under the MDA, but as I said earlier, transfers under the MDA do not include nuclear weapons or nuclear devices.

I hope hon. Members on both sides will recognise that the United Kingdom has been a leading nation on multilateral disarmament. However, successive Governments have also been clear that we will retain a credible, continuous and effective minimum nuclear deterrent for as long as the global security situation makes that necessary.

We are a responsible nuclear weapons state. The mutual defence agreement helps to provide the maintenance and servicing required to ensure the safety, security and reliability of the system, and at a substantial reduction on the costs that would otherwise be incurred. It is fully compliant with our international obligations, it does not hinder the operational independence of the deterrent and it is a key aspect of our defence co-operation with our closest ally. It is clearly in the national interest of the United Kingdom and the United States to continue this co-operation, and the Government’s clear view is that the mutual defence agreement should be renewed.

Government Strategy Against IS

Debate between David Lidington and Jeremy Corbyn

Friday 12th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. and learned Friend knows better than most that, as with any client in receipt of legal advice, it is important for the Government to preserve the confidentiality of advice from legal advisers. However, when this Government have taken action previously during their time in office, we have set out the legal grounds for that action and why we think a particular course of action—a recent example is Libya—was justified in international law.

My hon. and learned Friend is right, too, to point to the shock felt throughout the country at ISIL’s action, and I ought to say that I strongly welcome the unreserved condemnation from so many British Muslims and mosque leaderships throughout the United Kingdom.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Odious as ISIL is, it did not come from nowhere. Is it not a product of our past policies in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and of the vast number of arms that we have supplied to Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region? That gives it highly sophisticated weaponry. Do we not need a slightly more nuanced view of the world that does not automatically lead to intervention everywhere and create the problems of tomorrow?

[Mr Lidington]

I think the answer is considerably more complex than the hon. Gentleman allows. This kind of perverted Islamist ideology has been around for a considerable time and is found not just in Iraq but in parts of the world where there has not been the kind of intervention that the previous Government undertook in 2003. It is also the case that in Iraq ISIL seized the opportunity presented by the loss of support for the Baghdad Government among the Sunni population in central Iraq. One of the key tasks for the new Government in Baghdad will be to win back mainstream Sunnis to support the democratic Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Lidington and Jeremy Corbyn

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I completely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. It is important that the Atlantic alliance generally—this applies whether we are talking about NATO or the European Union—remains united, resolute and determined, because we face a very grave challenge. It is certainly the case that the NATO summit will need to give a high priority to a reassertion of article 5 of the doctrine of collective defence.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

What actions are the Foreign Office team taking to ensure consular access to Andargachew Tsege? He is an Ethiopian-born British citizen who was seized at Sanaa airport by Ethiopian officials on 23 June, sentenced to death in absentia by a court in Ethiopia and held at an undisclosed location in Ethiopia. Despite the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and me, he still has not had consular or legal access. Could the Foreign Office urgently contact the Ethiopian Government and ensure that access is obtained?

Bangladesh

Debate between David Lidington and Jeremy Corbyn

Thursday 16th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I pay tribute to all those who have contributed to the debate: my hon. Friends the Members for St Albans (Mrs Main), for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), for Bedford (Richard Fuller), for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), and the hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy).

Listening to the speeches of Members from different political parties, I have been struck that they share a common commitment to and a passion—I do not think that is too strong a word—for the well-being, future prosperity and stable democratic development of Bangladesh. Coupled with that sense of commitment, we heard in a number of speeches a sense of frustration, impatience and almost anger at times at how difficult it has been to make such progress, and especially at the events of the recent parliamentary election.

The Government believe that it is peaceful and credible elections expressing the genuine will of the voters that are the true mark of a mature and functioning democracy. The facts are that on Sunday 5 January, parliamentary elections were held in Bangladesh in accordance with the constitution, as a number of hon. Members have said, but regrettably they took place without the opposition 18-party alliance, for the reasons that have been debated extensively. As a consequence, we were left with a situation in which just over half the seats were uncontested, which denied more than 46 million out of 92 million voters any say at the ballot box, and even in the contested elections turnout was low. That is an unsatisfactory and deeply disappointing outcome.

The day after the elections, 6 January, my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Warsi issued a public statement making those points and condemning the acts of intimidation and unlawful political violence. It has been reported that no fewer than 500 people lost their lives because of political violence during 2013. Twenty-one deaths were reported on polling day and more than 100 polling centres, many of them schools in very poor rural areas, were burned down. The Government are shocked and saddened by the high number of deaths and we urge all Bangladeshi political parties to take responsibility for the situation and to look actively for solutions through dialogue, not through political harassment and violence.

All of Bangladesh’s political parties share a clear and unequivocal responsibility to work together to strengthen democratic accountability as an urgent priority and to build the willingness and capacity for Bangladesh to hold fully participatory parliamentary elections without the fear of intimidation or reprisals. I am pleased that the Bangladesh Nationalist party has announced a suspension of its blockade programme and that Begum Zia has publicly condemned violence, including attacks on minorities. That is a positive step, although we would welcome further bold moves by both political parties that lead to dialogue between them. Above all, it is important that the political parties put the interests of the Bangladeshi people first.

I have been asked by a number of hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham and the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, about action since the elections. The Bangladeshi Government were only sworn in on 12 January and as yet no Foreign Minister has been announced. I will preface my comments on this issue by saying that we think that representations are not always best made through a megaphone in public, but I assure the House that our views on the electoral process and the challenges facing Bangladesh and its political leaders are well known by both the Government and the opposition parties and that we continue, at all appropriate levels, to maintain contact. Our commitment to that intensive dialogue will continue. We also keep in close touch with our partners in the United States, Brussels and national capitals around the world.

Obviously it is for Bangladesh to decide to invite international observers, who have an important role to play in assessing the inclusiveness and fairness of elections. It is also essential, however, that the political conditions exist for observers to go about their work in safety and with full access to all stages of the electoral process. That was not possible this time in Bangladesh, but I hope very much that it will be the next time it holds elections.

My hon. Friends the Members for St Albans and for Bedford and the hon. Member for Islington North asked about disappearances and other reported and alleged human rights abuses. At Bangladesh’s universal periodic review at the United Nations Human Rights Council in April 2013, the United Kingdom called for a thorough and impartial investigation into enforced disappearances. We also argued that if credible evidence emerged, there should be prosecutions for all alleged abuses of human rights. That continues to be our position. We believe that any allegation of an abuse of human rights should be properly and impartially investigated, and that where there is credible and verifiable evidence against people, they should be held to account, through due judicial process, for those actions.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank the Minister for making that point. Does he know when the universal periodic review response is due from Bangladesh and whether the Bangladesh Government have agreed to co-operate with the UPR based on the representations made by the UK and other Governments?

[Mr Lidington]

I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman now, but I will write to him on those details.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans was absolutely right to warn that political instability and feuding in Bangladesh will harm the country’s prospects of attracting the investment that its people so desperately need. I welcome her emphasis on the garment sector and the role of women in the economy. I will certainly draw to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for International Development her wish for a formal response to the all-party group report. The Government regard the garment sector as vital for poverty reduction and for the economic empowerment of women. Through our aid programme, we provide just under £5 million to the International Labour Organisation to enhance worker safety in the ready-made garment sector in Bangladesh. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends at DFID will keep under review other opportunities for providing similar help through the appropriate agencies.

Several questions were asked about the United Kingdom’s aid programme and the political situation in Bangladesh. Of course, aid is not the only way in which this country helps Bangladesh and tries to make it possible for its people to prosper. We have a flourishing and growing commercial relationship. The United Kingdom is one of the largest investors in Bangladesh, with about £2 billion provided in investment projects to date, and with 100 UK firms operating successfully right across Bangladesh. Our bilateral trade in goods doubled between 2006 and 2011, and we are now the third largest destination for exports from Bangladesh, with garments and seafood accounting for the bulk of total sales.

The aid relationship is, however, very important as well. The United Kingdom is the largest donor of bilateral grant aid to Bangladesh. It will amount to £275 million in the 2013-14 financial year. The aid programme is focused above all on the relief of the chronic and desperate poverty of far too many millions of people in Bangladesh, as well as on programmes to improve the quality of drinking water and sanitation, and to help Bangladesh to adapt to the risks posed by climate change. I say to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow that we estimate that about 15 million people in Bangladesh have been helped directly by UK aid funding for extending flood early-warning systems.

[Official Report, 22 January 2014, Vol. 574, c. 1-2MC.]Most United Kingdom aid is channelled through non-governmental organisations and none is paid directly to the Bangladesh Government. It is true that about a third of our total aid programme ultimately goes to the Bangladesh Government’s health and education systems because, as we all know, help with primary health care and education are key to promoting the economic development and sustainable growth of a developing country. However, that one-third share is channelled via reputable NGOs, such as the United Nations, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, and money is paid out by our Government only once we have been given clear, accountable evidence that a project or programme in the education or health sector has been delivered. That aspect of our aid is delivered on a reimbursement basis.

Roughly 12.5% of United Kingdom aid goes to matters related to governance, although I again stress that it does not go directly to the Bangladesh Government or any individual political party. That element of our aid programme includes measures to enhance the taxpayer base in Bangladesh, which indirectly contributes to anti-corruption work in that country. The number of registered taxpayers has risen by 480,000, in part as a result of that element of the UK aid programme, and improving the technical side of the electoral system—the quality of the electoral register—is another aspect of it.

As some Members have urged, the Government, through the Department for International Development, will always keep their aid programme under review. I am sure that my colleagues in DFID have heard the questions posed about whether we need to review with particular rigour some parts of the Government’s spending in Bangladesh. I know that the commitment to a review is real, but I emphasise that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, who said that we must not let our dissatisfaction with the political situation in Bangladesh lead us to decide to restrict aid in ways that penalise some of the poorest people on the planet, who are not responsible for decisions taken by Bangladesh’s party political leaders.

Bangladesh is an important partner of the United Kingdom, not least through the Commonwealth and our links to the British Bangladeshi community that contributes so much to our society. We continue to support the people of Bangladesh in their aspirations for a more stable, prosperous and democratic future. We urge all political leaders and parties in Bangladesh to shoulder their responsibilities to bring that about, and to commit themselves to a peaceful political process through constructive dialogue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Lidington and Jeremy Corbyn

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

It is important that the Turkish Government, like any other democratic Government, abide by the rule of law and follow due process in respect of any action involving the police and the criminal-legal process. When talking to our Turkish counterparts, the Foreign Secretary and I certainly make clear the extent of the public concern in the United Kingdom. Those of us who have long been firm friends of Turkey and who want to see its European ambitions fulfilled see the process of judicial and political reform as an integral part of fulfilling those ambitions.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

3. What recent developments there have been in Government policy towards the Chagos islands; and if he will make a statement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Lidington and Jeremy Corbyn

Tuesday 30th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I think that we have to judge the previous Government on the basis of what they actually did while in office. The fact remains that they took decisions that conceded the loss of a quarter of the United Kingdom’s hard-won rebate and left us with a current financial framework for the EU that was £13 billion over what they said in office would be the maximum they would accept. They let our country down, and they let it down badly.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

What contact has the Foreign Secretary had with the Government of Turkey concerning the ongoing hunger strikes of Kurdish political prisoners and the demand for the release of Ocalan so that there can be negotiations on a future for the Kurdish people in Turkey whereby their language and their culture will be fully recognised in accordance with the recommendations of the Council of Europe?

[Mr Lidington]

We always try to make it clear in our conversations with the Turkish Government at both ministerial and official level that it is important that Turkey continues to make progress towards political reform and full implementation of the rule of law measures that we all want to see. I hope that the discussions between the Turkish political parties on a new constitution take us several steps forward. I would be happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman further about the particular case that he has described.

EU Charter of Fundamental Human Rights

Debate between David Lidington and Jeremy Corbyn

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I completely understand my hon. Friend’s point. I said that I wanted to address the concerns expressed by the European Scrutiny Committee and others.

The three issues I have in mind are: first, the need to maintain the rights of member states to determine their foreign policies and to avoid any scope for competence creep towards the EU institutions; secondly, concerns about the balance of responsibilities between the EU institutions themselves and, in particular, the role of the European Parliament; and thirdly—this goes straight to my hon. Friend’s point—the relationship between the EU special representative on human rights and the work of the Council of Europe, particularly its human rights commissioner.

Let me deal first with the question of competence and the rights of member states to determine their foreign policy. Democratic freedoms, universal human rights and respect for the rule of law are at the heart of British diplomacy and policy. I believe that the new EU human rights strategy and in particular the EU special representative on human rights will help us to deliver our national foreign policy objectives better through the EU, by providing a strong and visible face for its external action on human rights.

The EU’s external human rights policy flows from the common defence and security policy, which will provide the operating framework for the special representative. Declaration 13, annexed to the treaties, provides confirmation that the CFSP does

“not affect the responsibilities of the Member States… for the formulation and conduct of their foreign policy”.

Therefore, the new human rights package will not affect our ability to formulate and conduct our own national foreign policy. Furthermore, decisions at European level on CFSP require unanimous approval by the Council, with agreement by every member state. No EU position on external human rights policy or any other aspect of common foreign and security policy can be agreed without the approval of the British Minister or other representative in the room, and of course the same right of veto applies to every other member state. There is no suggestion in these documents or elsewhere that there should be any change to those arrangements.

The Government’s view remains firmly that the EU must act only where it has the competence to do so under the European Union treaties. We will remain vigilant against any threat of competence creep through the actions of the External Action Service. It is essential that the EAS continues to complement and support, not replace, national diplomatic services. That is why, for example, we have been so resolute on the principle that the EAS should have no front-line role in consular services, which would go beyond the supporting role for member states provided for in the treaties.

So far the EAS has delivered best when it has worked closely with member states and capitalised on the resources of member states and EU institutions. I will quickly highlight what I think are a number of genuine achievements from the past year where the EAS has worked well and, in doing so, has helped to deliver important British foreign policy objectives. First, there was the review of the European neighbourhood policy, which has produced an ambitious framework for the EU’s approach to the emerging democracies of north Africa and the middle east. That is now starting to have a practical impact through structures such as the EU-Tunisia taskforce.

Secondly, the EAS and Baroness Ashton personally have worked closely with the E3 plus 3 to engage Iran over its nuclear programme, and the EU recently agreed to the most far-reaching sanctions ever imposed on any other country, working in that case closely and efficiently with the Governments of the individual member states. Thirdly, the sanctions already in place against the Syrian regime—16 rounds already agreed—are still under consideration and may be strengthened further.

The proposed EU special representative will allow us to deliver more such examples of successful EU external action. The role is granted in article 33 of the treaty on European Union, which provides:

“The Council may, on a proposal from the High Representative …appoint a special representative with a mandate in relation to particular policy issues.”

The way in which the mandate is implemented will be critical, and I am glad that the European Scrutiny Committee noted the United Kingdom’s successful efforts to secure an additional layer of member state oversight of the special representative’s activities, in order to guard against any unwelcome or unwarranted expansion of their responsibilities. Article 11 of the mandate provides that

“the EUSR shall work in coordination with the Member states.”

Article 10 requires that he or she

“shall also report to the competent Council working parties”,

and article 4 states that the Council’s

“Political and Security Committee shall maintain a privileged link with the EUSR”.

The last provision is common to all EUSR mandates. In practice, that “privileged link” means that the special representative will be able to communicate directly with the Council, bringing together the representatives of the 27 member states, rather than having to go through the High Representative or through other structures. The mandate also ensures that the Political and Security Committee will

“provide the EU special representative with strategic guidance and political direction.”

Given those safeguards, I am confident that the United Kingdom is well placed to play a leading part in giving that direction and guidance to the EUSR and in holding the special representative to account for his or her actions.

The appointment of a special representative will in no way affect the United Kingdom’s ability to speak, as now, on its own behalf in international organisations, including the Human Rights Council of the United Nations. As is the case now, the European Union may speak on our behalf only if there is a shared position to which the United Kingdom has signed up, and which requires unanimity. On the basis of those safeguards, I seek the House’s approval for the establishment of the role.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Having attended many meetings of the UN Human Rights Council, I was consistently disappointed when the member state representative said nothing and left it all to the EU representative. I am pleased that increasingly the UK representative speaks independently, particularly about the death penalty, but can the Minister assure the House that we will continue to have an independent voice at the UN Human Rights Council and will resort to the EU representative to speak on our behalf only in a case of absolute unanimity?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Lidington and Jeremy Corbyn

Tuesday 25th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I pay tribute to the voluntary work that my hon. Friend did in Tajikistan earlier this year. It is good that the interests of that important part of the world can be highlighted in the House of Commons. I will happily pass on what my hon. Friend has said to the head of the British Council.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Until fairly recently central Asia was awash with nuclear weapons, but following the declaration by Kazakhstan and a number of other nations, a nuclear-weapon-free zone has been established there. Does the Minister welcome its establishment, and will he guarantee that NATO will comply with the zone and not overfly it with any nuclear weapons or nuclear-armed aircraft so that we show respect for that attempt to introduce peace to what was once a very tense region?

[Mr Lidington]

We welcome any moves to reduce the threat from nuclear proliferation worldwide, and we look not only to the central Asian republics but to all signatories to the non-proliferation treaty to live up to their obligations fully.

Palestinian State (UN Membership)

Debate between David Lidington and Jeremy Corbyn

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Lidington]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but we also have to accept the political reality that various acts have taken place in the past few years that have made it difficult to keep negotiations going. Direct negotiations of a serious character are not now taking place. In the absence of such negotiations, I think that there is simply going to be greater bitterness, greater difficulty and the narrowing still further of that window of opportunity for the successful creation of a two-state solution. I think that the emphasis for the United Kingdom and the international community should be on trying to get those negotiations back on track.

My fourth and final point about why this matters to Britain is that, of course, the dispute deeply affects the politics of the broader region, and the fluid dynamic resulting from the Arab spring makes the prize of stability that would come from an Israel-Palestine agreement even more significant.

We want to see a return to negotiations on the basis agreed by the Prime Minister and President Obama. The United Kingdom Government want to see borders based on 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, security for Israel, and the right for Palestinians to govern themselves in a sovereign and contiguous state. We see Jerusalem as being a shared city which will be the capital of both countries, and we also of course accept that there needs to be an agreed and just solution for Palestinian refugees.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being most generous with his time. Can he cast any light on the Government’s views on the plight of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan in particular, and what would happen to their status in respect of recognition of a Palestinian state?

[Mr Lidington]

The detail of that is something that will have to be worked out in negotiations. I think it is fair to say that the negotiations that took place between President Abbas and former Prime Minister Olmert began to address the issue of refugees, even though no final agreement could be reached before Mr Olmert left office. Our view on the humanitarian treatment of those people, particularly in Lebanon where there are some serious problems concerning the treatment of Palestinian refugees, is that we urge the host Governments to treat those Palestinian refugees fairly, humanely and equally.

Tunisia

Debate between David Lidington and Jeremy Corbyn

Monday 17th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend identifies an important problem that faces not only Tunisia but many other countries in north Africa and the middle east: the dismayingly high and enduring unemployment among young people. The problem is made even starker when we consider that young people under 26 or under 30 make up, in most cases, about 60% of the population of those countries. Trade and investment are an important way of giving people in those countries hope of a better future, but investment and trade will be more likely if business has confidence that the rule of law and political stability apply. I think that reforms to governance, greater political freedom and an independent system of courts and judiciary go hand in hand with the economic reforms and improvements that my hon. Friend seeks.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that although the toxic combination of high unemployment and corruption brought about the huge demonstrations and the downfall of the President, at the same time the World Bank and International Monetary Fund supported and approved of the economic strategy adopted by Tunisia? Is it not time to recognise that these tired old models create awful problems for young people, leaving them unemployed and leading hopeless lives? Does the Minister not recognise that there must be some change in economic thinking?

[Mr Lidington]

There must be sensible economic and political reforms, so that those millions of young people feel that they can have a say in how the society in which they live develops and is shaped. That is why the European Union’s assistance for Tunisia is, for the most part, assistance with reform, particularly the reform of governance. It is also why the British Government have established a human development fund, which will seek to assist those sovereign countries—we cannot just go and tell them how to organise their affairs—the stability of which we want to continue, to engage in the reforms that will make them more stable societies in the longer term.