Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 501: debated on Tuesday 1 December 2009

House of Commons

Tuesday 1 December 2009

The House met at half-past Two o’clock


[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

Business Before Questions

City of Westminster Bill [Lords]

Lords message (25 November) relating to the Bill considered.


That this House concurs with the Lords in their Resolution.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Transport for London (Supplemental Toll Provisions) BILL [Lords]

Lords message (25 November) relating to the Bill considered.


That this House concurs with the Lords in their Resolution.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

The Secretary of State was asked—


1. What steps he is taking to support the talks aimed at bringing a resolution to the situation in Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. (302594)

The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary recently met President Christofias to reaffirm our support for the settlement process, and I met both leaders in Cyprus last week. The UK has also written to the United Nations offering to cede approximately half the sovereign base area land for incorporation into a reunited island, should there be a final agreement.

The House and others will be grateful both for the Government’s continuing interest and for the Minister’s specific commitment to this issue. Given that many people believe that the best chance in the near future of a peaceful settlement remains while President Christofias is President of Cyprus and Mr. Talat is the President in the self-declared northern republic, what do the Government plan to do at the European Council later this month to try to move things on, and what other pressure can be exerted to try to ensure that the next few months are not yet another wasted opportunity?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is a unique opportunity given that the leaders in each community have staked their political careers on desiring and willing a settlement. I saw the buffer zone last week, and it must seem to any sane person a disgrace that we still have a divided capital city in Europe, 20 years after the fall of the Berlin wall. We are determined to do everything that we can. We think that it is important that Turkey adheres to and complies with what it has said that it would do under the Ankara protocol. It is also important that Turkey continues further along the route towards accession to the European Union. Perhaps the motto that might best serve the talks at the moment is the words of Sheridan, the first Under-Secretary in the Foreign Office, when he said:

“The surest way to fail is not to determine to succeed.”

We should determine to succeed.

I thank my hon. Friend for the support that the UK Government have given to the efforts to determine the whereabouts of people on both sides who have been missing since the Turkish invasion of 1974. Will he put additional pressure on the Turkish Government to reveal more information about the possible whereabouts of the remains of those missing people?

Last week, when I met the Committee on Missing Persons, it was one of the most distressing parts of my visit, as it must be for anyone who goes to Cyprus, to see so many cadavers laid out and to know that many more are missing. Their families have no sense of closure about what happened so many years ago. We will continue to put pressure on all those involved to ensure that any information that is out there can be made available to the organisation. However, it is probably going to have to speed up its work as the further we get away from those events, the more difficult it is to find answers to what happened.

Like the Minister, I too have visited Cyprus this year and we would all like to see progress towards a lasting settlement. He mentioned the buffer zone. Given the vital need to maintain public support for the process on both sides, does he believe that there is now scope for further confidence-building measures such as opening extra border crossings, to try to demonstrate to people across the island that real progress is being made and a settlement is yet possible?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the more confidence-building measures can be put in place, the greater the likelihood of maintaining political support for the talks and for any eventual solution. My own feeling of optimism rose dramatically when I spoke to the individual leaders who are actively involved in the talks, but sometimes when I spoke to the media my optimism plummeted. Sometimes the media in Cyprus are overly sceptical and cynical about the process. I think that there is significant progress being made and it is important that agreement has been reached to intensify the talks in the new year.


2. What progress is being made towards holding a conference on future policy on Afghanistan in January 2010 as proposed by the Prime Minister in his Guildhall speech? (302595)

The London conference on Afghanistan will be held on 28 January 2010. The purpose is to mobilise international efforts in support of a combined military and political strategy in Afghanistan. In addition to the Government of Afghanistan, partners in the international security assistance force, Afghanistan’s immediate neighbours and international institutions are being invited.

What is the objective political end state that the allies are seeking to achieve in Afghanistan?

The shared objective across the international community is an Afghan Government and security forces that are able to defend themselves from being overrun by a Taliban misrule that would eventually become a safe space for al-Qaeda. To make that possible, we need to wage a genuine counter-insurgency struggle on both sides of the Durand line—in both Afghanistan and Pakistan—in partnership with the Afghan Government and the Pakistani Government.

Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone) (Lab): Is the conference likely to discuss the prospect of a high commissioner for Afghanistan? What is his view on the current campaign against Kai Eide, the head of the UN mission in Afghanistan? Is that campaign likely to have a negative impact on politics in Afghanistan?

Kai Eide is the UN special representative in Afghanistan and has a very important role at the head of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan. There will be mourning across the House for the loss of UN staff in Afghanistan, a number of whom were killed in a terrible incident last month. That civilian leadership from the UN is very important, and I think that Kai Eide has done his work in a professional and appropriate manner.

I spoke to Kai Eide when I was in Kabul last week and emphasised to him our continued commitment not just to the role of the UN, but to his leadership. Obviously, it is up to him how long he goes beyond his two-year mandate for which he was appointed. I also point out to right hon. and hon. Members that there is an important civilian role in the international security assistance force—NATO has nominated a civilian to play a role in ISAF to ensure that the latter’s operations are linked properly to the civilian side. In that sense, it is important that civilian leadership is provided both through the UN and in ISAF in Afghanistan.

If, by the time that the conference is held, it has become clear that President Karzai is unwilling, or unable, to fulfil his obligations, will the conference be able to accept and embrace a provincial, rather than a national strategy to prevent President Karzai from being an obstacle to progress?

Since the Prime Minister’s statement at the Dispatch Box in December 2007, the importance of the local governance agenda in Afghanistan—not just at the provincial level, through the 34 provinces, but at the district level, through the 394 districts—has been at the centre of the Government’s work.

I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that Afghanistan is a country of some 40,000 villages and has rarely been governed from Kabul; it has been governed by local tribal structures. That is why it has been at the heart of the endeavours of the Government and the international community to ensure that, as well as forging the appropriate partnership in Kabul, we strengthen, wherever possible, local governance—that means provincial and district governance—and that remains our commitment.

As my right hon. Friend knows, at the start of the conflict, considerable attention was given to the situation of women in Afghanistan. According to the report from the UN high commissioner for human rights, she is concerned that the Afghan Government do not seem to be giving enough attention to the protection of women. What can we do in this conference to bring the situation of women to the fore of the agenda again?

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. At every stage, we should be stressing our commitment to the constitution of Afghanistan, which gives equal rights to all its citizens and should provide the ring within which any former insurgents are willing to return to the political system. The constitution of Afghanistan should be the benchmark by which all Afghan Governments and international partners are held to account.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced a series of benchmarks for the Afghan Government, including that all 400 provinces and districts must appoint a governor free of corruption within nine months. We assume that when the conference takes place on 28 January, President Karzai will be held to those benchmarks, but will the Foreign Secretary tell the House how they will be monitored, how “free from corruption” will be determined, and by whom, and what penalties there will be if the various deadlines that the Prime Minister laid down have not been met?

I say to the Foreign Secretary that there were three questions there, but that one answer will suffice.

The answer is that, by definition, the conference is in two months, and even the timeline to which the hon. Gentleman referred is nine months. Of those benchmarks, the 34 provincial governor appointments are, of course, key, and it is well understood, within Afghanistan and internationally, what constitutes fair and effective governance. I stress that that also applies at district level, which he mentioned. At each stage, whether in respect of police or army training, or gubernatorial appointments, the international community will take a collective view, as will the people of Afghanistan.


3. What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area. (302596)

The Afghanistan-Pakistan border region is ungoverned, unstable and a haven for terrorist and militant groups, including al-Qaeda. Countering that threat needs the Afghan and Pakistani Governments to work within their own jurisdiction and, crucially, together on their shared problems of terrorist activity, narcotics and weapons trafficking and limited economic opportunities. We continue to encourage such collaboration and make our contribution to the international effort to support effective counter-insurgency in both countries and on both sides of the border.

Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the most deep-rooted problems is the unrecognised Durand line, which is as critical today as it was in 1893, when it split the tribal areas, which the Afghans called Yaghistan, the land of the unruly? How can we now expect Pakistan to sort out that border, which is the legacy of a colonial past?

The hon. Lady will know that there are many legacies of the colonial past, not least on the Pakistan side of the border, where the Frontier Crimes Regulation of 1903 remains the basis of the legal system and political parties continue to be banned 61 years after independence. Although I know what she means when she says that the Durand line is unrecognised, in fact it is recognised by everyone, but also disputed by everyone, so it is a disputed line rather than an unrecognised line. I hope that she will agree with me that the issue today is not redrawing the Durand line, which would not be a source of progress anywhere; rather, what both sides of the border need is the sort of stability that can come from effective institutions, and not just military institutions, but political and economic institutions ones. Sadly, they have been lacking for too long on both sides of the border.

The Foreign Secretary made reference just now to our contribution to counter-insurgency, as did the Prime Minister yesterday. Can he tell the House whether a D notice was in existence prior to yesterday’s announcement by the Prime Minister of the numbers of special forces deployed to the region and if so, why it was in existence before that statement and why it was no longer necessary after it?

To make sure that there are absolutely no mistakes in this often tangled territory, I will write to my hon. Friend with an answer to his question and ensure that there is a full understanding in all parts of the House.

Let us try one question for the Foreign Secretary. Is he confident that the Pakistan army and, in particular, the intelligence services are prepared fully to undertake their commitments in dealing with the Taliban and al-Qaeda?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that even when he says “the Taliban”, he sets out the complexity of the situation. He will know better than I that the Pakistani authorities, including the Government and Inter-Services Intelligence, are absolutely clear about their obligations to take on the Pakistan Taliban. The argument that is happening is about the Pakistani authorities’ responsibilities in respect of the so-called Afghan Taliban. The distinction has been strongly drawn in Pakistan between those groups that are dedicated to the overthrow of the Pakistani state, relative to those other groups that are a threat to our troops and to those on the Afghan side of the border. Our argument—or, most recently, my discussion with the Foreign Minister of Pakistan at the Commonwealth conference on Friday—was to say that the multiple insurgencies that threaten Pakistan need to be addressed together. He understood that point, but he also made the fair point that, for public opinion in Pakistan, the first priority is to get a grip on the various organisations—not just the Pakistan Taliban, but Lashkar-e-Taiba, which we discussed in the House during the debate on the Queen’s Speech. That remains the case, but from our point of view, it is essential that the Pakistani authorities address the multiple insurgencies that provide a home for al-Qaeda, as the Prime Minister said yesterday.

But is not the political situation worsened by the propaganda that argues that the west is fundamentally anti-Muslim? That was not helped by the Swiss referendum result on Sunday or the unfortunate intervention by the Leader of the Opposition last week, for which he graciously apologised. Can my right hon. Friend find an opportunity to make a speech insisting that Britain is not an anti-Muslim nation? We have to keep stressing that in order to make it clear.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will look back at the speech that I made in May at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, in which I addressed that issue among many others. It is a complete calumny to suggest that anyone in this House sees the war in Afghanistan as part of an anti-Muslim effort of any kind whatever—certainly no one in the Government believes that, and I do not believe it to be the case in any part of the House.

I do think, though, that it is very important to continue to emphasise that the vast majority of Afghans, Muslims as they are, do not want to side with the Taliban and do not want to go back to Taliban misrule. The greatest resource we have in the counter-insurgency in Afghanistan is the fact that the Afghan people do not want to go back to the 1990s—and nor do we.

EU Budget Reform

9. What recent discussions he has had in the General Affairs Council on reform of the EU budget. (302602)

Order. I know the hon. Gentleman will accept that my interruption was both necessary and helpful.

And they are getting more necessary and more helpful, Mr. Speaker.

Reform of the EU budget has not been discussed recently at the General Affairs and External Relations Council. The Government remain committed to far-reaching reform of the EU budget, refocusing it on jobs and growth, driving the transition to a low-carbon economy, tackling climate change and ensuring security, stability and poverty reduction.

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Lisbon treaty was sold to us on the basis that it would make matters simpler and also more efficient. Why, then, has the European Scrutiny Committee just been told of a supplementary bid for next year’s budget of another £22 million to pay for additional European Council events, for the salary entitlements and travel costs of the new President of the Council, for another 50 posts and for more media coverage and medical expenses? Why have—

The right hon. former Minister for Europe knows perfectly well the process that operates—that the European Parliament makes its bid every year for its budget for next year; that is precisely the process that we are going through at the moment.

Given that the accounts of the EU have not been signed off by the auditors for 15 years running, why do the Government keep giving more and more money to the EU? Surely if the Government are serious about reform of the EU budget, they should say that the EU will not get a penny more from the British Government until it gets its accounts properly audited.

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that if we were to follow his policy, which is to get out of the EU, it would significantly harm British interests. He knows perfectly well, too, that, as the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, David Frost said only a few weeks ago: “Business”, by which he meant British business,

“wants a pragmatic approach to the EU, not an ideological one”

such as the hon. Gentleman’s.

The EU estimates its costs to the UK at £15 per person a year, while the Europhobic Daily Express assesses it as £250 per family a year and the TaxPayers Alliance—the Tory party agitators of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)—put it at an astonishing £2,000 per person a year. Which of these figures remotely resembles the truth?

None of those figures remotely represents the truth. The truth of the matter is that if Britain were to leave the EU, the cost in terms of jobs, the cost in terms of business opportunities and the costs in terms of trade would be phenomenal to every single family in this country.

Does the Minister agree with the General Affairs Council committing resources to negotiating a new trade deal with Colombia, when the Government of Colombia are allowing the extra judicial slaughter of dozens of trade unionists?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is a very serious human rights situation in Colombia. He knows, I think, that I have visited the country and I think he may be about to visit it himself. This is an issue that I raised directly with the President, Mr. Uribe. In moving forward to any trade deal with Peru and Colombia, I think it right not only to address the issue of Scotch whisky but also to ensure that there are robust and enforceable human rights clauses in place.

In December 2005, this Government cut Britain’s originally non-negotiable EU rebate by £7 billion in return for a vague promise of a review of the EU budget that has not yet been delivered. Some four years on, can the Minister say when the European Commission’s communication setting out proposals for budget reform will formally be published?

The hon. Gentleman is completely and utterly wrong. The main reason why we reached the negotiated settlement that we reached at the time was that not only did we believe that enlargement was right and proper for the European Union and good for British interests, but we were prepared to pay the price of that enlargement, as were several other countries. The hon. Gentleman often wants to will the ends, but never the means.

The former Prime Minister came back to the House and said that he would negotiate a deal on the basis of budget reform. We were here, and we remember it. In view of the lamentable negotiating performance by the present Government, and the French President’s ability to claim just last week that the British were big losers from the recent EU summit, does the Minister now understand why people in this country no longer believe that the Government are capable of securing our financial or economic interests in the European Union?

The hon. Gentleman talks of influence in the European Union. What influence can you have when you have absconded from the main European groupings in the European Parliament, when you are not able to secure a single European Commissioner for your grouping, and when you are not able to secure a single vice-president in the European Parliament?

As for the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, when 12 portfolios on financial and economic issues that were important to Britain were handed out, not a single Conservative Member of Parliament was given one of those portfolios, but two were given to the Labour party. So the hon. Gentleman cannot talk about influence in Europe.

Falkland Islands

6. What recent representations he has received on international recognition of the Falkland Islands as a United Kingdom overseas territory. (302599)

The Government have no doubt about their sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. The principle of self-determination underlies that. Nevertheless, Argentina unfortunately continues to make regular representations on its supposed claim to sovereignty.

It is in the best interests of Britain and the Falkland Islands for there to be as much international support as possible for the present status of the islands. In that context, how many members of the United Nations—there are 192 of them—recognise the islanders’ right to self-determination, and their choice that the islands should be a United Kingdom overseas territory?

That is fundamentally recognised throughout the international community. We constantly make representations to those who want to question the issue, but I have absolutely no doubt about the position in the Falkland Islands. It is good that next-of-kin visits from Argentina have been possible, and we seek good relations with Argentina, but not on the basis of discussing sovereignty.

As my right hon. Friend will know, next of kin of those who died on both sides in the Falklands war have always been able to visit the graves, but there were difficulties over a larger visit following the 25th anniversary of the conflict. Is he able to update the House?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of next-of-kin visits. There was a substantial visit recently, and I pay tribute to all on the Falkland Islands who made it possible for that to happen with dignity and true respect for those who had died on both sides of the conflict. I know that several Members were able to play in a rugby match against members of the Argentine congress, and that the Argentine team was led by someone who had fought for the Argentines in the Falkland Islands. I believe that the respect between the two countries is intimate.


7. What is his latest assessment of the political situation in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. (302600)

12. What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. (302605)

I refer my hon. Friend and the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the Prime Minister’s statement to the House yesterday. President Karzai was inaugurated on 19 November, and we await the formation of his Cabinet. The international community needs to work with the Afghan Government to make progress on the five issues that were identified as priorities in President Karzai’s inauguration speech.

Does not the suggestion of a United States high representative or chief executive to work alongside President Karzai somewhat undermine his already fragile legitimacy? If and when that proposal becomes a reality, will the British Government support it?

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is referring to the international civilian leadership or the idea that there should be a reformed administrative structure inside President Karzai’s office. The discussion that I have heard in the past is of Afghans filling those roles, rather than Americans or others. I will certainly follow up the report my hon. Friend is concerned about, but the idea that Afghanistan should be run by the Afghans, and the sooner the better, has always been at the heart of our approach.

Notwithstanding the increasing attention being given by both President Obama and the Prime Minister to an exit strategy for NATO forces, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that, even when NATO ground forces are completely withdrawn, it will continue to be necessary to provide NATO air support to the Afghan Government, probably for the foreseeable future? Is it not the case that just as it was a combination of NATO air power and Afghan ground forces that drove the Taliban out in the first place, so it will be that same combination that will keep them out of power in the future?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an important point. At present, in most parts of the country the Afghan forces are being trained by international forces, and international forces are having to undertake leadership in combat operations. We very much hope that, in line with President Karzai’s commitment, within five years all provinces in the country will follow Kabul in having Afghan security leadership. However, that will not mean the end of international support for the Afghan forces and of air support of the kind the right hon. and learned Gentleman describes, and the so-called overwatch role that was developed for the circumstances of Iraq will remain an issue beyond that date. It is important, however, to signal the current priority, which is to transfer the leadership of combat operations to the Afghan forces.

My right hon. Friend referred to international civilian leadership and the importance of strengthening that if we are to succeed in our overall goals, and the Prime Minister said yesterday that that would be a major topic at the London conference. Will the Government consider strengthening it through the important means of co-ordinating its efforts, and perhaps even, temporarily, through the integration of its efforts with those of General McChrystal on the military front?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. As he knows, civilian-military co-ordination is essential in provincial reconstruction teams around Afghanistan. In Helmand province, where most of the British forces are, there is a combined military and civilian team, being led, as it happens, by an official from the Department for International Development, previously an official from the Foreign Office. That sort of integration of, and co-operation between, the military and civilian sides of the effort is essential, and I hope we see it being replicated at national level. The two roles of the head of the United Nations and the NATO representative in ISAF will be critical to achieving that.

The Prime Minister talked yesterday about political reforms to produce governors appointed on merit and free from corruption. Is it envisaged that the process to achieve that will involve removing existing governors, and is it also envisaged that the new governors will ever acquire any political legitimacy of their own, other than being appointees of President Karzai?

In my experience of travelling to Afghanistan and talking to people there and of studying the situation in that country, the credibility of the governors at provincial and district level comes from the work they do and the way they do it. Those governors who have shown themselves to be dedicated to the interests of the people of their province have won widespread support, significantly through community councils, but also through other ways of engaging with the local population. In this case, therefore, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The governors who perform well, gain confidence; those who turn out to be placemen, or to be in it for their own interests, quickly lose the confidence of both Afghans and the international community.

I hope some of the governors currently in post will be removed during that political reform process, but how does the Foreign Secretary see the much needed process of reconciliation and reintegration working at district and local level? Will it be organised by these new governors, and will the ISAF coalition fund such Afghan-led reconciliation work at the local level?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We talk about reintegration at local level. Reintegration is for the middle and high-level commanders, and at the local level it will need to be Afghan-led and internationally supported. There will be different ways of arranging it in different parts of the country—sometimes at district level, at other times, where a larger reintegration needs to be achieved, at provincial level. One important point worth making to the House is that the reintegration effort only succeeds when the other side of the coin is a military and security effort, first because those in the insurgency need to know the risk that is carried by continuing the insurgency, but also because they need to know they will be properly protected if they come within the constitutional set-up.

We have been in Afghanistan long enough to know where every poppy field is, so can my right hon. Friend tell me when we will put an end to the vile trade in heroin, which does so much damage in Afghanistan and on the streets of Britain?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. He will be pleased, as I am, that the past two years’ poppy crop has been significantly down; I stand to be corrected, but I believe that there has been a 30 per cent. fall and then a 22 per cent. fall, and that the number of poppy-free districts has increased to 21. He will be as concerned as I am at the high level of poppy production that remains. Our experience is that there are two key factors to turning this round, the first of which is security—because poppy production is the product of insecurity—and the second of which is a decent economic price for licit production, notably of wheat.

Middle East (Nuclear Proliferation)

8. What recent assessment he has made of the levels of nuclear proliferation in the middle east; and if he will make a statement. (302601)

The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran remains the most immediate proliferation threat to the middle east. Iran needs to co-operate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency and comply with five United Nations Security Council resolutions calling for it to suspend its enrichment programme.

Iran’s announcement that it intends to build another 10 uranium enrichment plants may or may not be mere posturing, but in any event, it amounts to provocative defiance of the will of the international community, as expressed in the IAEA resolution. At what point does the Minister consider that economic sanctions against Iran will become inevitable?

First, we should not be distracted by the announcement made this week. The issue is that after six years of engagement and five UN Security Council resolutions Iran has still refused to comply with its responsibilities under international law. What has been agreed by the international community is that there will be a meeting of officials of the E3 plus 3 this month, an assessment will be made of the engagement strategy so far, and at that time an appropriate judgment will be made about the next stage. What is clear is that the international community will not tolerate Iran developing nuclear weapons. Not only is that a threat to the stability of the middle east, but it would also trigger an arms race in that region, which would have no limit.

But what representations has my hon. Friend made to the newly appointed European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to ensure that, as is crucial, a single voice comes out of the European Union against the Iranian uranium enrichment policy?

My hon. Friend is right to make the point that we need the EU speaking with one clear, loud voice and making it clear to Iran that we stand together on this issue. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will meet the new High Representative this week to that end.

The IAEA director general has said:

“We have effectively reached a dead end”

on Iran. Given that, does the Minister agree that we need to be talking about a new UN Security Council resolution, which should include a total ban on arms sales to Iran, a tough UN inspections regime and action against the Iranian Islamic revolutionary guard corps, which is deeply involved in Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programmes?

What is important is that it is absolutely clear that despite the international community’s reaching out a hand towards Iran, requesting diplomatic engagement and saying that we want a political solution, and despite the speech in which the new President of the United States made those points, Iran has still refused to engage: for more than a year, it has not engaged with the UN’s nuclear watchdog in any way. If, at this stage of reappraisal, the best way forward is found to be a United Nations resolution about further sanctions against Iran, we will take that view seriously.

It is clear that Iran has not listened to anything that anybody has said for the past six years and is proceeding irrespective of any representations made, so talk of further sanctions is really neither here nor there. However, may I press the Minister a little further? Having P3 and E3, and talking to the new High Representative, is still not a proper European position. Will he say exactly how the three E3 countries—Germany, France and the United Kingdom—intend to work with the rest of the European Union and the new High Representative to bring some clout to the table?

The General Affairs Council is due to meet next week. There will be an attempt to get complete EU unity on this issue, so that we can go forward to the December E3 plus 3 meeting with a common EU position. We will then consider the case for a UN Security Council resolution.

Middle East Peace Process

There is more consensus in the international community than there has been for many years about the basis for a resolution of the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians, but the parties are moving further apart. Those Palestinians and Israelis who are committed to the idea of a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as the shared capital and a fair settlement for refugees, appear smaller in number and weaker in politics than ever before. However, the US Administration are engaged in a good-faith endeavour to bridge the gap. We will continue to support those efforts, because the alternatives for the people of Israel, Palestine and the rest of the region look so much worse.

I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will agree that education and hope for the future are important for peace in the middle east so, to that end, may I ask him to have a word with his Israeli counterpart about the 8,000 desks that the UN has imported into Gaza for schoolchildren? They cannot be assembled because the Israelis will not let the nails come in. Will he commit to have a word on that subject?

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point, and I shall certainly raise it. We have raised many issues over the past year—or certainly since January and the end of Operation Cast Lead—about the grip that exists at the checkpoints, in terms of both the volume of trade and the items that are allowed in. I have never heard that item referred to before, but the hon. Gentleman raises a very important point and I shall certainly follow it up.

What lessons does my right hon. Friend draw from Iran’s recent attempt to send 500 tonnes of weapons to Hezbollah? The weapons were disguised as civilian cargo, and some of them as construction materials, but thankfully the attempt was intercepted and thwarted by the Israelis.

We must learn two lessons. The first is that we must never underestimate the extent to which some will go to get further weapons into Gaza, and the second is that we must follow up every aspect of resolution 1860—[Interruption.] I beg my hon. Friend’s pardon: she referred to Hezbollah and not to Gaza. We should never underestimate the extent to which some will go to arm terrorist groups all across the region. Secondly, we should not underestimate the extent to which the international community needs to come together to follow through on repeated resolutions, in the UN and elsewhere, to support all states in the region that are committed to coexistence. That is what we will certainly do.

Foreign Prisoner Release

11. If he will hold discussions with the Scottish Executive on co-ordination of policy on release and removal from the country of foreign prisoners held in UK prisons. (302604)

I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs that no discussions are planned with the Scottish Executive on these issues. The release of any prisoner in the Scottish prison estate is a devolved matter for the Scottish Executive. Deportation of foreign national prisoners remains a reserved matter for the UK Border Agency.

What lessons have the Minister and the Government learned from the release of Mr. al-Megrahi to Tripoli? The Government’s total silence at the time brought great shame and embarrassment to our country. Will he interact properly with the Scottish Executive in future to ensure that such embarrassments do not happen again?

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a statement to the House that set out very clearly the terms of the release of al-Megrahi. As the hon. Gentleman knows full well, the decision was entirely a matter for the Scottish Executive, and he was not even in the House when my right hon. Friend made his statement.

But does my hon. Friend agree that the normal process should be that foreign prisoners who have committed an offence should serve their sentences in their country of origin, unless it would not be safe for them to do so, or their crimes are so unacceptable that they should remain here?

That depends entirely on the nature of the agreements that we have with other countries. The agreements that the Home Office has with other countries vary according to our relationships with those countries, so such decisions have to be made on a case-by-case basis.

EU Informal Meeting

13. What the outcome was of the informal meeting of EU Heads of State or Government on 19 November 2009; and if he will make a statement. (302606)

The special European Council on 19 November came to unanimous agreement on the appointment of Herman Van Rompuy as the first permanent President of the European Council, and of Baroness Cathy Ashton as the new High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

Does the Minister not regret being outmanoeuvred by our partners on the spurious grounds of gender equality when we could have taken home the prize of one of the most important financial and economic EU Commissioner posts, which would have been of great benefit to the City of London?

No. The hon. Lady was a rather more pragmatic and sensible pro-European when she was a Member of the European Parliament. She knows perfectly well that these are good appointments. The appointment of Cathy Ashton as High Representative will be especially good because we need Europe to play a far more effective role on the global stage, and she is a woman who will bring that about. I welcome the appointment of Michel Barnier as the Internal Market Commissioner, and I merely note that the hon. Lady’s party wants to dismantle elements of the internal market, which would be wholly inappropriate.


14. What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement. (302607)

I say to my hon. Friend the Minister of State that you have to be quick in this game. The notes for the reply say that the Minister answering is “Ivan Lewis”, so I apologise—but hesitation and deviation are both punished in this House.

The inclusive Government continue to make progress on economic reform, but we are disappointed by the slow pace of political reform, the spasmodic violence and the continuation of human rights abuses. The Southern African Development Community agreed at its Maputo summit to push for further implementation of the global political agreement in Zimbabwe, but the proof will be in the delivery. We urge all parties, as the Commonwealth did on Sunday, to stick to the agreement and comply with it.

Is it not clear that there can be no real change while Mugabe remains? Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is absolute nonsense to speak of readmission to the Commonwealth while the current situation persists?

The hon. Gentleman will know that Prime Minister Tsvangirai has committed to the global political agreement, which is a transitional agreement to renewed elections over an 18-month period. The Commonwealth, the British Government and others have said that that all parties must stick to that agreement. If that happens, the future of Zimbabwe can be turned away from the terrible descent into violence and economic chaos into which Mugabe took the country.

Topical Questions

The Commonwealth Heads of Government met in Trinidad and Tobago between 27 and 29 November. The meeting underlined the Commonwealth’s strength through its diversity and ability to promote action, and the importance of its core values. We saw strong support for a deal in Copenhagen and agreed a UK proposal for a Copenhagen launch fund, as well on calling on Zimbabwe’s coalition partners to respect their commitments and restore democracy and the rule of law. The Commonwealth also agreed to set up an eminent persons group to consider the modernisation of the Commonwealth, including its systems and priorities, to prepare it for the future.

Following the overwhelming and welcome vote by the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the subsequent capture and detention of British civilian yacht competitors, will the Foreign Secretary update the House on the current state of relations between the UK and Iran?

First, I should say that I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House look forward to the prompt release of the yachtsmen, who were in their yacht between Bahrain and Dubai purely for sporting purposes. The consular case is being pursued in London and Tehran. In the light of my hon. Friend’s question, it is important to say that there is no link at all between the position of the yachtsmen and the Iranian nuclear file or other political issues between Iran and the rest of the international community. We very much look forward to the yachtsmen being released on a consular basis. We understand that they are being treated well in Iran, as we would expect. As I said outside the House earlier today, we are working closely with the Iranian Government to ensure that the release happens as quickly as possible.

T4. There are 50,000 Christians displaced in Orissa state, and the Indian Government’s compensation scheme appears to have stalled. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what representations he has made to the Indian Government to get the compensation scheme flowing again and the displaced persons resettled? (302622)

I can update the hon. Gentleman. The British high commissioner visited Orissa and spoke to the state authorities only a couple of weeks ago specifically about this issue. They advised the high commissioner that the state-run camps have been closed, that affected Christians have now been returned to their homes, that compensation has been provided, and that the perpetrators have been convicted. Of course, we will continue to monitor the situation.

T2. When the world comes together in Copenhagen this weekend for the United Nations climate change conference, will our Government press for an amended and extended Kyoto protocol, with a second commitment period of emission reduction targets for industrialised countries as an absolute priority for those crucial negotiations? (302620)

My hon. Friend raises a very important matter. Every industrialised country must come forward with a binding emissions target, both intermediate and long term. However, one difference between the Kyoto protocol and the Copenhagen agreement is—I hope—that at Copenhagen, every country in the world will make a commitment to ensure that it does not proceed with business as usual. After all, 90 per cent. of the increase in carbon emissions over the next 50 years will come from developing countries rather than industrialised countries. While we cannot expect absolute cuts from many developing countries, we can help them to ensure that they do not proceed on a high-carbon development path.

T5. As part of its strategy on child rights published in August 2007, the FCO said that it would work closely with, and continue to consult, the child rights panel “to discuss and continuously develop this strategy.” Will the Secretary of State tell the House when the child rights panel last met, and what plans there are for it to meet again in the near future? (302624)

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that child rights are an integral part of British foreign policy objectives. The panel meets on an ad hoc basis when and if necessary. It is true that it has not met for some time. The last time we called a meeting of child rights stakeholders was in July this year to assist our work revising the FCO’s children and armed conflict strategy. We want children’s rights to become a mainstream integral part of our work, and we will convene that panel when necessary.

T3. Rwanda has made tremendous progress in the past 15 years, leading to its accession to the Commonwealth at the weekend and today’s announcement that it is largely mine-free. What steps can the Government take to consolidate that progress through work with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and by building good governance, not just in Rwanda but across the rest of east Africa, to assist those countries, particularly from the point of view of good governance and of development? (302621)

My hon. Friend is right. We, too, welcome the accession of Rwanda to the Commonwealth. We think that this is an important point at which Rwanda can seize hold of the values and principles to which the Commonwealth adheres, and make them prominent in its constitution and in its way of life. We work closely with the Government in Kigali to try to enforce key messages on media freedom and good governance and to support the national Human Rights Commission, and we will continue to do so.

T6. What has been done to improve further our relations with Japan, particularly with the new Democratic Party of Japan Government? We have many shared interests in international security—the new H-2A rocket has recently been launched by Japan—and we can learn a lot from its experiences in dealing with a low-growth economy. (302625)

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the importance of our relationship with Japan, particularly given the election of the new Japanese Government. Since that Government were formed, there have been UK ministerial visits to Japan by the Minister with responsibility for defence equipment and support, by the Minister for Science and Innovation, and by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and skills. The Prime Minister has met the new Japanese Prime Minister on at least one occasion. We very much welcome Japan’s bold initiative on climate change, and its recent announcement of a £5 billion assistance package to Afghanistan. We want to continue to deepen and strengthen our relationship with Japan.

T7. Last Thursday evening was the first anniversary of the Mumbai bombings, in which 165 people died, many of them friends and relatives of my constituents. The involvement of the Inter-Services Intelligence in the planning of those bombings is widely known, yet there has not been co-operation by the Pakistani Government to bring the perpetrators to book. What can my right hon. Friend do to ensure that pressure is brought to bear on the Pakistani Government on this matter? (302626)

My hon. Friend, who has a long record as a deep, deep friend of India, is right to raise this terrible anniversary. The Prime Minister and I both conveyed to Prime Minister Singh the deepest sympathy and condolences of the British people on the first anniversary of the terrible Mumbai attacks. As for the prosecution of those involved, my hon. Friend will know that seven people have been charged in the Pakistani political system—or rather, in the Pakistani criminal justice system—for their role in the Mumbai attacks. We have been urging the Pakistani authorities to proceed with those trials at the earliest opportunity. This is an issue that we will take up again with Prime Minister Gillani when he comes to London on Thursday.

T8. Ascension Island faces bankruptcy next June because of the ongoing dispute between the FCO and the Ministry of Defence over just £600,000 of unpaid taxes. The island’s school is set to close, and many St. Helenians are set to lose their jobs. Will the Foreign Secretary finally get a grip of this ongoing dispute, bang heads together and sort the issue out? (302627)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. He had an interesting visit to the island earlier this year. He has mentioned these issues to me several times, and I am happy to say to him that I have every intention of trying to resolve them as a matter of urgency. I am meeting my counterpart in the Ministry of Defence tomorrow or the day after, and I hope that we will be able to have the matter resolved in time for the Overseas Territories Consultative Council.

Russia has a crucial role to play in the future security of energy provision to this country and the EU. Can the Minister give us an update on the position and the relationship between the EU and Russia in negotiations on future energy supplies?

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. The development of a common energy policy across Europe is one example where greater European co-operation and co-ordination is needed. Engagement with Russia needs to be taken forward on a far more coherent basis. That is one of the priorities for the new Commission. It is certainly something that we will be urging upon it.

T9. Just a few days into the Chilcot inquiry, it must be painfully obvious to everybody both that the Hutton inquiry of 2003 was useless and that Tony Blair gravely misled the House and the country. Given that John Chilcot is chairing a non-statutory inquiry, what steps will the Government take to ensure that Mr. Blair and his immediate circle at the time are properly held to account for the enormity of what they did? (302628)

I think that after a week of the Chilcot inquiry, it is time for all sides to recognise the value of the inquiry. It is doing its work in an outstandingly professional and clear way. We should allow it to finish its work. No one else is drawing conclusions, even if the hon. Gentleman is. My suspicion is that he already had his conclusions before the inquiry even opened its doors.

The middle east peace process is badly hindered by the rift between Fatah and Hamas. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if Marwan Barghouti is able to heal that rift, we should persuade the Israelis to release him from prison?

Any decision on the release of prisoners is a matter for the Israeli Government and has to be a case for negotiation between the Israelis and the Palestinians. In the context of that debate, we strongly urge Hamas immediately to release Gilad Shalit, who was illegally detained against international law. We support the Egyptian efforts to seek unification in the Palestinian leadership between Hamas and Fatah. As I understand it, Fatah signed up to such an agreement, brokered by the Egyptians, but Hamas refused to do so. We continue to support the Egyptian efforts.

Extreme violence against both black and white in Zimbabwe continues, and Mr. Mugabe totally ignores the rulings of Southern African Development Community institutions. Is it not now the case that the only individual who can do anything about Mr. Mugabe and bring about his fall is Mr. Jacob Zuma, the President of South Africa, who could switch off the electricity and cut off the fuel supplies to Zimbabwe?

The hon. Gentleman, who has taken a long interest in that issue, is right to point to the importance of South Africa, and in particular of President Zuma. President Zuma gave to the closing session of the Commonwealth conference a report on SADC’s efforts, and he dedicated himself to support the global political agreement that, after all, has been signed by Prime Minister Tsvangirai as well as by President Mugabe. Switching off the electricity is not part of the global political agreement. It is right that we support those brave reformers in Zimbabwe who have committed themselves to the political process. I very much understand the hon. Gentleman’s scepticism about the ability of ZANU-PF to stick to the agreement, but it seems to me vital that the international community remains united in demanding that it do so.

It is extremely regrettable that the British Government’s representative did not take part in the vote at the UN Human Rights Council on the Goldstone commission report, which I understand has now been referred to the UN Security Council. Will the Foreign Secretary assure me that there will be no further blockage of a full investigation of Goldstone’s recommendations, and that if necessary, the cases will be referred for international judicial review?

I am sorry if there is any confusion about that issue in my hon. Friend’s mind, but the British Government have been absolutely clear that we support an independent, full and transparent inquiry into the credible allegations that the Goldstone report makes. We have made that position absolutely clear in public and in private, and that seems to me to be the right position to hold. That is different from giving a wholesale endorsement of the Goldstone report, which includes some items that we are clear are not accurate, and also fails to take account of some important factors. However, the report makes credible and serious allegations that should be investigated through a transparent and full inquiry. We continue to say that.

With reference to the previous answer by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), to his hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), does the Foreign Office understand the sense of injustice that is the principal motivating factor behind so much Islamist violence, and that a just settlement of the middle east peace process is an absolutely vital British national interest?

The Government are absolutely clear that there is an urgent need for progress in the peace process. We strongly advocate, as a matter of urgency, comprehensive negotiations towards a two-state solution—a viable contiguous Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel. Those negotiations have to deal with the questions of the 1967 borders, of Jerusalem, of justice for Palestinian refugees, and of normalised relationships between the Arab world and Israel. That is now a matter of urgency: we share the hon. Gentleman’s analysis in that respect.

We made it clear before the elections that we believed that President Zelaya should not have been removed from power, and that if the elections were to be valid, they had to be engaged in under President Zelaya. Without his return before the end of his term, which is at the end of January, it will be impossible to believe that those were proper elections. However, we recognise and welcome the fact that the elections that did take place did so in a peaceful situation.

May I commend Ministers for their continuing engagement with the situation in Burma? However, will they, perhaps with their colleagues in the Department for International Development, investigate reports coming out now that aid to the Chin people on the border with India is being given in the form of loans on which 200 per cent. interest is charged? Surely that is not consistent with other Government policy in the region.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the situation in Burma is crucial. Right now, it is poised at an incredibly important stage, and we believe that we must maintain sanctions against the Burmese regime while engaging in a political and diplomatic process and seeking to secure the release of political prisoners—especially Aung San Suu Kyi. On the hon. Gentleman’s specific point, I shall write to him with the information.

Nothing wrong with being tail-end Charlie, is there, Mr. Speaker?

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary laid a wreath on behalf of the overseas territories, but has the time not come for the overseas territories to be allowed to lay it? We had a meeting with a previous Minister, who said that they accepted that the territories had grown up enough, so we should rid them of their colonial masters and allow them to lay a wreath themselves.

And my views have not changed. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) knows that the issue will be discussed in the Overseas Territories Consultative Council next week. Let us hope that we can come to a conclusion that is suitable to all.

Gary McKinnon (Extradition)

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his decision not to intervene to stop Gary McKinnon’s extradition to the United States.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing this urgent question on behalf of my constituent.

Gary McKinnon is accused of serious criminal offences. He is alleged to have repeatedly hacked into US Government computer networks over a period of 13 months, including 97 US military computers from which he deleted vital operating systems and then copied encrypted information on to his own computer, shutting down the entire US army’s military district of Washington’s computer network for 24 hours. During interviews under caution, Mr. McKinnon admitted to much of the conduct he is accused of.

A great deal has been made of the perceived imbalance in UK-US extradition arrangements in respect of probable cause versus reasonable suspicion. While I am clear that no such imbalance exists, as Mr. McKinnon has admitted the conduct which has given rise to the extradition request, this issue is academic in his case. This aside, under the terms of the Extradition Act 2003, I can prevent an extradition only in very specific circumstances: where the person in question could be sentenced to death if convicted; where there is a chance of that person being tried for crimes committed before that extradition which were not specified in the extradition request; or where the person has previously been extradited to the UK from another country, or transferred here by the International Criminal Court, and no consent has been given to their being extradited elsewhere.

Outside of the statutory extradition scheme, the courts have made it clear that the only circumstances in which I could prevent extradition would be where the evidence demonstrates that extradition would be a breach of human rights. If it would breach human rights to proceed with extradition, I would have to halt proceedings. If it would not, it would be unlawful for me to do so.

Mr. McKinnon has challenged his extradition in the district court, the High Court, with the Law Lords, and in the European Court of Human Rights, all of whom have ruled that the extradition should go ahead. Following the diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome in August 2008, he made fresh representations to the then Home Secretary claiming that because of his medical condition his extradition would breach the European convention on human rights. The then Home Secretary decided in October 2008 that the evidence Mr. McKinnon submitted did not meet the threshold needed to constitute a breach of the ECHR. Mr. McKinnon challenged in the High Court this decision and the decision by the Crown Prosecution Service that there were no grounds for him to be tried in this country.

On 31 July 2009, the High Court handed down both judgments. In its judgment on the Director of Public Prosecution’s decision that Mr. McKinnon should be tried in the US, Lord Justice Stanley Burnton said this:

“It is true that the Claimant’s offending conduct took place in this country. However, it was directed at the USA, and at computers in the USA; the information he accessed or could have accessed was US information; its confidentiality and sensitivity were American; and any damage that was inflicted was in the USA. The witnesses who can address the damage done by his offences are in America...However, it is not for this Court to decide where he should be prosecuted. The decision is that of the DPP. As appears from the preceding paragraphs of this judgment, he cannot be faulted for considering that, other things being equal, the Claimant should be prosecuted in the USA.”

He expressed the view that it would be

“manifestly unsatisfactory in the extreme”

for Mr. McKinnon to be tried in the UK and refused permission for this aspect to be judicially reviewed.

Secondly, the Court ruled on 31 July that the decision of the Home Secretary that the extradition of Gary McKinnon to the US would not amount to a breach of his human rights was also correct. The Lord Justice said:

“Ultimately, I have to weigh the impressive medical evidence adduced by the Claimant against the severity involved in Article 3. I have no doubt that he will find extradition to, and trial and sentence and detention in the USA, very difficult indeed. His mental health will suffer. There are risks of worse, including suicide. But if I compare his condition with those considered in the authorities to which I have referred above, even taking full account of the (in my view undesirable) possibility of his being prosecuted in this country, his case does not approach Article 3 severity.”

Following that decision, Mr. McKinnon’s lawyers made fresh representations, including additional medical evidence. I have carefully considered those representations and I am clear that the information that his lawyers have provided is not materially different from that placed before the High Court earlier this year and does not demonstrate that sending Mr. McKinnon to the United States would breach his human rights.

There are legitimate concerns about Mr. McKinnon’s health, and the United States authorities have provided assurances, which were before the High Court in July, that his needs will be met. It is also clear from the proceedings to date that there is no real risk that Mr. McKinnon, if convicted, will serve any of his sentence in a supermax prison. Should Mr. McKinnon be extradited, charged and convicted in the US and seek repatriation to the UK to serve his sentence in this country, the Government will progress his application at the very earliest opportunity.

As I have said at every stage of these proceedings, we will not commence extradition proceedings until all legal avenues that Mr. McKinnon wishes to pursue have been exhausted. He can lodge a judicial review within seven days of this decision, and he can appeal to the ECHR within 14 days of the same date. I am currently considering a request from Mr. McKinnon’s lawyers for an extension of the seven-day time limit.

I do not propose to ask the Home Secretary to use any general discretion that he says he does not have, nor today do I wish to highlight the unfairness of the UK-US extradition treaty. I want him to focus on the medical evidence, which he has considered and not disputed, and the limited human rights discretion that he accepts he has.

Does the Home Secretary not accept that Professor Jeremy Turk’s report of 8 October raised new and material evidence, namely that Gary McKinnon

“is now suffering from an exacerbation of his very serious Major Depressive Disorder…aggravated and complicated by anxiety and panic attacks”

aligned to his having Asperger’s syndrome? Given that he now places Gary McKinnon at an

“even higher risk of self-harm and suicide”

than after his earlier report, and concludes that

“suicide is now a real probability and will be an almost certain inevitability should he experience extradition”,

and that there is a high probability that he

“will require inpatient psychiatric containment”,

surely he has established a real risk of human rights being breached should extradition proceed. Putting it more bluntly, how ill and vulnerable does Gary McKinnon need to be not to be extradited to the United States?

The Home Secretary wants to rely on previous court judgments. Given that Lord Justice Stanley Burnton indicated that if Gary McKinnon were not extradited he could be prosecuted in this country, how can it be proportionate to allow the extradition of a UK citizen who is suicidal and sectionable? Is it not the case that far from being powerless to stop Gary McKinnon’s extradition, in the light of the medical evidence the Home Secretary has shown himself and his Government to be spineless?

This is a difficult decision, and not one that can be made by the hon. Gentleman. I admire him for the way in which he has represented his constituent, and I met him just a couple of weeks ago on a one-to-one basis. I understand that completely, but I am the only person who can make this decision and I have to make it on the basis of the facts, and all the facts. It is a quasi-judicial decision, and Lord Justice Burnton did not say that if Gary McKinnon were not extradited he could be tried in this country. I have quoted what he said—he was absolutely clear that that is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is not for politicians to decide whether someone is prosecuted and where, and he said that it would be

“manifestly unsatisfactory in the extreme”

were Mr. McKinnon to be tried anywhere other in the US.

On the question of the medical evidence, Professor Turk’s diagnosis and opinions were handed to me by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning), who is sitting next to the hon. Gentleman. I stopped the clock to look at that diagnosis and those opinions very thoroughly and carefully, but they do not raise any issues that are materially, let alone fundamentally, different from those considered by Professor Baron-Cohen and Dr. Berney in the reports that were before the High Court in June 2009.

Lord Justice Burnton said that Gary McKinnon’s case

“does not approach Article 3 severity”,

and the hon. Gentleman asked which conditions did. Lord Justice Burnton pointed out a whole series of decisions in cases involving people with bipolar disorder, and people with other very serious medical conditions indeed—conditions that many would say were much more serious than the medical condition of Gary McKinnon. Those cases did not reach article 3 severity. Difficult though the decision is, I have no menu of options to choose from; there is either a breach of article 3 of the European declaration of human rights or there is not. My view is that there is not. That can be challenged in the courts.

Throughout this wretched process, and again today, the Home Secretary has sought to minimise the amount of discretion that he has. He told the McKinnon family, and said again today, that the only issue that he could consider was whether Gary McKinnon’s human rights were being breached by his extradition. Of course I accept the Home Secretary’s version of his powers, and I therefore ask him to consider some questions in that narrow context.

First, is it proportionate or a breach of human rights to extradite someone in the context of what has been alleged? The US prosecutors say that Mr. McKinnon was attempting to

“influence and affect the US government by intimidation and coercion”.

He allegedly hacked into US army computers and left messages attacking US foreign policy. Is that really intimidating or coercive to the US military? More to the point, does the Home Secretary seriously believe that that would be the action of a terrorist?

Secondly, does Mr. McKinnon really need to be extradited to stand trial? As the Home Secretary will have seen, there are reports that the Crown Prosecution Service wanted to prosecute Mr. McKinnon in this country for computer misuse, but that those efforts were blocked. Is that true? Thirdly, is it not a breach of his human rights to send a man with Asperger’s and depression to face a possible 60-year sentence? The Home Secretary will have seen the opinion of one psychiatrist that that will amount to a death sentence. It is, of course, horribly ironic that it would be illegal to send someone to another country to face an explicit death sentence.

Fourthly, will the Home Secretary not accept that the imbalance in the Extradition Act 2003 means that a British citizen facing extradition has fewer human rights than a US citizen would have if the position were reversed? Baroness Scotland, the Government’s Attorney-General, said in 2003:

“when we make extradition requests to the United States we shall need to submit sufficient evidence to establish ‘probable cause’. That is a lower test than prima facie but a higher threshold than we ask of the United States”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 December 2003; Vol. 655, c. 1063.]

Why does the Home Secretary disagree with his Attorney-General that the extradition treaty is unbalanced and unfair?

Finally, does the Home Secretary not recognise that the Extradition Act 2003 was put in place to ensure that terrorists did not escape justice? It was never intended to deal with a case such as the one that we are discussing. Can he not see that his actions regarding Gary McKinnon have damaged this country’s reputation, damaged relations between Britain and our most important ally and, most importantly, damaged a very vulnerable and sick young man?

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman accepts the fact about the so-called discretion. My discretion—if the word is suitable—allows me to look at Gary McKinnon’s case against the tests that are set out in law. As it was after Gary McKinnon had been through the district court, the High Court, the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights that he was diagnosed as having Asperger’s, that was a supervening diagnosis, which meant that the then Home Secretary had to look at the matter against the European declaration on human rights.

The hon. Gentleman talked about Gary McKinnon’s offences. This is not a matter of my finding Gary McKinnon innocent or guilty. There are very serious charges against Mr. McKinnon—the hon. Gentleman does not contest that and neither, incidentally, does the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), Mr. McKinnon’s constituency MP. They are serious charges and Mr. McKinnon has to answer those charges. The Director of Public Prosecutions has decided that that has to take place in the US. There is no further right of appeal—the High Court would not allow a judicial review. So we come to whether that breaches Gary McKinnon’s human rights. All the legal cases quoted by Lord Justice Burnton relate to medical conditions and mental health conditions that are far worse than those that apply to Mr. McKinnon.

The hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) asked whether there is truth in the rumour that we were going to prosecute Mr. McKinnon in the UK. No, there is no truth in that rumour. All the actions in this case are clear for anyone to see from the time Mr. McKinnon was charged onwards through all the processes of the law and then through the processes of the law again.

The hon. Gentleman talked, once again, about an imbalance between the level of evidence that the US must apply to the UK in order to get someone extradited and the evidence that we must put before the US courts. He said that there is an imbalance between probable cause and reasonable suspicion. I pointed out that that is academic in the case of Mr. McKinnon because he has admitted the charges. However, members of both main Opposition parties have argued about this point. That argument was made in 2003, when the treaty was being concluded. What has happened since? In how many cases have we failed to get extradition from the US? None. Zilch. Nil. None whatsoever. Every case we have made to the US using probable cause has been successful. In contrast, there are seven cases in which the US has sought extradition from this country that are still held up in the system.

The hon. Gentleman said that my decision damages relationships between this country and the US. That is a bizarre interpretation given the serious nature of these crimes and the fact that America, a friendly state with a mature democratic judicial system, wants to extradite Gary McKinnon to face trial. The interpretation, were that to affect our relationship with the US in any way, should be the other way around.

The Home Secretary is, in my view, a very brave man to hold out his judgment of the medical condition—and of the worsening of the medical condition—of Gary McKinnon against such overwhelming evidence as we have heard from the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes). Gary McKinnon is a vulnerable British citizen who has become more vulnerable and whose interests are being ignored in favour of an unequal treaty with the United States. Nobody contests that he has Asperger’s or that that condition has been diagnosed since the beginning of the process and has got substantially worse. That alone should be enough to merit some compassion for his condition and mitigation of the penalty for a crime that he admits, as the Home Secretary knows.

Does the Home Secretary recognise that the clear risks to Mr. McKinnon’s health and even life have increased since the beginning of the process and will increase further if he is not tried here but is extradited? Does he recognise from the additional medical evidence that the problems faced by Gary McKinnon are more substantial than they were at the beginning? Does that risk not worry him, particularly given the fine balance that he has to strike in deciding when there is a breach of someone’s human rights?

May I also ask whether the Prime Minister has considered this case? Will the Government now put the interests of justice for an increasingly vulnerable British citizen ahead of their relations with a foreign Government? Is the Home Secretary prepared to accept the real risk that he will have the life of a man on his hands?

I appreciate the hon. Member’s concern. He came to see me with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) in the summer, and we discussed this issue, as I am willing to do on every occasion. I accept the vulnerability of Gary McKinnon, as I accept the vulnerability in many cases that go through the courts and in which a decision on extradition has to be taken. I note that I have been called spineless and a brave man within five minutes.

I do not argue that these decisions do not need very careful contemplation, and I have thought about this one long and hard. I have looked at every single word submitted by Gary McKinnon’s lawyers on the evidence of his medical condition. As I have said previously, that is not materially different from the evidence that was before Lord Justice Burnton in June and on which he made his pronouncement on 30 July. I quoted Lord Justice Burnton in my statement saying that he accepts that there is a risk of suicide, and that is a heavy burden on any Home Secretary’s shoulders—as the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) said in his final point. Nevertheless, my job is to uphold the law—to look at the European convention on human rights and decide whether article 3 is being breached in this case. My decision, based on all the evidence, is that article 3 rights are not being breached in the case of Gary McKinnon. Hon. Members may disagree, but I hope they do not think that that decision was made in any other circumstances than after the most careful contemplation.

Order. No fewer than 23 Members are seeking to catch my eye. Naturally, I am keen to accommodate as many as a reasonable allocation of time will allow, but I appeal to each right hon. and hon. Member to ask a single, short supplementary question and, of course, to the Home Secretary to provide an economical reply.

My right hon. Friend mentioned a brief conversation that he had with the US authorities about how Gary McKinnon might be supported, should he be extradited. Could he flesh that out in a great deal more detail? Unconnected, but a point worth making, is the fact that many adults with Asperger’s are never diagnosed, and a late diagnosis is not unusual.

My hon. Friend is right in her final comment. It is not unusual to have a late diagnosis. I did not mention any conversation with the US authorities. The question of bail would be entirely for the independent judiciary. If Gary McKinnon were extradited and if he were convicted—and all the evidence would have to be placed before a court—and if he were given a custodial sentence, the procedure under the transfer of sentenced persons convention would kick in. As I said in the letter to Gary McKinnon’s mother and to his lawyers, we stand ready to implement that procedure at the appropriate time. That time is a long way away, because at the moment Gary McKinnon has not been convicted of anything.

I hope that the Home Secretary will accept that Gary McKinnon was born with Asperger’s syndrome, and that will have contributed to his behaviour with the computers in the first place. It would help Gary McKinnon’s state of mind if he knew now that if he were to receive a custodial sentence, he would serve it in the UK. Instead of the Home Secretary saying that that is down the track, if he would make it clear now that the Home Office would support that, it might help Gary McKinnon’s state of mind.

I appreciate what the hon. Lady says, and much of the medical evidence was about Gary McKinnon’s fear of serving time in a US jail. The problem at the moment is that the case is still in the judicial process. Gary McKinnon’s lawyers still have an opportunity to appeal, not only for judicial review of my decision, but to the courts. I do not want to get into that level of detail. It must be right, just as with other extradition cases, that we let matters unfold and cross each appropriate bridge when we come to it. I am well aware of the concerns that the hon. Lady expresses. At the moment, we have an extradition case, not a trial or a conviction.

I have respect for the Home Secretary, but I believe that he has made the wrong decision for the wrong reasons. He gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, and I wrote to him expressing the Committee’s unanimous view that his scope for discretion was wider. We are prepared to publish our legal advice; will he do the same? If fresh evidence comes before him, is he prepared to do what he did on a previous occasion, and for which we were grateful, and stop the clock and consider that evidence?

My right hon. Friend, in his Select Committee report, did not unearth a different view on whether I had discretion. Two lawyers from Matrix Chambers gave evidence to the Committee and said exactly what I have said today: if there were a supervening diagnosis—it was not in these words, but this is the gist of what they said—I, like my predecessor, have the discretion, when all the court cases are finished and if something new arises, to decide whether the case meets article 3 severity. That is what Matrix Chambers said in its evidence to the Committee, and that is what I am saying, so there is absolutely no difference between us.

I think we have established, with the very honest remarks of the hon. Member for Ashford, that actually we all accept where my discretion—if we want to call it that—lies. There might arise fresh evidence. When the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton gave me the evidence on Gary McKinnon and what was said to be his worsening condition, of course I looked at the matter again. That is what my predecessor did as well. Incidentally, we have now had three Home Secretaries making the same decision. This is a matter for the Home Secretary, of course, but I believe that anyone in my position would have come to the same conclusion, irrespective of how difficult it might be.

This year, the House passed a groundbreaking Act on autism, which was the first ever disability-specific legislation and recognised the unique nature and needs of people diagnosed with autism. How can a Government on the one hand legislate to recognise that unique condition, but on the other discount the expert medical advice reinforcing the point that, in this case, extradition is wholly inappropriate and potentially lethal to Gary? Quite frankly, is there no logic, justice or humanity left in the Government?

My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who holds a position within the National Autistic Society, previously made it clear to those who were lobbying him over this case that he appreciated the problems of autism. I, too, appreciate them. I was Secretary of State for Health and understand completely why that legislation was passed. However, the hon. Lady is too sensible and intelligent to suggest, evenly remotely, that because someone has autism, they do not have to face the consequences of their—alleged—offences. That is not the case. As I have mentioned, we have before us the case of someone with bipolar disorder fighting a similar case, and there are other cases of people with very serious medical complaints. We have to look at Gary McKinnon’s case with compassion and test it through the courts. We have done that, and I believe our decision is the right one.

Does the Home Secretary not appreciate that the vast majority of the public, listening to his fine words, will not understand a word of the way in which he has used one bit of an article and another bit of an article? They will see the Government not standing up for a British citizen in a very difficult situation—not someone who does not want to be tried, but someone who wants to be tried in this country. Will they not regard the French Government’s treatment of someone such as Roman Polanski, who is not even in their country, as the way in which citizens should be stood up for? Will the Home Secretary not see that, even at this stage, he could find a way around this if he really wanted to prevent Gary McKinnon from being extradited?

May I say that I think that my exhortation for single questions has momentarily been forgotten? However, I am sure that it will be remembered now.

My hon. Friend is wrong to say that I am trying to take one bit from here and one bit from there. Those bits and pieces are the European convention on human rights—they are very important, are now part of our law through the Human Rights Act 1998 and are crucial. Cases have to be judged against it.

My hon. Friend states the opinion of the public as if she is the arbiter of public opinion. People in this country want to see a proper extradition that is fair and that not only allows us to bring criminals back from abroad—as we have done on many occasions, including from America—but allows other countries where offences are committed to have the same benefits.

In the case of America, I have already set out the clear views of the courts. It is not for me or any other politician to decide whether to prosecute. The Law Lord, Lord Justice Lloyd said in the other place that it is absolutely wrong for any politician to decide whether to prosecute—and, by definition, where to prosecute—any individual. That was not a matter for me; it was a matter for the prosecuting authorities. They have decided that Gary McKinnon should stand trial in America.

Will the Home Secretary acquaint himself with the case of a young man in the London borough of Hillingdon who suffered from the same condition as Gary McKinnon and who hacked into BT’s system? He was arrested, but BT decided to drop the charges and instead invited him to work on its security. He is now successfully undertaking a degree in IT. Perhaps the way forward might be to try to persuade the US authorities to drop the charges, in order for Gary McKinnon’s undoubted skills to be used for good instead of bad.

All that can come out at the trial. As for whether that case was serious or trivial, all I know is that no one has argued that the criminal charges in this case are not very serious. It happened just after the 3,000 deaths on 9/11, at a time when America was particularly sensitive. The Americans will decide, but the decision of the public prosecutors in this country is that Gary McKinnon should be tried in America. That has been upheld in the courts; indeed, the High Court refused to give a judicial review and it was aware of all the other cases, including the one that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Nevertheless, the court decided that America is the proper place for Gary McKinnon to be tried. As for his defence at that trial, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s comments will form part of it.

Nobody reasonable in the House could dispute that the Home Secretary has a difficult decision to make in this case, and he has clearly considered it carefully. However, given that there is so much public concern about Gary McKinnon’s possible extradition, I urge my right hon. Friend to consider again whether there is any way in which he can take steps to prevent his being extradited. Many people in this country would certainly welcome that. I urge my right hon. Friend to think again and try to find some way of making it happen.

It is just not good enough for a Home Secretary to be told to find “some way”, irrespective of what the European Court of Human Rights or the law says. It is not the Home Secretary’s job to be popular or to please whatever media campaign happens to be on the go; it is the Home Secretary’s job to uphold the law—to look at things carefully and make the right judgment. That is what I have done.

As the Home Secretary knows, extradition is based on the principle of reciprocity. Let me ask him this question: does he think there would be the slightest chance of an American citizen being extradited to the United Kingdom in similar circumstances and on similar evidence?

I hear this kind of argument all the time. Yes is absolutely my answer to that question. Just as we have extradited more than 30 people since the treaty came in, we have not been refused on any occasion, so this kind of faint anti-Americanism—as if the Americans’ system is totally corrupt and our system is brilliant—is not something I accept. Nor do I accept that America would not extradite somebody over here in exactly the same circumstances.

I listened carefully to the closing sentences of the Secretary of State’s statement, which I want to look at in detail. He has basically inherited a Blunkett blunder, which is the treaty. The mood of the House is such that we want to revisit that treaty, in order that caveats can be put in. Will he consider bringing forward emergency legislation so we can address that issue?

No, and for three reasons. Number one, no one has given an argument explaining why probable cause is less of a hurdle to cross than reasonable suspicion; none. Number two, there is not a single case—[Interruption.] An hon. Member on the Opposition Front Bench says that the Attorney-General said that. In a debate in another place on precisely this issue just two weeks ago, when an amendment was tabled to the then Policing and Crime Bill to say that we should revisit the issue in relation to forum—where an individual would be prosecuted—and when the House of Lords successfully overturned an amendment of that nature, the Attorney-General made it absolutely plain that it is a matter of form against fact.

When the Attorney-General was a Home Office Minister, she talked at this Dispatch Box about the legislation that we were debating, but which was not then in place. We now have four or five years’ experience of this legislation, and my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) cannot point to one single case—and nor could my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) at the Home Affairs Committee—or any argument in fact showing that there was an imbalance between the two Acts. I repeat: they could not point to one single argument. In relation to Gary McKinnon, of course, the issue is academic because he has admitted to the charges.

The right hon. Gentleman really must understand that there is a fundamental difference between the situation in the United States and here. The extradition of the UK citizen to the United States does not require prima facie evidence that the offence has been committed; the extradition of a US citizen to the United Kingdom requires probable cause. These things are different, and the matter must be looked at afresh.

I have been patronised by less wealthy people than the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Let me say to him that probable cause is defined in the US courts as

“reasonable grounds for belief of guilt”;

while reasonable suspicion is defined by Lord Devlin like this:

“The circumstances of the case should be such as a reasonable man acting without passion or prejudice would fairly have suspected the person of having committed the offence”.

The first point, then, is that that is as close as two different legal systems could be. The second point is that in all the years during which this treaty has been in place, there has not been an issue of fact that backs up the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s argument. The third point is that this has nothing to do with Gary McKinnon’s case because no one had to prove reasonable suspicion or probable cause, as he has admitted at least to a large chunk of the offences.

I do not envy my right hon. Friend, who for the many years I have known him has always campaigned for justice. Is not the lesson from this case that there is at best a cross-jurisdictional opacity in the way we interpret treaties for alleged crimes conducted in cyberspace, which will be an increasing problem in the years to come, so we need a piece of work that looks at all our treaties and how we interpret this problem?

I, too, have great respect for my hon. Friend, and certainly for his expertise in this area. I have seen nothing, however, that suggests that there is any need for such an investigation or examination. Many cases now take place in cyberspace, and I think the courts are perfectly able to decide them and the prosecuting authorities to handle them. I see no need either in this case or in other cases of a similar nature under consideration at the moment, particularly those concerning extradition, to review how the law works in these circumstances.

I am not going to be rude to the Home Secretary because he is in a very difficult position—one forecast by Conservative Members in 2003 and then in 2006, when the right hon. Gentleman’s Government put this foolish law in place. Much of what he said rested on legal advice. He will have seen from today’s newspapers the comment from Geoffrey Robertson, the senior—very senior—human rights lawyer who said:

“To send a British citizen to the US, without any right to bail, to face 10 years in prison for a crime for which he would be unlikely to receive any custodial sentence if tried here amounts to ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ in breach of our 1689 Bill of Rights. The home secretary should not hide behind the weasel words of the European Convention when he should be following the law laid down by our own historic bill of rights.”

Will the right hon. Gentleman please answer that?

Yes, I read that piece. The courts—the district court, the High Court, the Law Lords, the European Court in Strasbourg—have all looked at this case and they have looked at it as against the law. Now there is an opportunity for them to look at it again. The right hon. Gentleman needs to recognise that the same arguments applied to the NatWest three. We were told about them that they would not get bail, but they did; we were told that they would spend two years in a maximum security prison, which they did not; and we were told that they would face 20 years in jail, which they did not. All the terrible things predicted to take place in the case of the NatWest three did not take place. The hon. Members for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and for Tiverton and Honiton made the right point about what was the right time to look at those specific issues. At the moment, I believe that it is absolutely right that this extradition proceed, but there will be a time for a legal challenge.

I recognise the very difficult dilemma faced by my right hon. Friend, but is it not about time that we asked our American friends—I use the word “friends” deliberately—to examine the case again in the context of the benefits they have accrued through Gary McKinnon’s work? Had he not masterfully broken through their security systems, those systems would be vulnerable today. It is about time the Americans recognised that. I am not in favour of people “testing” my burglar alarm, but in this instance Gary McKinnon has done a huge favour to the American state.

I do not accept that argument. It is akin to the argument that if people left their windows open—

Please. The argument is that if someone is accused of serious criminal offences—and no one doubts that that applies to Gary McKinnon—

My hon. Friend keeps saying that Gary McKinnon did not steal anything; I am not saying he did. What I am saying is that we do not judge such cases on the basis of whether or not it was easy to commit the crime, or whether the person involved made it easier for the crime to be committed. We do not do that in relation to any kind of offence, and we should not do it in relation to offences in cyberspace.

Having listened carefully to the Home Secretary, I conclude that he thinks that the actions of the United States authorities are reasonable in the circumstances. Does he also think that they are wise?

I think that they are reasonable actions. As for whether we would be in exactly the same position if someone had been hacking into the United Kingdom’s defences over a 12-month period, with the same effect and at that particular time, and if that person had left the messages that were left at that particular time, I am absolutely sure that Members would be outraged if the United States refused to extradite the person responsible to this country.

This is the sad case of a sad middle-aged man who is alleged to have deleted part of American security computer systems. That has led both Opposition Front-Bench spokespersons today to state in terms that anyone with Asperger’s should never be extradited or tried. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that approach is an insult to people with Asperger’s, who have a range of responsibilities and capabilities including, in some cases, criminal responsibility and criminal capability?

I agree that a diagnosis of Asperger’s does not mean that it is a breach of human rights to be extradited to face trial for serious criminal offences. Every court in the land has said that, and it has been said by the highest court authority—the High Court. We will look at the facts again. We have looked at the fresh medical and psychiatric evidence, and that is open to be tested in the courts as well, but as yet the courts have decided that this does not approach article 3 severity.

The decision will grate on the people of Northern Ireland, who for years have witnessed political and judicial protection for IRA terrorist murderers who fled to America and were never extradited despite many requests. In the light of that, will the Secretary of State reconsider his view?

I understand how deeply the hon. Lady feels about the issue, given her experience, but it is not my job or that of the courts—and I do not think any Member would suggest that it was—to make such quasi-judicial decisions on the basis of anything other than the law and anything other than the European declaration of human rights. It is absolutely not the case, in my view, that a decision such as this should be made on any kind of tit-for-tat basis which may or may not exist in respect of decisions that America may have made in the past.

As the Home Secretary is apparently looking again at all the medical evidence and the issues surrounding the case, will he look again at the possibility of a prosecution being mounted in the United Kingdom to avoid the whole issue of extradition? That would obviously bring an end to what is a very stressful experience for this young man.

At the risk of repeating myself, let me say that I will not look at all the medical evidence again. I have already looked at it; that is why the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate has laid an urgent question in the House. Secondly, it is the job of the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide whether, and where, to prosecute. That has been upheld in the courts, and on 31 July the High Court refused permission to go to judicial review. That issue has now gone; the only issue left is whether extradition would breach Mr. McKinnon’s human rights.

Tomorrow, we will debate the Equality Bill, which I support and whose aim is to protect people who are disabled. Does the Home Secretary not see an inconsistency between what the Equality Bill is intended to achieve and this decision?

I do not see any contradiction whatever. I am making a decision based on whether Mr. McKinnon’s article 3 human rights would be breached. I am glad the hon. Gentleman and his party support the Equality Bill, but so far as I am aware, nobody is suggesting that people who are disabled should never be prosecuted.

When I was employed as a public prosecutor, it was my duty to make decisions on whether or not to prosecute based on what was in the public interest. The Home Secretary has got compelling evidence today that the decision not to prosecute exposes Gary McKinnon to the probable—if not the inevitable—risk of his committing suicide. I do not see how that can be in the public interest, and regardless of the question of judicial review, why, in these circumstances and with that evidence, is the DPP not being invited to reconsider his decision not to prosecute?

Because the High Court ruled, for the reasons I explained in my statement—[Interruption.] The High Court ruled that it was a matter for the DPP to decide—[Interruption.] Well, if the hon. Gentleman will just be quiet, I will give him the answer. The High Court decided, quite rightly, that it was the DPP’s decision. He felt that the decision in this case was right. He set out the reasons why it was right—and I have set them out again in my statement—and he refused to allow judicial review. My deliberations have nothing to do with the decision to prosecute, or where to prosecute. My deliberations are about whether this decision breaches Gary McKinnon’s human rights.

European Financial Services Proposals

[Relevant documents: Thirty-second Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2008-09, Chapter 2, HC 19-xxx, and the First Report from the Committee, Session 2009-10, Chapters 1 and 2, HC 5-i; and Sixteenth Report from the Treasury Committee, Session 2008-09, on the Committee’s Opinion on proposals for European Financial Supervision, HC 1088, and the First Report from the Committee, Session 2009-10, Proposals for European financial supervision: further report, HC 37.]

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of the following European Union Documents—

(a) 3645/09, Proposal for a Council Decision entrusting the European Central Bank with concerning the functioning of the European Systemic Risk Board;

(b) 13648/09, Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on Community macro prudential oversight of the financial system and establishing a European Systemic Risk Board;

(c) 13652/09, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Banking Authority;

(d) 13653/09, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority;

(e) 13654/09, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Securities and Markets Authority;

(f) 13656/09, Commission Staff Working Document–Possible amendments to Financial Services legislation–accompanying document to—

(i) 13652/09

(ii) 13653/09

(iii) 13654/09;

(g) 13657/09, Commission Staff Working Document–Impact Assessment–accompanying document to—

(i) 13645/09

(ii) 13648/09

(iii) 13652/09

(iv) 13653/09

(v) 13654/09;

(h) 13658/09, Commission Staff Working Document–Summary of the Impact Assessment; and

(i) 15093/09, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 1998/26/EC, 2002/87/EC, 2003/6/EC, 2003/41/EC, 2003/71/EC, 2004/39/EC, 2004/109/EC, 2005/60/EC, 2006/48/EC, 2006/49/EC and 2009/65/EC in respect of the powers of the European Banking Authority, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority and the European Securities and Markets Authority;

and endorses the Government’s approach to setting up a new financial supervisory structure in the EU.

First, I should like to thank the European Scrutiny Committee for calling this debate on these extremely important issues. As several hon. Members present will remember, I took part in another of the Committee’s debates back in June, when we had a very useful discussion of the European Commission’s initial proposals for European Union regulatory reform. Since then, however, things have moved on somewhat. In September, the Commission published its draft legislative proposals to establish a new supervisory architecture, and I look forward to discussing the issues again today.

It might be helpful if I first set out the proposals contained in the documents that we shall be debating this afternoon. The Commission’s legislative package establishes at the macro-prudential level a European systemic risk board, comprised of EU central banks, to identify risks in the financial system. The body will issue warnings where these risks are deemed significant, and will, where appropriate, issue recommendations on how to mitigate these risks.

As I am a member of the ESC, I am sure the Minister will understand my wishing to draw attention to the fact that in our most recent report we have, effectively, condemned the idea that we should rush forward with these proposals. There are many good reasons for that, which are set out in our report. Furthermore, does the Minister accept the following point, which I have repeatedly made to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—this is, effectively, a sell-out to the process of majority voting, and it will do immense damage to the City of London, which accounts for an enormous percentage of our GDP? Does she also agree that there is no justification for the speed with which this is being done, or for handing over the whole of this ramshackle structure to the European Court of Justice?

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I disagree with him on this and that I think it is important that we have a European harmonisation of regulation. That was agreed at not only the European level, but the global level. I think we would all agree that we are looking for a harmonisation of regulation at a global level, and the EU process can move forward on that.

I shall finish answering the original intervention before I give way to my hon. Friend. We still need to refine some pieces of the proposals before us today. I shall go on to discuss where we are disappointed and where the legislative proposals did not follow the agreement reached at the ECOFIN June negotiations; however, the negotiations are ongoing.

Am I right in thinking that the author of the origins of these proposals is Monsieur de Larosière, who, as we heard yesterday, is apparently the patron saint of Conservative regulatory policy? [Interruption.] We can see the gestures being made by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who presumably feels as uncomfortable on this as I do. Could the Minister throw light on the authorship?

Certainly the original proposals came from Jacques de Larosière in order to replace the Lamfalussy level 3 committees in respect of the European supervisory authorities. [Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) does not have to make sedentary references to the number or identity of Frenchmen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was talking about the first part of this package of proposals, which is the European systemic risk board. The body will issue warnings where the risks are deemed significant and recommendations on how to mitigate these risks. The Government strongly support the establishment of the ESRB. We believe it can act as an effective early-warning system, usefully identifying risks in the financial system and complementing the work of the Financial Stability Board and the International Monetary Fund at the international level.

I am happy with the idea of a new architecture and a global system, and I am happy with the ESRB and with the fact that it will issue warnings and take actions. However, one bit is missing from all this, and that makes it difficult to agree whether or not it makes sense. The regulatory framework for the derivatives, the default swaps and the counter-party risk—the technical regulation on the financial weapons of mass destruction—is not yet in place. Will the Minister explain how that will work within the context of the ESRB and the other bits of the architecture that she is describing? That is the missing piece; we do not yet have it.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we do not have all the other directives in today. Today, we are examining the framework that will be discussed at the ECOFIN meeting tomorrow. There will be opportunity to discuss further—if the European Scrutiny Committee so wishes—those other directives that are still going through.

I appreciate what the Minister is saying and that ECOFIN will meet tomorrow, but it is difficult to see how to agree on a proposal for a board that will, rightly, issue recommendations and take actions—presumably they will tighten up, weaken, amend or adjust regulation—when we do not yet have it. Can she not give us some kind of clue as to the regulatory framework that will sit alongside this new architecture?

I am sorry to say that at this stage I cannot. This is still a matter for negotiation among the other member states; this is about the overarching framework.

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, as she is clearly getting into her stride. Before she leaves the subject of the ESRB, a proposal with which she says she is happy, will she say whether or not she is happy that there is no requirement that the non-eurozone countries should be represented on it?

I will come to that later in my speech, but just to satisfy the hon. Gentleman I should say that we do think that there should be sufficient input from the non-eurozone member states. I shall discuss that, because it was a specific question asked by the European Scrutiny Committee.

The European supervisory authorities will replace the current so-called “Lamfalussy level 3 committees” in banking, securities, insurance and occupational pensions. The new authorities will have enhanced roles and tasks, with the aim of improving the quality and consistency of regulation and supervision in the EU.

Will the Minister confirm that these micro regulatory authorities will not have supervisory powers over national authorities? That assurance was given by Lord Myners in evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee, but it has been slightly altered—or certainly weakened and diluted—notably when the Minister responded to my debate in Westminster Hall. Can she get back to the original position and give an unconditional undertaking that the new authorities will not have supervisory authority over national supervisors or individual firms?

Our negotiating position is that the supervisory authorities will have absolutely no authority over individual firms, and that their only power over supervisory authorities will be in cross-border disputes. That will be our position going into the negotiations tomorrow.

As I understand it, a representative of one of the supervisory authorities can sit on the college of supervisors. Does the Minister think that that is appropriate, given that that could also lead to the ESAs having some impact on the supervision of individual firms?

We are clear that none of the bodies being set up under this legislation should be able to impact on the supervision of individual firms. Credit rating agencies are the only exception, as we did not consider that they posed a fiscal risk.