Intelligence and Security Committee Report on Russia

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Ind)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his refusal to give clearance to the report on Russia by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Christopher Pincher)]

As the first Member who has no particular hook on which to hang their congratulations to you, Mr Speaker, may I in any event, and rather gratuitously, welcome you to the Chair?

I would like to answer my right hon. and learned Friend’s question regarding publication of the ISC’s report on Russia. The ISC provides invaluable scrutiny and oversight of the work of the intelligence community to Parliament, so I am grateful to it for conducting this timely inquiry into our work on Russia. Russia’s reckless behaviour in Salisbury and Amesbury shows that, now more than ever, we cannot afford to be complacent about the Russian threat.

Because the ISC deals with matters of national security and intelligence, its reports always contain sensitive information, so it is entirely right that they go through an intensive security review before publication. This report is one of a number of ISC reports that the Government are currently considering. The current length of time that this report has been with the Government is not unusual, as this has averaged around six weeks for reports published in recent years, and three to four weeks for a response to be forthcoming from the Government.

For example, the details of the counter-terrorism review following the attacks and the 2017-18 annual report were sent together to No. 10 on 12 October 2018. We were asked to respond 10 days later on 26 October. We responded on 8 November, and then the checked, proofread report was published on 22 November. Similarly, the details of the detainees report were sent to No. 10 on 10 May 2018. Again, the ISC asked for a response within 10 working days on 24 May. We responded on 30 May, and then the checked, proofread report was published on 12 June. In both cases, the process took approximately six weeks, because by law it is imperative that the process is thorough.

In accordance with the Justice and Security Act 2013, the impact of releasing sensitive information must be carefully considered by the Prime Minister on the advice of civil servants. We cannot rush the process and risk undermining our national security. There is no set timeline within the memorandum of understanding with the Committee for the Government to clear such reports for publication, and under the same memorandum there is no set timeline for a response, nor is such a deadline set in the governing legislation.

I want to assure the House that the Committee is well informed of this process, which is continuing along standard parameters that apply before every publication. Once the process has been completed, we will continue to keep all relevant parties and the House informed.

[Mr Grieve]

Mr Speaker, may I once again warmly congratulate you on your election?

The Intelligence and Security Committee operates on a completely non-partisan basis to try to put information into the public domain in the national interest. This report was completed in March of this year after many months of work. There then began a process of correction and redaction needed to get it published, and that process, which involved the agencies and the Cabinet Office, was completed by early October, when the agencies and the national security secretariat indicated that they were happy that the published form would not damage any operational capabilities of the agencies. That is why, on 17 October, the report was sent to the Prime Minister for final confirmation.

It is a long-standing agreement that the Prime Minister will endeavour to respond within 10 days. The Minister has indicated that there have been instances where further delay has crept in, but my secretariat tells me that it is unprecedented that we should have had no response at all explaining why any further delay is required in this case. The report has to be laid before Parliament when it is sitting. If it is not laid before Parliament ceases to sit this evening, it will not be capable of being laid until the Committee is reformed. In 2017, that took nearly six months.

I ask the Minister, how is it that the Prime Minister has claimed, through the No. 10 spokesman, that there must be further delays for consultation about national security, when the agencies themselves indicated publicly this morning, in response to journalistic inquiries, that publication will not prejudice the discharge of their functions? So for what purpose is the Prime Minister still considering it? It certainly cannot be the risk to national security, as the agencies themselves have said that there is none.

Will the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister does not have carte blanche to alter our reports or remove material from them, and that, if he wishes to exercise a veto over publication, he must give the Committee a credible explanation as to why he is doing so? Will he also explain why No. 10 spokesmen insisted that no publication should take place because weeks of further interdepartmental consultations were needed, when, I have to say to the Minister, this explanation was plainly bogus? Finally, will he explain why No. 10 spokesmen suggested that parts of the report had been leaked by the Committee, when it is plainly obvious to anybody who looks at the journalistic speculations that they have not? Would he now like to take the opportunity of withdrawing that particular slur, which came from No. 10?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his questions and for his tone. I simply reiterate the points I made in my statement. It is not unusual for the review of ISC reports to take some time. The average turnaround time is six weeks. The average response to the Committee is anywhere between three and four weeks. It is not as if the Prime Minister has not had one or two other things to do over the past several weeks, notably obtaining a good deal for Britain on withdrawing from the European Union. It is not unusual that the turnaround time is what it is.

The Prime Minister has very specific and particular responsibilities, under the Justice and Security Act 2013, to be sure that any information that ISC reports may contain is properly checked and, if appropriate, redacted. The Prime Minister takes that responsibility very seriously indeed, because the reports that issue from the ISC are important. They carry weight and therefore they must be properly looked at. That is what No. 10 is doing. That is what the Prime Minister is doing by referring to his officials for advice, which is his right and responsibility.

As to leaks, we see quite a few of those and we deplore them all. I certainly would not want anybody to believe that what is in a leak, particularly if it appears on the front pages of certain newspapers, is believable.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. May I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) for securing it and for all his efforts?

I can only echo the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the utterly unjustifiable, unprecedented and clearly politically motivated reasons for delaying the publication of the report until after the election. This is not at the request of the intelligence agencies. There are no foreign powers we have to consult, which was the reason for the delay of the rendition report. This is nothing less than an attempt to suppress the truth from the public and from Parliament, and it is an affront to our democracy.

We are bound to ask: what is Downing Street so worried about? Why would it not welcome an official report on attempted Russian interference in the 2016 referendum, whether that was successful or otherwise? I fear it is because it realises that the report will lead to other questions about the links between Russia and Brexit, and with the current leadership of the Tory party, that risk derailing its election campaign. There are questions about the relationship between the FSB-linked Sergey Nalobin and his “good friend”, the current Prime Minister. There are questions about the Prime Minister’s chief aide, Dominic Cummings, his relationship with Oxford academic Norman Stone, the mysterious three years that he spent in post-communist Russia aged just 23, and the relationships that he allegedly forged with individuals such as Vladislav Surkov, the key figure behind Vladimir Putin’s throne. And there are questions about the amount of money flowing into Conservative coffers from Russian émigrés, about the sources of money that paid for the Brexit campaign, and about the dubious activities of Conservative Friends of Russia.

If the Minister is going to dismiss all that as conspiracy theories or smears and say that it has nothing to do with the delay of the report, I say back to him: prove it. Publish this report and let us see for ourselves. Otherwise, there is only question: what have you got to hide?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to the right hon. Lady for giving us a run-down of her interest in smears and conspiracy theories. She wonders where Professor Stone was in the 1980s—I rather wonder where the Leader of the Opposition was in the 1980s and, for that matter, in the 1990s, the 2000s and quite recently. It is rather rich for her to suggest that somehow the Conservative party and this Government are linked to Russian disinformation, given the way that her party leadership has acted and the responsibility that her party leadership has had down the years for being hand in hand with its Russian friends.

In respect of the right hon. Lady’s question about publication, the Government and the Prime Minister have a responsibility under the Justice and Security Act 2013 to look properly at the report, and that is what he is doing. The turnaround time for this report is not unusual. The response time to the Committee is not unusual. The CT attacks report and the detainee report took some time to turn around. I understand why the right hon. Lady may wish—for party political purposes in this febrile time, as the House of Commons is about to dissolve—to make the points that she has, but they are entirely refutable. I believe, personally, that they are reprehensible, and I wish that she would withdraw the imputation about the good name of the Conservative party and this Government.

[Mr Keith Simpson (Broadland) (Con)]

I declare an interest as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I absolutely support what our Chairman said. This is a question of principle as much as anything else. I will not go into the details of what the report is about—there have been a lot of foxes let loose by the media—but I have this question to put to the Minister, and I feel sorry for him that he has been landed with having to answer this, rather than perhaps someone from the Cabinet Office. As far as the Committee is concerned, this report has been cleared by the intelligence and security agencies. It has been cleared by the Cabinet Office, and the civil servants and officials saw no reason whatsoever why it should not have been published. Will the Minister therefore tell the House—I do not want to hear all that repetition again—why the Prime Minister is not going to allow this report to be released and published in this Parliament?

[Christopher Pincher]

Before I answer his question, I would like to say farewell to my right hon. Friend, who has been a steadfast Member of this House and a doughty champion of defence and security issues, both here and on the ISC. He asks a straightforward question. I will give him the straightforward answer. The Prime Minister has a responsibility under the 2013 Act to properly and carefully adjudicate upon the report before him, and that is what he is doing, but it takes some time.

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). He and I disagree on a wide range of issues, but his fairness and scrupulousness in holding to account both his own Government and others, such as me, is a credit to the entire House.

The Russian Government’s greatest victims are their own people, with human rights abuses, and human rights and democracy activists, opposition groups and minorities targeted. I spent several years working in the former Soviet Union, and we in the Foreign Affairs Committee have visited as well, and I pay tribute to the bravery of those who campaign for fairness, the rule of law and democracy in that country. Surely the greatest riposte we can make, and the greatest support we can give those campaigners, is to show that democracy, openness and transparency in the UK are something to look up to. I fear that in this case they are not.

I hope the Minister is embarrassed by what he has just heard from the members of the ISC. Their questions were damning, and I am not surprised he did not answer them. Given the threat Russia poses to elections, and given that his Government have wanted an election for months, why is this not a priority? Brexit has taught us that this Government like to hide unhelpful reports—lots of them—so prove me wrong and publish the report.

[Christopher Pincher]

The Government are prepared to be robust and transparent with respect to Russia—look at the way we carefully collated, assessed, scrutinised and presented the evidence of the Kremlin’s involvement in the attacks in Salisbury and Amesbury, and at the way we built an international alliance that responded to that threat. We are perfectly prepared to be robust and transparent with respect to Russia.

The hon. Gentleman asked about evidence of Russia’s involvement in our elections. There is no evidence of any successful Russian involvement in the British electoral cycle. I would ask him to be careful, thoughtful and considerate at this febrile time, as the House dissolves before the general election, and to allow the Prime Minister his right and his duty to assess what is in the report. Then we can produce a report in good time.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

When the Minister talked about the ISC, he referred to the Justice and Security Act 2013—the latest Act that crystallised the practical approach to the running of the ISC in the years since it was created by the Intelligence Services Act 1994. That Act created an arrangement for the Committee that balanced national security with the right to scrutiny and redaction and the right of the Prime Minister to approve the report before it is released. It rested on balance and on both sides—the House and the Government—treating the other side fairly. That is what is missing here. By not releasing the report, all the Minister does is create a vacuum for the paranoid fantasies we have heard from the Opposition to fill.

[Christopher Pincher]

As ever, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, though he will appreciate that I cannot be responsible for the paranoid fantasies of Opposition Members. I can only say that the report was received by the Government on 17 October. It is not unusual for such reports to take six weeks to turn around or for a Government response to take anywhere between three and four weeks. Given the circumstances—given all the other things going on—I am not surprised the report is taking a little time to turn around. That does not mean it is being suppressed or withheld in any way; it simply means it is being properly considered.

[Mr Speaker]

I call David Hanson.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—and congratulations.

As a Labour member of the ISC, I support the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the Chair of the Committee, and share his concerns. The security services have cleared our report, the Cabinet Office has cleared our report, and we have made recommendations to the Prime Minister. Since receiving the report, has the Prime Minister read it, and has he submitted any redactions? I do not need to know what they are, but has he read it and has he submitted redactions? If not, why does he not publish today?

[Christopher Pincher]

A report such as this—a sensitive report that is 50 pages long—requires careful consideration. As I said, it was submitted on 17 October and is being reviewed by all the relevant senior officials within government and at No. 10. The Committee will be informed of that process, and when the Prime Minister has concluded that the report is publishable, he will publish it.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Are the Government not entitled not to be bullied into accelerating the release of important national security reports? Would it not be a dangerous precedent to establish that the Committee can come to the House and bully the Government into releasing such an important and sensitive report?

[Christopher Pincher]

I do not think the Government are being bullied. Certainly we are not prepared to be bullied. We want to make sure the report is given proper and careful consideration and that any further changes to or questions of it can be addressed. Then a properly balanced report can be published.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Stella Creasy.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—it has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it?

We all in the House will know from our email inboxes that one of the challenges facing our current politics is that people watch too much Netflix and so are convinced that there are many conspiracies. That said, given that, as ISC members have said, many foxes have been set loose—reports about Sergey Nalobin, about Dominic Cumming’s security clearance, about Alexander Temerko’s friendship with the Prime Minister, about the use of the Lycamobile offices; given that the security agencies say they are happy to see the report, which the Government have had since March, published; given the cross-party support for it to be published; and given that Earl Howe in the House of Lords yesterday said it is the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister alone who needs to publish it, does the Minister recognise that the best way to kill the conspiracy theories is to put it out in the open? Former Prime Ministers have told us that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Why has this Prime Minister closed the blinds?

[Christopher Pincher]

The best way to avoid conspiracy theories is for people not to peddle them, and the hon. Lady just made a valiant effort in so doing. I have explained why it is taking some time to consider the report. We will consider it carefully and make sure it is a robust report, and then it will be published in due course.

[Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I would certainly welcome a debate on covert and malign foreign interference —not only any attempts on our side but why Seumas Milne always seems to peddle the Kremlin’s line and the links between senior people around the leader of the Labour party and pro-Russian groups in Ukraine and elsewhere. There would be a lot of interesting debate there.

My question to the Minister is a broader one. Does he agree that the best way to minimise the chances of malign and covert interference in our electoral system is through the introduction of a foreign agents registration Act? The US introduced one against covert Nazi influence in 1938 and the Australians produced a foreign influence transparency scheme just last year. I will be working with the Henry Jackson Society to produce a potential template Bill. Would the Minister be interested in discussing it with me should we both be re-elected in December?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am always interested to hear the ideas and read the reports of my hon. Friend. I would certainly be interested to see the work that parliamentary draftsmen may have to undertake in defining a foreign agent. Foreign agents tend to keep themselves rather quiet, it seems to me, so identifying them may be a challenge; but I am always interested to see what my hon. Friend has to offer. If we are both re-elected—and I wish him well in that enterprise—then of course, on the other side, we will talk.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Welcome, Mr Speaker.

Given the gaps and inaccuracies in his account of the three years that he spent in Russia, why was Dominic Cummings inexplicably granted the highest developed vetting status, yet is routinely denied access to secret intelligence? What damage is this unprecedented arrangement doing to our vital security arrangements with our Five Eyes partners?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am not going to comment on individual public servants. All I would say is that in asking the question that he asks, the right hon. Gentleman appears to be less a Member of Parliament than a walk-on member of a show like “24”.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

In my time on the Intelligence and Security Committee, I have built up a healthy respect for the way in which we conduct parliamentary scrutiny of our secret intelligence agencies. Indeed, other Parliaments from around the world come to see how we do it. There is much in the report that I would love to be able to talk about here, and I would love to address some of the more eccentric conspiracy theories that we have heard peddled here, but it comes down to this. We have a highly respected system of parliamentary oversight which is trusted across the House. Does my right hon. Friend not feel that in the absence of this report’s publication, we have created a climate which has allowed some quite bizarre conspiracy theories to be peddled, and that it would be much better to publish what has been written in the way in which the Committee produced it?

[Christopher Pincher]

Let me also bid farewell to my right hon. Friend, who has been a fine Member of Parliament for Newbury over the last 18 years. We will miss him: we will miss his intelligence, his care and his consideration. He wonders whether, by acting in a different way, we would reduce the propensity towards conspiracy theories. I suspect that the answer is no. I think that those conspiracy theories would find their way into the light in any event, thanks to some Opposition Members.

All I can do is to repeat what I have already said to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker). This report requires careful consideration. It requires the Prime Minister to do his duty by the Justice and Security Act, and that is what he will do.

[Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (LD)]

Many congratulations from these Benches on your election, Mr Speaker.

There are serious questions to be answered. I say to Members on that side of the House that it is perfectly legitimate for Members on this side of the House to ask the questions that we are asking. Our job is to scrutinise what the Government are doing. Clearly there are serious questions to be answered in relation to the role of Mr Dominic Cummings, one of the most senior officials in Government. Perhaps the answers will allay our concerns, but we deserve to hear those answers.

I have to say that the Minister’s response today has been utterly shameful. Let me ask him this. Is he denying that, if the shoe was on the other foot and he was at the Opposition Dispatch Box, he would be asking for the report to be published, as we are?

[Christopher Pincher]

The job of Members of Parliament is to scrutinise legislation and reports and not to fantasise about them, which is what I think all too many Opposition Members are doing. The Government have a duty to scrutinise properly the report that was presented to them by the ISC on 17 October. The Prime Minister has a duty to ask searching questions about the report, and to satisfy himself that nothing in it breaches our security privileges and the national security of the country. When that job is done, and not before, the report will be published.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Is it not the case that there is no conspiracy and no cover-up, and that this is just a manifestation of a considered bureaucratic process? May I draw the Minister’s attention to some comments that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) has made over the past 24 hours? As a matter of courtesy, I informed his office that I would be making these comments. To the media, he said, “I can think of no good reason why the ISC report is not being published.” While my right hon. and learned Friend is indeed very learned, the fact that he does not know of a reason does not necessarily mean that there is not a reason. I wonder whether the Minister can confirm that.

[Christopher Pincher]

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield has every right to ask questions and make comments in the media. That is his duty as a Member of Parliament, and his right as the Chairman of the ISC. However, it is the duty of the Prime Minister, with his officials, to consider the report properly. That is what he is doing, and until that job is done properly the report should not be published—and the turnaround for publication is not unusual.

[Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Congratulations, Mr Speaker.

The Minister says that the process that he is going through at the moment is not unusual, and the secretariat of the ISC says that it is unprecedented. Both cannot be right. Will the Minister take account of the fact that the secretariat, the Cabinet Office, the whole civil service and the security agencies have all said that no problem of national security is involved? Surely he must conclude that if this is not a matter of national security, the reason why the report is not being published is political. Will he take my advice and publish, or be damned?

[Christopher Pincher]

The timelines for the submission of the report, relative to the timelines of submissions of previous reports, speak for themselves. The CT attacks report took about six weeks to turn around, with four weeks between its submission and a response from the Government, and the detainees report took about three weeks from the point of submission to the point of response. Such timelines are not unusual, and, although I am sure that they were made in absolute good faith, I do not recognise the comments of the ISC secretariat. The timelines speak for themselves.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

The Minister is entirely right to say that scrutiny dispels fantasy, and this is one of those moments when I feel that scrutiny would be entirely appropriate to dispel that fantasy. There can be few Members like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), or my right hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson), or, indeed, many other members of the ISC, who were all personally chosen by the Prime Minister for their judgment, their character and their wisdom. Would it not be appropriate—at a moment when the country is focused on the most important democratic event that we will hold for, certainly, a number of years—for the information that is needed for us to judge its legitimacy to be put before the House, so that people can see the fantasy that some are claiming, and this can all go away?

[Christopher Pincher]

I do not question the probity of those who have compiled this report, and I certainly recognise the wisdom of my hon. Friend, who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee. I therefore think it unfortunate that some in the House have chosen to question the probity of Government officials and the wisdom of the Prime Minister in properly scrutinising an important report that has been laid before him. As I have said, that report went to No. 10 on 17 October. It will be properly scrutinised, but that set of considerations has not been concluded yet.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

May I add my congratulations, Mr Speaker?

I have a very simple question for the Minister. There is clearly unease about the delay in the report’s publication. Will the Minister confirm that it is not being withheld in the interests of the Conservative party?

[Christopher Pincher]

No, it is not.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Congratulations on your election as well from me, Mr Speaker.

The Minister, sent by the Prime Minister so that he can avoid scrutiny himself, says that the length of time that the report has been with the Government is not unusual, but will he acknowledge that the report itself is unusual because it is about interference in elections and we are just about to embark on a general election? So if the Government continue to block it after the security services have cleared it, that can only be either because they do not take the ISC Committee seriously or because they have something to hide, and can the Minister clarify which of those two it is?

[Christopher Pincher]

That was another of those questions: there we go again with a little light fantasising. The Committee has produced a serious report—

[Emily Thornberry]

You are taking sneering to a whole new level.

[Christopher Pincher]

The right hon. Lady from a sedentary position accuses me of sneering. I think that is pretty rich, I have to say, but I will press on as politely as I possibly can to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on her question.

It is not unusual for time to be taken to consider serious reports. This is a serious report and it should be considered in a timely way. In the meantime, I would say to the hon. Lady that there is no evidence to suggest that Russia or the Kremlin has successfully engaged in interference in our electoral processes; if she believes that there is, please bring that information forward, but we have seen none.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I be helpful to the Minister? I listened to your speech yesterday, Mr Speaker, and you will note that this urgent question goes to the heart of our proceedings: this is an all-party report, the Government are not publishing it, they should publish it, and there is all-party support for it to be published. Only a few minutes ago we had the Foreign Secretary here, and he could have stayed to make a statement. This is a very important issue. I want to fight this election on health, employment, jobs and all those other important things. If we do not stop this issue now, it will run and run, almost like a Watergate thing, throughout the campaign, so please publish the report now and let’s get on with the general election on the real issues.

[Christopher Pincher]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: let’s fight the election on the real issues—on migration issues, on health, on education, on our stance on Brexit. Let’s get out there and do it, and let’s stop stirring the pot on this non-issue.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate you on your election, Mr Speaker.

Does the Minister accept and understand that the report has been cleared, and failure to publish today will mean, as a number of Members across the House have said, that almost every day for the next five weeks this will permeate the campaign? That can and should be avoided by publication today.

[Christopher Pincher]

I suspect that the campaign, like most campaigns, will focus on domestic issues. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be fighting very hard in his constituency on matters that concern his constituents, and I suspect this will be one of them.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Congratulations on your election, Mr Speaker.

I have noted that two or three times the Minister has said that there has been no successful penetration into the British electoral system. Does that imply that there has been unsuccessful penetration into the electoral system, and is that one of the reasons why the report has not been published?

[Christopher Pincher]

The hon. Gentleman I think might have now spoken for the last time in this Chamber and we wish him well in whatever he does next. Maybe, like Tony Benn, he will retire from the House of Commons and go into real politics; we shall see. He asked whether there are examples of unsuccessful interference in British politics, and the way that the Kremlin has behaved is clear; we have seen examples overseas of attempts at electoral interference, and of attempts at fake news and disinformation, most recently in Georgia. What I would say is that we have robust systems in place in this country to defend ourselves against such attacks, and that is why I say that such attacks have not been successful.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

We know that there was overseas interference in the US presidential election and the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee in its disinformation report last year called for an independent inquiry based on evidence that we produced to the Government. That request to the Government was rejected, and is not the problem that this decision to withhold this report is part of a course of conduct by this Government to refuse to look at whether there has been the level of interference that many in the country believe?

[Christopher Pincher]

The hon. Gentleman also may be leaving the Commons very soon, and I wish him well in his future path. He asked a reasonable question because disinformation tactics continue to evolve and therefore we must always be on our guard. The “Online Harms” White Paper that the Government produced commits us to introducing a duty of care on online companies to tackle a wide range of online harms, and they include limiting the spread of disinformation. With respect to the election in the United States, of course lots of comments have been made and suggestions and allegations have been heard. I am not going to comment on the US election; all I can say is that I think the US has as robust a system as we do.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (LD)]

I welcome you to your new post, Mr Speaker.

Further to the previous question, I am not in the business of peddling conspiracy theories, but I do look at credible sources and was disturbed by the release of the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report last month that did find Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, which makes the release of this report all the more important, all the more relevant and all the more imperative as we embark on the democratic process of an election in our country. Can the Minister confirm this today: has the Prime Minister read the report?

[Christopher Pincher]

The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the actions of the Kremlin in states abroad. I have said that we have evidence from around the world of activity that is malign and malicious. I believe that we here in the UK have a robust set of systems in place to defend ourselves. We will look closely at the report that the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield and his Committee have submitted to the Government. It is going through the No. 10 process and at the end of that rigorous review process we will see the report.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Congratulations on your election, Mr Speaker.

We have heard from several Members of the ISC this afternoon, including three sitting behind the Minister, and all have highlighted that every security agency required to do so has signed off this report, as has the Cabinet Office. The unprecedented delay is due to the Prime Minister. Is that because the Prime Minister is acting in the unprecedented fashion of subjugating national security to personal and political interests and his loyalty to Dominic Cummings, a man already found to be in contempt of Parliament?

[Christopher Pincher]

The short answer is no. The report has to go through a proper and rigorous process of scrutiny. It was submitted to the Government on 17 October. The time being taken to scrutinise it is not unusual; to say it is unprecedented is not accurate. Other reports—other sensitive reports, and complicated reports—have taken between four and six weeks to turn around; this important and sensitive report is no different.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Stephen Timms]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and many congratulations to you.

The Committee Chair reminds us that if the Prime Minister is unable to respond within 10 days he is required to provide an explanation for that failure. He has not provided an explanation, which, we understand, is unprecedented. Why has the Prime Minister not complied with the requirement placed upon him?

[Christopher Pincher]

It is because there is no requirement. The memorandum of understanding with the Committee is clear about the rules: there is no set timeline for a response and there is no set deadline in the governing legislation. The Prime Minister has a duty under the 2013 Act to look carefully and considerately at such reports. That is what No. 10 is doing, that is what the Prime Minister will do, and when that work is completed the report will be published.

British Indian Ocean Territory

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Christopher Pincher)]

My noble Friend, the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon), has made the following written statement:

The United Kingdom is aware of the proceedings brought by Mauritius against the Maldives under the UN convention on the law of the sea (UNCLOS). The UK is not a party to these proceedings, which can have no effect for the UK or for maritime delimitation between the UK (in respect of the British Indian Ocean Territory) and the Republic of the Maldives.

The UK has no doubt as to our sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), which has been under continuous British sovereignty since 1814. Mauritius has never held sovereignty over the BIOT and the UK does not recognise its claim.

As we have made clear previously, we were disappointed that the sovereignty dispute over the BIOT was referred to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). By agreeing to answer the questions put to it by the General Assembly on behalf of Mauritius, the Court has enabled Mauritius to circumvent the basic principle that the Court should not consider a bilateral dispute without the consent of both states concerned. This sets a precedent which will potentially have wide implications for other states with bilateral disputes.

Despite these clear reservations, the UK participated fully in the advisory proceedings in good faith. We have also made known our views on the content of the opinion, including its insufficient regard to some material facts and significant legal issues. These included the 2015 binding UNCLOS arbitral tribunal award, which held the 1965 agreement between Mauritius and the United Kingdom, in which Mauritius agreed to detachment of the BIOT in return for benefits including the United Kingdom commitment to cede the territory when no longer needed for defence purposes, was legally binding. The opinion also gave insufficient regard to the reaffirmation by Mauritius, after independence, of the 1965 agreement.

In any event, what is undisputed is that the opinion is advisory and not legally binding. Moreover, the Court itself recognised that its opinion is without prejudice to the sovereignty dispute over the BIOT between the UK and Mauritius.

As the dispute over the BIOT is a sovereignty dispute, the General Assembly is not the appropriate forum to resolve such disputes. General Assembly resolution 73/295, adopted following the ICJ’s advisory opinion, cannot and does not create any legal obligations for the member states. Nor can or does General Assembly resolution 73/295 create legal obligations for other international actors such as a special chamber of the international tribunal for the law of the sea. Neither the non-binding advisory opinion nor the non-binding General Assembly resolution alter the legal situation, that of a sovereignty dispute over the BIOT between the UK and Mauritius.

A fundamental principle of international law and the international legal order is the principle of consent. It follows that the special chamber is not in a position to pronounce itself on the sovereignty dispute between the UK and Mauritius without the consent of the UK to resolve the sovereignty dispute before the special chamber.

The UK remains committed to implementing the 2015 UNCLOS arbitral tribunal award and seeking direct, bilateral dialogue with Mauritius.

[HCWS90]

Foreign Affairs Council

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Christopher Pincher)]

The Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) will take place in Brussels on 11 November. It will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union (EU) for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HRVP), Federica Mogherini.

The FAC will discuss current affairs, Afghanistan and Iran. There will also be a ministerial lunch with Sudanese Prime Minister Hamdok.

Current affairs

HRVP Mogherini will raise Venezuela. She will reflect on two international meetings held in Brussels in October. First, the international contact group meeting held on 28 October. Secondly, the international solidarity conference on the Venezuelan refugee and migrant crisis which took place on 28-29 October.

HRVP Mogherini will brief Ministers on the follow-up to the October FAC and European Council conclusions on Turkey’s actions in north-east Syria and Turkish hydrocarbons exploration activity. We expect the Council to adopt a framework for a sanctions regime on the latter.

HRVP Mogherini will also provide an update on the conflict in Libya and preparations for the leader-level conference which Chancellor Merkel will host in Berlin later this year.

Afghanistan

Due to time constraints, the discussion on Afghanistan at the October FAC was postponed to November. Ahead of the publication of the recent presidential election results, Ministers will focus on the political situation in Afghanistan. They will review prospects for peace, in light of recent Afghan and US-led peace efforts. The UK will underline the importance of completing the electoral process in an impartial, efficient and transparent manner, and highlight the importance of momentum in the peace process.

Iran

Ministers will discuss the EU’s approach to Iran and Gulf regional security. Ministers will focus in particular on the importance of preserving the joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPoA) and the need for a diplomatic solution to de-escalate tensions in the region. Along with our French and German partners, the UK will highlight the importance of Iran returning to full compliance with its commitments under the JCPoA. All parties need to engage in comprehensive negotiations without prejudice to the JCPoA itself—to address Iran’s nuclear activities after 2025 as well as regional security.

Ministerial lunch with Sudanese Prime Minister Hamdok

Ministers will discuss recent progress in Sudan with Prime Minister Hamdok. The UK will continue to urge the EU to be ambitious in the level of support they provide to Sudan throughout the political transition. This should be proportionate to needs and include assistance focused on economic and social stability, the peace process, human rights, and democracy and governance.

Council conclusions

The Council is expected to adopt a number of measures, including: a framework sanctions regime in response to Turkish hydrocarbon explorations around Cyprus; the annual review of the Venezuela sanctions regime; and authorisation to open negotiations with Somalia on the status of the EU’s training mission for the Somali security forces.

[HCWS88]

Leaving the EU: Integrated Foreign Policy

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Christopher Pincher)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely) on securing this timely debate. I mean “timely” in the broader sense, as we are nearly out of time in this Parliament, but I am sure that the ideas that he adumbrated will form part of the election campaign, in which parties and candidates of all stripes will be able to put forward their views on our foreign policy—views that may well be taken up by the next Government. I pay tribute to him for all that he has done to inform and challenge the Government’s foreign policy making, both as a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and through his thoughtful contributions in print, of which I have two submissions to hand. I also congratulate all colleagues who are present. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) said, not every political party is represented, but those who are here are respected across the House.

There is no doubt that we face a world of increasing uncertainty. The rules-based international system is under challenge. Trading tensions, climate change and growing populations mean greater competition. New technologies need to be properly harnessed to ensure that cyberspace cannot be hijacked for malign purposes—my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight made that point cogently and eloquently. Those challenges involve threats to our interests that we need to identify and overcome, but they also offer opportunity, from the economic potential of innovating to tackle climate change to the commercial possibilities offered by the dynamic economies of Asia, or the growing populations of Africa.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) mentioned Africa, and I agree with him: Ministers should travel more. I draw his attention to the current rather challenging parliamentary arithmetic, which means that the most powerful person in the House of Commons is not the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Foreign Secretary, but the Government pairing Whip, who allows us to travel. Perhaps in a new Parliament with a different arithmetic, Ministers will be able to travel much more.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

Does the fact that British foreign policy suffers because Ministers are understandably tied to Parliament not point to a fundamental problem in our country? We do not have the ability to get out there, unlike our counterparts with presidential systems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher]

Our system is beautiful but imperfect. I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s point, but we have a fantastic diplomatic service, Members of the House of Lords, who are often able to travel more, and trade envoys from across political parties, who contribute to our diplomatic effort.

Once we have left the European Union, we will continue to be guided by our core foreign policy priorities: protecting our people, projecting our influence and promoting our prosperity. Those priorities align with the three freedoms mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight: freedom from oppression, freedom of thought and expression, and freedom for trade. I am sure he will agree that those are important elements in delivering our core priorities.

We will remain a pragmatic champion of our values, a steadfast defender of our interests, and a global force for good. We will work with, and through, the global network of multilateral institutions—as a permanent member of the United Nations, to which my hon. Friend referred; as a leading member of the G7, the G20 and the Commonwealth; and as an independent reformist voice in the World Trade Organisation. That commitment extends to our neighbours in Europe. We are leaving the EU, but we are not leaving Europe. We remain steadfastly committed to the security and welfare of the continent, remaining a vital partner in the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the Council of Europe, and of course, NATO, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and others mentioned. We will lead by example. The Foreign Secretary has announced our intention to establish a global human rights sanctions regime, which will reinforce Britain’s role in the world as a good global citizen.

I had a good sense of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight would raise today from the report he produced in February. He referred to the Prime Minister’s foreword to it, and it will form an important part of my respite reading during the general election campaign. If I am here on the other side of the election and appear before the Foreign Affairs Committee, of which I trust he will be a member, I am sure that we will refer to the report when we joust.

I am pleased to advise my hon. Friend that many of the suggestions made in the report, and by hon. Members today, mirror lines of work that this Government are already delivering. The United Kingdom has considerable strengths and world-leading capabilities, including a renowned military, of which he was once a part, an attractive economy and one of the largest and most respected diplomatic, development and security networks. Our extraordinary soft power generates a huge amount of opportunity and puts us in the top two of Portland’s soft power index. To leverage those assets to maximum effect, we must work across organisational boundaries. If global Britain is to be successful, our systems must be fit for purpose.

I agree with my hon. Friend that a well-integrated foreign policy is critical. He mentioned the National Security Council, which has proven an excellent vehicle for bringing together the work of different Departments to focus on the more immediate issues and threats that we and our allies face. The NSC’s role has been enhanced over the last year by the adoption of the fusion doctrine, which strengthens Her Majesty’s Government’s collective approach to national security, drawing together all the United Kingdom’s security, economic and diplomatic capabilities in pursuit of our national interests. Members of the NSC, be they Cabinet Ministers, junior Ministers, officials or experts, speak with authority and as equals. That is one of the key components of the NSC’s success.

Of course, there is always room for improvement. That is why at home, the Government’s collective approach to international work is strengthened through the creation of national strategy implementation groups, which meet monthly and bring together officials from all relevant Government Departments to formulate collective responses to opportunities and challenges. We encourage effective co-ordination between Departments, but there is also a great deal to be gained from the development of dedicated expertise in specialist departments. I will ask my officials, who my hon. Friend is meeting later, to give him further detail on that.

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I appreciate that a 30-minute debate on the integration of foreign policy is hardly enough to integrate it, but I am sure that there will be future opportunities for him, me and other hon. Members to debate it more fully.

Question put and agreed to.

Foreign Affairs Council 14 October

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2019 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Christopher Pincher)]

The High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HRVP), Federica Mogherini, chaired the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) in Luxembourg on 14 October. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa attended the meeting.

Current affairs

The HRVP and Foreign Ministers had an exchange of views on a number of pressing issues. On Iran, they recalled their commitment to the joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPoA) and highlighted the importance of continuing efforts to de-escalate tensions. The United Kingdom highlighted the importance of the joint comprehensive plan of action, the instrument in support of trade exchanges (INSTEX) and our participation in the international maritime security construct.

On Libya, Ministers expressed their support for the resumption of the UN-led political process. The United Kingdom expressed full support for German efforts to boost regional co-operation, and the importance of strict enforcement of the UN arms embargo.

The HRVP encouraged Ministers to participate in the international solidarity conference on the Venezuelan refugee and migrant crisis on 28-29 October in Brussels.

Syria

Ministers discussed the latest developments in Syria. The UN special envoy for Syria, Geir Pedersen, briefed Ministers on the political process and preparations for the Constitutional Committee’s first meeting, due to take place at the end of October. He also expressed his concern over Turkey's military action in north-east Syria and the risks for the political process. Foreign Ministers reiterated their full support for the special envoy.

North-east Syria

The Council condemned Turkey’s unilateral military action, noting its impact on regional stability and security and the UN-led peace process, humanitarian assistance, and the global coalition’s progress to defeat Daesh (which remained a threat to European security as well as Turkey’s, regional and international security). The conclusions, while noting that Turkey was a key partner of the European Union and a critically important actor in the Syrian crisis and the region, urged Turkey to cease its unilateral military action in north-east Syria and to withdraw its forces. They also reiterated the EU’s commitment to the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian state, and urged a political and diplomatic resolution to security concerns in north-east Syria.

The conclusions recalled some member states’ decision to immediately halt arms exports licensing to Turkey and called for a ministerial meeting of the international coalition against Daesh to address how to pursue its efforts in this regard.

The conclusions reiterated that the EU would not provide stabilisation or development assistance in areas where the rights of local populations are ignored or violated, and that it remained engaged in addressing the humanitarian and refugee crisis.

Turkey’s drilling activities in the eastern Mediterranean

Ministers discussed Turkey’s drilling in the waters around Cyprus. The United Kingdom stressed that Turkey must respect Cyprus’ sovereignty and supported calls for dialogue.

The Council adopted conclusions reaffirming the EU’s solidarity with Cyprus regarding the respect of its sovereignty, and noted that delimitations of exclusive economic zones should be addressed through dialogue and negotiation in full respect of international law and in accordance with the principle of good neighbourly relations.

The Council agreed to put in place a framework regime of restrictive measures targeting natural and legal persons responsible for or involved in the illegal drilling activity of hydrocarbons in the eastern Mediterranean.

Ukraine

Ministers had a brief exchange of views in preparation for the discussion with the Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko over the working lunch.

Afghanistan

The discussion was postponed to the Foreign Affairs Council meeting of 11 November 2019 due to time constraints.

Lunch with the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Ukraine Vadym Prystaiko

Over lunch, Foreign Minister Prystaiko briefed on Ukrainian reform plans. The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa underlined the United Kingdom’s commitment to supporting Ukraine on reforms and stressed the need for the EU to remain focused on Russian influence. Ministers reaffirmed the EU’s strong commitment to Ukraine, both to its territorial integrity and security and to its Government's efforts on the reforms process.

Council conclusions

The Council agreed a number of further measures:

The Council adopted conclusions on the continued presence of Operation Althea in Bosnia and Herzegovina to support authorities in maintaining a safe and secure environment for its citizens.

The Council adopted conclusions to extend restrictive measures addressing the use and proliferation of chemical weapons until 16 October 2020.

The Council adopted conclusions renewing its commitment to democracy in a changing global context.

The Council adopted conclusions to adopt a framework for targeted restrictive measures in light of the situation in Nicaragua.

The Council adopted conclusions on its engagement with Thailand.

The Council adopted conclusions on human rights, the rule of law and the fundamental freedoms of the citizens of Cameroon.

[HCWS35]

Imprisonment of Catalan Leaders

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the imprisonment of Catalan leaders.

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Christopher Pincher)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this urgent question. I appreciate it is a question that will drive passions among him and individually among other right hon. and hon. Members of this House, but the position of Her Majesty’s Government on Catalonia is clear: it is a matter for Spain. The United Kingdom strongly supports the rule of law and remains clear that political leaders, like anyone else, have a duty to abide by the law. Questions related to Catalan independence should be resolved within the proper constitutional and legal channels, and questions related to the legal penalties handed down by the courts of Spain are a matter for Spain and its democratic institutions.

[Hywel Williams]

I thank the Minister for that answer, as far as it went.

Many Members of this House have been concerned by the cases brought before the Spanish Supreme Court against 12 Catalan political and civic leaders on charges of sedition, the embezzlement of public funds and disobedience in relation to the 2017 referendum on Catalan independence. I wish to make it entirely clear that my question today is about what happened yesterday and that it is not about whether independence is right or wrong.

Nine of those accused have already been held in preventive detention for nearly two years and have been visited by Members of this House, Members of the Scottish Parliament and Members of the Senedd of Wales. Yesterday, they were sentenced. One of those sentenced is Carme Forcadell, the Speaker of the Catalan Parliament, whom you kindly welcomed to Speaker’s House and to our Chamber when she visited us shortly before her detention, Mr Speaker. Her offence, apparently, is to have allowed a parliamentary debate on independence. Yesterday, she was sentenced to 11 and a half years in prison. Mr Speaker, as you confirmed in respect of a point I made some time ago, we would not expect your detention and prosecution were you to allow a debate on Welsh independence. Others jailed include former Vice-President Oriol Junqueras, who was given the harshest sentence of all: 13 years in prison.

Bringing criminal charges is no way to resolve political differences, so will the Government today join calls for the Government of Spain to engage in a proper and respectful process of dialogue with the Government of Catalonia? Will the Secretary of State commit to pressing the relevant EU institutions to consider launching a procedure under article 7 of the treaty on European Union in respect of the Spanish state’s response to the Catalan crisis? This would include consideration of the prosecution and sentencing of the Catalan political and civic leaders, as this is a clear example of how Spain is bringing about a risk of serious and persistent breach of the EU’s founding values of respect for freedom, democracy, justice and human rights, as outlined in article 2 of the treaty. This is a matter for us and the European Union, and is not just a Spanish domestic matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher]

As I said, I appreciate that this is a matter that will drive high passions among our colleagues. I note that Members of the Scottish nationalist party are here in force. I welcome them back from their conference and am sorry that they have had to sojourn for this urgent question. I hope that in the future we will be able to find an accommodation to allow them to have their conference without interference from the activities in this Chamber.

As for the right to debate independence in Spain, I will make two points. First, the Spanish constitution, which was agreed by Spain—including the people of Catalonia—in 1978, makes it quite clear that it is not legally possible to hold a legal secessionist vote without a change to the constitution. Secondly, I fully recognise the rights of the parliamentarians in question to make speeches, to debate and to make their points, and they have done so several times in the regional Parliament of Catalonia, as they have every right to do. They also have the right to elections in that regional Parliament. Those elections were held in 2017, and the people of Catalonia made their choices.

Let me turn to the legal rights of the parliamentarians who have been imprisoned. That is a matter for the Spanish courts, and we would not seek to interfere in those courts, just as I am sure that SNP Members would not seek the Spanish authorities to interfere in the proceedings of the Court of Session in Edinburgh. The parliamentarians we are discussing have a right to appeal to the Spanish constitutional court and to the European Court of Human Rights. Let us see how the law takes its course.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

It is a matter for Spain, but it is also shocking, horrifying and a reminder of a former Spanish regime.

[Christopher Pincher]

The Spanish courts are transparent and robust, and they have handed down the penalties according to Spanish law. Whether individual Members of Parliament like it or not, that is the Spanish law and it is for the Spanish Government to change it, if the Spanish people wish it.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question and the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) for securing it.

As a former lawyer—although I suppose some would say “once a lawyer, always a lawyer”—I am always loth to criticise the courts. I am afraid, though, that what we saw yesterday was the judicial equivalent of what we saw from the Spanish police on the streets of Catalonia two years ago: unnecessary, heavy-handed and entirely counterproductive. In an effort to crush the Catalan independence movement, these incredibly harsh sentences have simply given it fuel. They will serve not just to radicalise what has hitherto been a peaceful pro-independence movement, but to drive many Catalans who were not previously part of that movement to join the cause. As one of the banners carried at yesterday’s protest so pithily put it, “I’m not pro-independence but I’m not an idiot.” That same sentiment will be shared by many—not just in Catalonia, but across Spain—who see in these sentences a basic injustice being committed, which is unworthy of any nation, let alone a member of the European Union.

But I believe that there is hope, and that hope is the approach being taken by the freshly elected socialist Government in Spain. This is a crisis that they inherited, not one that they created. Even in these court cases, the state prosecutor urged leniency in sentencing. This is reflective of an approach that the Spanish Socialist Workers’ party Government have taken and that Labour—its sister party—supports. That approach is that the only way past this ongoing crisis is through peaceful dialogue and the eventual agreement of a political solution drawn up in accordance with the Spanish constitution. If the answer instead is a further escalation of division and confrontation, the radicalisation of the pro-independence movement and more heavy-handed action by the Spanish police or the Spanish courts, then that is not an answer at all, and all the parties of good will must resist it.

I hear what the Minister says about this being a matter for Spain, but I wonder if he can perhaps help us with this. Given the sentences handed down by the Spanish courts and the ongoing threat that hangs over the former Catalan leader, Carles Puigdemont, can he confirm that that gentleman would be free to visit Britain and speak to supporters, universities, the media and politicians without any risk of being arrested for extradition for Spain?

[Mr Speaker]

He could speak here. He could come and speak in the Palace of Westminster and would be extremely welcome. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

[Christopher Pincher]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for reminding us of our rights and the rights of our friends who may choose to come to speak to us in the Palace of Westminster.

I am obliged to the right hon. Lady for her comments and for the reasonable tone in which she undertook them, although I would note that this week she seems to be against the judges whereas a couple of weeks ago she was for the judges. I do not think you can be against the judges one week and for them the next; you need to be for the judges all the time.

[Emily Thornberry]

I am not against judges. I am married to a judge.

[Christopher Pincher]

Well, I would not wish to comment on the right hon. Lady’s domestic circumstances. She can do that for herself from a sedentary, if not a supine, position.

The right hon. Lady mentioned the approach that Prime Minister Sánchez has taken. I would echo that. He has called for dialogue—for the use of carrot rather than stick. It is incumbent on all of us, as parliamentarians, to encourage sober and reflective debate on what is an exceptionally passionate topic, not least in Spain, and in Catalonia.

With regard to Mr Puigdemont and his right to travel here, which I think was the substantive point that the right hon. Lady made, any European arrest warrant is a matter for the issuing authority and for the independent agencies in this country—the police, the courts and the prosecuting authorities. It is a convention that I do not propose to break in this case that we do not comment on any arrest warrant until or unless an execution of that warrant is made.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that due process seems to have been followed and that those sentenced received a fair trial?

[Christopher Pincher]

The legal framework of Spain is a matter for Spain. Its courts, as I said earlier, are open and transparent. Spain has a robust legal infrastructure that allows for right of appeal, and we support its infrastructure.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Gràcies—thank you—Madam Deputy Speaker. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) for securing this urgent question.

It is all very well for the Minister to hide behind the constitutionality of what has been done, but could I gently remind him that some of the most unspeakable acts of evil that Europe saw in the 20th century, and that the United States and South Africa have seen, were constitutional and legal? Being constitutional does not make something either legally or morally defensible.

Many of these people are our equivalents. They are Members of Parliament, they are Government Ministers, they are the Speaker of the Catalan Parliament, whose only offence was to seek to implement the mandate they had been given by their people in a free, fair and democratic election. The question is not whether we think that Catalonia should or should not be independent; it is whether we, as parliamentarians, are prepared to stand up and defend the right of parliamentarians across the world to say things that Governments do not like and to implement the policies that their people have put them there to implement without fear of arrest and imprisonment.

Any political system—any constitution—that allows parliamentarians to be arrested for being parliamentarians is a constitution that is not fit for purpose and that needs urgent change. In the case of the constitution of Spain and of Catalonia, the only legitimate vehicle for that constitution to change is through the ballot box. While it is not for us to decide the future of Catalonia, as it is for nobody other than the people of Catalonia to decide that, I stand with the people of Catalonia—estic amb Catalunya—in their right to determine their own future and to do so in a free, fair and democratic process.

Does the Minister agree that the right of self-determination and the right to freedom of assembly are fundamental to the concept of modern human rights? Does he accept that sending armed police to break up peaceful demonstrations sets the wrong tone and is likely to inflame the situation rather than to encourage peaceful and legal dialogue? Will he even attempt to persuade the Government of Spain that the way to resolve this crisis is through the democratic political process and not through the criminal justice system? What conversations has he had with his Spanish counterpart, and with his counterparts throughout the rest of the European Union, to remind them that the founding principle of the European Union is that all peoples have the right of self-determination and that any state that impinges on those rights through the use of force should not be supported by this or any other democratic Government?

[Christopher Pincher]

The question of whether the referendum in Catalonia was legal is quite clear: it was not legal. It was marked down by the Spanish courts who said that it was illegal. The MPs who decided to use public funds for that illegal referendum knew what they were doing. They knew that they should not have done it. They knew that they were breaking the law. Therefore, they must accept that the law will be done.

In terms of the rights of people to assemble, the rights of people to protest and the way in which police action has occurred in Catalonia, as the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) said, I would encourage great care to be taken in the policing of these events. We, in our own country, know how very important it is to allow people to protest peaceably and then to encourage them to disperse in a similar way, so I would certainly encourage our Spanish friends to do that.

Have I had conversations with the Spanish Government and with the Spanish authorities here? Yes, I have discussed diplomatically with the Spanish ambassador the likely outcome of the court action that we heard of yesterday, and I shall be talking to him again, I am sure, in the next weeks or months.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the regional elections that were held on 21 December provided a path to restoring the rule of law, and that it is for all the people of Catalonia to have their say via democratic processes that are consistent with the constitution as it stands presently?

[Christopher Pincher]

My hon. Friend is quite right. The elections in December 2017 gave the people of Catalonia the right to exercise their democratic mandate, and they did that. That created a regional Parliament that has debated the questions before Catalonia, including the question of independence, several times. It is for that mechanism, and the mechanism in the Cortes Generales if necessary, to amend the Spanish constitution to allow for legal plebiscites to take place. It is a matter for that procedure and not for illegal procedures which, of course, only cause more harm than good.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister talks about acts that are lawful. We know of many acts in history that have been lawful. I am thinking of the response of the British state to the Easter rising 103 years ago—it might have been lawful, but it can be best described as a massively counterproductive act of repression. Will the Minister urge his Spanish counterparts to at least learn the lessons of history before further inflaming situations and encourage peaceful dialogue and reconciliation?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question. I think the Spanish Government and Spanish parliamentarians of all stripes and colours will be exceptionally mindful of history. If anybody has read Antony Beevor’s “The Battle for Spain” about the terrible events that took place in Spain between 1936 and 1939, they will understand what can happen when disagreements get out of hand. I am sure that the Spanish Government, the Spanish Opposition and many people in Spain are very mindful of that.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

When the Minister is at the Dispatch Box, he and I will discuss Ukraine fairly often, and we will more often than not find ourselves in agreement, because we have chosen that what happens there is in our interests. If what is happening in Spain and Catalonia now was what Yanukovych’s Government had been doing to people in Ukraine back in 2014, the Minister would rightly be condemning it, and I would rightly be saying he was right to do so. Why does he not recognise his unique position as a Minister in a Unionist Government who oversaw an independence referendum that was held legally and fairly, and inject some common sense into his Spanish counterparts?

[Christopher Pincher]

Self-determination, as set out in international law, is a long-standing convention to which we subscribe, but the circumstances in individual states are often very different. He will know that the situation in Ukraine in 2013-14 was very different from the one in which the people of Spain and Catalonia find themselves today. We should treat individual circumstances individually, and that is what we are doing.

[Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)]

As other Members have said, this is not about the merits or otherwise of independence for Catalonia. It is about the subjugation of political and civic leaders for pursuing a legitimate cause in a democratic and peaceful manner. That cannot be tolerated. It does not reflect well on Spain—a country I have great affection for—and, frankly, if it were happening in some other parts of the world, the Minister’s response would be far more robust.

[Christopher Pincher]

I understand the passion that the hon. Gentleman brings to his position and his conviction. I will simply repeat that the law of Spain is clear, transparent and robust. Those people who, equally passionately, decided to pursue a secessionist agenda knew that they were breaking Spanish law. The consequences for them were clear, and though he may have his own individual viewpoint about those consequences, the position of this Government is also clear: it is a matter for Spain.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I know that the Minister, like others on the Conservative Benches, values highly freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are protected under the European convention on human rights. Does he agree with the International Commission of Jurists that these convictions for sedition “represent a serious interference” with freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of assembly, and that the resort to the law of sedition to restrict those important rights is

“unnecessary, disproportionate and ultimately unjustifiable”?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for bringing her legal knowledge to bear. That viewpoint is not necessarily the viewpoint of the Spanish courts. It may be the viewpoint of an international body, and it may be her viewpoint, but it may not be that of international courts. It is for the defendants who have been found guilty by the Supreme Court to appeal, if they so wish, to the Spanish constitutional court, and beyond that to the European Court of Human Rights. Let us see whether they do so and how successful their cases are.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

The Minister has been remarkably weak in his responses, and I do not think he has noticed that only one Member in this Chamber has asked a question that is sympathetic to what he has said. Will he forget the whole debate about separatism, which is totally different, and talk to the Spanish Government, reflecting the concerns of Members across parties in this House and speaking loudly for what we have said today?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am sure that the Spanish embassy and the Spanish Government will have heard what individual Members of this House have said. Individual Members can make their views plain, and they have, but as far as it is a matter for Her Majesty’s Government, our position is plain: Spanish courts are independent, and their processes are transparent and robust. The court penalties handed down are a matter for those courts, and any change to Spanish law is a matter for Spain.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The Minister is at pains to justify the Spanish judicial process, which is interesting when we recall that only last month, the Supreme Court found his Prime Minister to have acted unlawfully. Does he propose that the Spanish rule of law is proportionate, when Speaker Forcadell has been sentenced to 11 and a half years in prison for permitting debate? Does he believe that that is proportionate?

[Christopher Pincher]

When the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom handed down its verdict last month, we made it plain that we would accept that verdict and obey the law. How can we then say that people in Spain should not obey the laws of Spain? Why should we interfere or comment upon the judicial processes or the penalties handed down by courts in a country that is democratic, robust and open? I do not think we should, and I will not.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

In the four and a half years that I have been a Member of this place, I have never been more ashamed of this so-called bastion of democracy than following this weak response from the Minister. I stand in solidarity with all the political prisoners, because let us be in no doubt: that is what they are. I want to ask the Minister about Jordi Cuixart, a civic leader—a non-politician—who was arrested on trumped-up charges, convicted and now sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment, nearly two years to the day since he was held on remand. I have met Jordi’s wife and young child, and during that meeting the toddler kept calling out for dad. That child was six months old when Jordi was remanded but will be 11 when he is released. What is the Minister’s message for them? They deserve a lot better than these weasel words.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher]

Of course I am sorry—I am sad—if a child is unable to reach out and touch his father and see him, but the hon. Gentleman says that in that particular case, the charges are trumped up. That is his viewpoint. The courts of Spain have decided otherwise. If we are going to be a country that accepts and respects the rule of law, and if we accept that Spain has a robust and transparent legal procedure, we must accept the outcome of those court decisions, however much he or others may personally disagree with them.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister says that this is a matter for Spain. However, the fact that a European arrest warrant has been issued for the President of Catalonia means that other countries are now involved. Is he confident that the warrant has not been issued merely for political purposes?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am confident about the robust processes of our own country. As I made clear before, the issuing authority would be in Spain. It is for our independent agencies—the police, the courts and our prosecuting authorities—to decide the merits or otherwise of the warrant, and unless or until one is executed, we should not comment further.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The Minister has said repeatedly that it would be inappropriate to comment on the activities of another country’s judicial system, but some of us on these Benches find that very difficult to believe, given that unnamed sources in his Government were quite happy to criticise the Scottish courts last month. However, there is a wider issue here. The scenes we saw last night of Spanish police acting with brutality against their own citizens is the kind of thing, if it happened in any other country outside the EU, about which the Minister would be on the phone in diplomatic channels, is it not?

[Christopher Pincher]

If we believed all the unsourced quotations in all the newspapers we read every day, I think we would be in a pretty pickle. What matters in this country and in this House of Commons is what is said at this Dispatch Box, and it is the view of the British Government that the processes of the Spanish courts are transparent, open and robust. It is incumbent on all of us as democrats and as upholders of the rule of law to accept the outcome of those decisions, however much we may individually dislike or disagree with them.

[Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)]

The imprisonment of legitimately elected parliamentarians does not fit with being a modern European democracy. On that basis, what discussion has the Minister had with the Spanish Government in the past 24 hours regarding a mediated solution to the Catalan crisis, and will the Foreign Secretary take legal advice on pursuing a procedure under article 7 of the EU treaty as a matter of urgency?

[Christopher Pincher]

I have had no discussions with the Spanish Government in the last 24 hours, but I am always happy to keep in touch with them. I have a very good relationship with the Spanish ambassador, and as events develop perhaps I shall speak to him further.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

It is a hell of a mess in Spain, and it is likely to get worse. That is the fact of the matter. As the SNP Members in front of me know, I was on a different side when it came to the Scottish independence referendum, yet I think it is to the great credit of Scotland and indeed of the colleagues in front of me that we kept it civil and keep it civil today. I am also mindful that Senator Mitchell and General de Chastelain helped to improve—let us put it that way—the peace situation in Northern Ireland. Is it worth the Government considering forming together a party, perhaps of people from the independence movements of Scotland and Wales with those of us who were on the other side, to offer our services to Spain to try to de-escalate an extremely dangerous situation at this stage?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the tone he has struck. It is a matter for parliamentarians and political parties to offer support to, or indeed to disagree with, other political parties or countries on the continent, but it is not for the British Government to interfere in the legal processes of Spain or the constitutional settlement of Spain. That is a matter for Spain, and Spain alone.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Oppression everywhere has a long history of always being legal. We know that, and that statement was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) earlier. I would like to say to Catalans watching today that, in fact, I was in a debate earlier with a Tory and a Labour politician who support Catalonia, so this is cross-party.

The approach of the European Union has been spineless and shameless. Guy Verhofstadt has made comments on China, Brazil, Turkey and almost anywhere else we could mention, but on Catalonia he is utterly silent. He plays Pontius Pilate, and he cannot get enough bowls of water with which to wash his hands. I am afraid to say that that position seems to be shared by the UK Government. The cry of action is the cry for more bowls of water with which to wash their hands—and this in a Chamber that has just spent an hour telling UEFA and FIFA what to do. No courage at all has been shown in relation to telling the Government in Madrid to behave with a modicum of decency.

I want to ask the Minister: what sort of oppression by Spain in Barcelona or Catalonia will the UK Government tolerate? Forget independence and the fact that Catalonia was annexed in 1716. What level of oppression do they oppose? Is it a Hong Kong level of oppression, a Barcelona level of oppression or being in jail for 14 years? What will they eventually stand up and oppose? The cowardice that has been shown is not on, and the people should not be having to live with it.

[Christopher Pincher]

I think the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have an occasional drinking friendship, did himself a disservice in the way he has just comported himself. If the situation—the passionate situation—in Catalonia and in its cities is to be de-escalated and the situation is not to be further inflamed, I do not think that commentary such as that helps, frankly. I would call on all parties in Spain—all those who wish to protest and all the agencies that are responsible for good governance and order in Spain—to treat themselves and each other fairly and soberly so that this particular problem and this great challenge can be dealt with democratically and peaceably within the rule of the Spanish law.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

I am appalled by some of the words coming out of the Minister today. In Catalonia, people get hit, beaten and forcibly removed from places for simply standing up for their human rights, and this Government refuse to condemn that? I find that inexcusable. Estic amb Catalunya!

[Christopher Pincher]

Of course the British Government deplore any form of oppression, but we also deplore any form of riotous behaviour that undermines the rule of law and threatens public property or public safety. I would encourage all sides to desist, to calm down and to make sure that they address this question, which is a question for Spain, quietly, soberly and peaceably. As far as any support goes, of course the British Government support that.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

I have had the incredible privilege of visiting Jordi Cuixart, Jordi Sànchez and Raül Romeva in their prison cells, and they are intelligent, humble and proud men. Everything they have done was peaceful and appropriate. Dr Martin Luther King once said:

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

I refuse to be silent because this matters, while the UK Government’s silence has been deafening. The UK Government like to talk themselves up as a force in the world who think they sit at the top table with the big boys and girls. Well, here is a chance to prove it. Will the Minister—here, today—defend democracy and denounce these prison terms?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I will defend and support the rule of law. I have no doubt that the gentlemen to whom he refers are humble; I have no doubt that they are articulate; I have no doubt that they can make powerful cases in their own defence and in the promulgation of the matters that concern them—

[Ronnie Cowan]

Peaceably!

[Christopher Pincher]

And peaceably so. I have no doubt of that, but they must always act and operate within the law. The Spanish legal system, as I have said and will say again, is open, robust and transparent, and it has handed down sentences that, whether we like them or not, we must accept.

I will make the further observation, if I may, that constitutionally Spain cannot of course have a secessionist plebiscite without a change to the constitution. That is in keeping with the constitutions of France and Italy. They are all built in the same way and they are all meant to achieve the same ends, and we have to support them as long as they are in place.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

It is quite difficult to sit and listen to the Minister talking about the importance of observing the rule of law. I wait for him, when he gets back on his feet, to condemn the Leader of the House, sitting beside him on the Bench, who condemned the judges who found against the Government’s breach of the law during Prorogation. Clearly, the sentences that were passed down in Madrid were an act of vengeance, not an act of justice. This is not about independence for Catalonia; this is about the fundamental principles of democracy. Does he not understand that all who believe in democracy have a duty to condemn the kind of repression that we witnessed yesterday; that to say it is a matter for Spain is a complete abdication of the UK’s international responsibility; and that to do nothing is a dereliction of duty, with all the shame that that will bring?

[Christopher Pincher]

Then who is it a matter for? Is it a matter for this Parliament, this Government, the European Union? Who? The hon. Lady says that Ministers in this Government have criticised judges. She does not seem to appreciate the irony that she is doing exactly the same thing here and now about judges sitting and handing down sentences in Spain, a country that is democratic, has a robust legal system, and adheres to the rule of law. That is all that we are doing in this House right now. We are supporting the rule of law and the right of the Spanish courts to hand down justice as they see it to be right.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Is it not the case, Minister, that any country that seeks to perpetrate a human rights abuse will claim that its legal systems are robust, and that it is happening under the rule of law? What criteria do his Government place on speaking out when free speech is challenged in this way?

[Christopher Pincher]

The people of Catalonia have the right to freedom of expression through the ballot box in the regional Parliament, which they have done. The Catalonian parliamentarians have the right to freedom of expression when they debate the question of independence, which they have done, so I do not really see why the hon. Gentleman is making the argument that he is. They have a right in the Spanish Parliament, and in the Catalonian Parliament, to speak, to debate and to be heard, but they must do that within the rule of law, which the Spanish courts have decided they have not.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

As a younger woman in my 20s I visited Catalonia as part of a European Free Alliance Scottish delegation, where I met and worked with many young Catalan activists and leaders who wanted one thing—to decide their own future in a democratic and legal way. Whatever his views on independence for Catalonia or any other country around the world, surely the Minister agrees with the right to self-determination and of citizens to decide the future path of their nation and people. The Minister has an opportunity to redeem himself. Does he agree with that right and that it cannot be right for any political differences to be solved by police brutality and incarceration?

[Christopher Pincher]

I certainly agree that people have the right to self-determination, but they must pursue it within the law. In the case of Spain, that requires a change to the Spanish constitution and it is for Spain to change its constitution, not for this Parliament or the British Government.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I and many others are dismayed at the complacency that the Minister has shown at the jailing of elected politicians for up to 13 years for simply organising a referendum. If this had been a regime anywhere else in the world that was renowned for oppressing democracy, the United Kingdom rightly would have been at the head of the queue to condemn that regime. Just because it is Spain does not make this any less wrong. No reasonable person could look at the sentences and say that they were not excessive, punitive, disproportionate and vindictive. If the Minister cannot bring himself to condemn them legally, will he at least condemn these sentences morally?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am rather dismayed at the rather liberal way in which the hon. Gentleman casts aside the rule of law and due process. It is for individual Members of Parliament to decide whether they agree or disagree with the sentences handed down by the Spanish courts. They may have a view on whether the defendants should appeal or not, but for the British Government this is a matter for Spain. It is for the Spanish courts to hand down the laws of Spain and for the Spanish Parliament, as expressed through the Spanish people, to decide whether they wish to change the Spanish constitution.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I have worn yellow pretty consistently in this Chamber for the past two years, not just because I like the colour—it is the colour of my party—but in solidarity with the people of Catalonia. How can the Minister defend a regime that jails political opponents, cracks the heads of those who want to cast a democratic vote and is running scared of the political symbolism of the colour yellow?

[Christopher Pincher]

With all due respect, I disagree with the hon. Lady’s characterisation of the Government of Mr Sánchez as a regime. The Government of Mr Sánchez have attempted dialogue with the Catalonian independence movements and parties. He has attempted to sensibly bring this question to a peaceful and equitable conclusion. He is also of course in the middle of an election, to be decided on 10 November, so I do not agree with this categorisation of Spain as a regime. As I have said before—I am sorry if I have to repeat it—these legal matters are for the Spanish courts. The constitutional settlement in Spain is a matter for the Spanish Parliament, and ultimately for the Spanish people. Unless they wish to change their laws, nothing is going to change, but those changes are a matter for them and not for the British Government.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. It is getting a little bit noisy, and we ought to hear the Minister’s final answer.

[Christopher Pincher]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman, with his usual pugnacity, asks what we think of Spanish judges and the sentences that they have handed down. I would gently say that if we start questioning what judges hand down, and if we think that we can think better than them and interfere in their right to hand down justice, as prescribed by their Parliament and their laws, we set in train the sort of barbarity that he was criticising.

Britain's Place in the World

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Christopher Pincher)]

It is a great pleasure to stand at the Dispatch Box after three years in which I laboured in the monastery of the Whips Office—a place that I know is close to your heart, Mr Speaker—where my Trappist vows meant I could not speak and could not act. Having been released back into the Chamber to open my mouth, it is a very great pleasure to address the House and to wind up this debate on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who has been at the National Security Council today.

We have had a very good and wide-ranging debate, with excellent contributions from across the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Sir George Hollingbery), who knows a thing or two about trade, spoke knowledgeably about trade deals. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) spoke movingly about the importance of freedom of religion. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) had some rather good ideas about the Foreign Office, which I think involve umbrellas. I shall be happy to talk to him more about that. And, of course, there was an excellent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms), a former colleague in the Whips Office.

I listened carefully to what the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), the shadow Foreign Secretary, had to say. We found out a great deal about what she would do in any Queen’s Speech that she might be party to. We found out that, apparently, she is not going to do very much about Brexit, because there was not a single mention of it in her speech. She asked about a number of countries that the Foreign Secretary had not addressed in the House. There are a lot of opportunities for her to table urgent questions; Mr Speaker is always very keen to hear them. It is interesting that she took such a great interest in what the Foreign Secretary had to say in Manchester. It is a city that perhaps she might want to visit once or twice. It would be nice if perhaps she came to our conference, given that she spent so much time talking about it. We would be very pleased to see her there—on the fringe of course, but not in the main hall.

May I begin, Mr Speaker, by thanking you and saying that it is a great honour to close this debate and reaffirm the Government’s vision for a self-confident, ambitious, outward-looking global Britain beyond Brexit? Under this Government, the United Kingdom will leave the European Union on 31 October. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Brexit Secretary, who was in Luxembourg today and who has been working incredibly hard to negotiate the good deal we want to achieve. It is the responsibility of every Member of this House who is serious about keeping their promise to the voters to respect the 2016 referendum to get behind this effort for the good of the whole country.

The leader of the Labour party will not keep his promise to respect the referendum. He wants to take the country back to another divisive referendum. It was unfortunate to hear what the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) had to say. They said that they do not want no deal. They also said that they do not want this deal. What they really want is no deal at all: they want to take us back and cancel Brexit. They want to overturn the result of the referendum. They want to overturn the instruction given to us by the British people. Why do they think that that will inspire confidence in our democracy? Why do they think that if the previous referendum was divisive, the next referendum is somehow going to bind us all together?

[Stephen Gethins]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Let us talk about his own record in Government. This afternoon, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler), told the Foreign Affairs Committee that the UK Government had stopped going to justice and home affairs committee meetings in the EU, which have been discussing migration and refugee flows from Syria and Turkey. Can he tell me what possible foreign policy or security benefits there are from not turning up?

[Christopher Pincher]

We went to the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday; we were party to the discussions there and the outcome of those deliberations.

The Gracious Speech sets out the legislation that we need both to give effect to Brexit and to grasp the opportunities of it. That legislation will ensure a smooth and orderly departure and a better deal for our farmers and fishing industry, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) expressed. It will take back control of our immigration policy, with a points-based migration system, and allow us to become an energetic champion of global free trade for United Kingdom businesses and consumers. Our vision for a global Britain is about more than Brexit, because if only the Opposition will let this country go, we will get beyond Brexit.

The Government will maintain and strengthen our historical trade ties, boosting our competitiveness by expanding trade with growth markets of the future. We want a strong trading relationship with our existing partners in Europe and North America. Thanks to the tireless work of my right hon. Friend the International Trade Secretary, we have made good progress in preparing the ground for future free trade agreements after Brexit. In the words of the US Secretary of State, the US is poised

“on the doorstep, pen in hand, ready to sign”

a deal. We are not at the back of the queue; we are at the front of the line. That is good news for our businesses that want to export, and it is good news for consumers on both sides of the Atlantic who want cheaper food and services with wider choice. That is where the opportunities of the future will be found. As a global champion of liberal free trade, this Government are ready to grasp those opportunities. We are the internationalists; we are not the little Europeans who sit opposite.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Will the Minister give way?

[Christopher Pincher]

No, I will not, because I have only three and a half more minutes.

The leader of the Labour party may run to defend President Putin, like some north London primped and plucked poodle, but Government Members will work with our allies to stand up for and protect the people of this country. We will work with all our international partners to shine the spotlight on Iran’s violation of international law, from the attack on the Aramco oil facilities in Saudi Arabia to its cruel and unlawful detention of United Kingdom nationals. We will work with our European and American friends to secure Iran’s compliance with its obligations not to develop nuclear weapons, and we will engage with all our partners to prevent the bloodshed in north-eastern Syria.

One of the strongest speeches I heard today was made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg). I do not have time to answer all his points, but if his speech tonight was the last that he makes in this Chamber, he will be a sad loss at the general election when he retires. I am afraid that it was not possible at the United Nations to come to an agreement to produce a resolution, but we have released a statement with our European partners, and we will ask for further work to be done at the UN tomorrow.

We will also be a constructive voice on Hong Kong, supporting its people’s right to peaceful protest and encouraging political dialogue on all sides to give effect to the one country, two systems model that China has consistently advocated since 1984. My right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary has made clear our robust stance on Venezuela, in contrast to the leader of the Labour party, who celebrates the achievements of that despotic regime and does so as people starve.

We will be a force for good and a champion of causes that know no borders. On the international stage, we will show the leadership of the next generation, as it expects us to, by hosting the United Nations climate summit—COP 26—in Glasgow next year, in partnership with Italy. We will bring to bear both our world-class innovation and our determination to leave our environment in a better state for our children and theirs, in the United Kingdom and across the world. We will continue to lead global action to help to provide 12 years of quality education for all girls by 2030 and leave no girl behind. We are proud of the new media freedom coalition we have set up with Canada. Some 26 countries are already signed up, having committed to protecting media freedoms, speaking out against abuses and standing up for journalists who are detained, bullied and brutalised around the world.

That is the mission of this Government: to deliver Brexit, faithful to the promises made to the British people; to embrace the opportunities that lie ahead for a truly global Britain; and to reinforce the United Kingdom’s role as a force for good in the world. I commend the Gracious Speech to the House.

Amazon Deforestation

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Christopher Pincher)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to attend this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on introducing it, and I congratulate all Members who have contributed on what they have said. It may be that we disagree on some of the solutions, but I do not think anyone will disagree with the passion and expertise that has been brought to the Chamber today. I will try to address as many as I can of the points that Members have raised, but to begin I will draw out two points.

The first relates to something that the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said. She mentioned some interesting diversification initiatives, and I am happy to talk to her about some of those. I was on the Energy and Climate Change Committee between 2010 and 2015, and I remember looking at the question of how best to increase awareness and change the choices that drive carbon emissions. We looked at whether it was possible to measure carbon emissions by production or whether it was better to do it by consumption, which Members have mentioned today.

The Committee’s finding was that to go down the route of measuring carbon emissions by consumption and imposing penalties or sanctions or modelling policy around that approach might risk trade conflict, which would hurt not only those who are consuming the goods, possibly in the west, but those who are producing them in low-wage developing economies. That was the view at the time.

I was also struck by the speech of my hon. Friend—I call him a friend—the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who gave a sad story of his poetic limitations. In fact, I thought he had gone away a moment ago to write yet another poem. He made reference to what our policy will be in the future, and he made a veiled reference to Mercosur and our attitude to it, which the hon. Members for Dundee West (Chris Law) and for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) also referenced. Mercosur will not be signed any time soon, and by the time it is, we will be out of the European Union and it will not be a trade agreement for us to sign. We will be free to develop and model our own trading agreements and arrangements, and how they look, what they feel like and what they smell like will be a matter for the British Government.

Whether there are environmental elements in those trade deals is still to be determined, but I believe—here, again, I take issue with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland—that when tariffs are imposed or are not removed, we hurt poor people. Tariffs on food tend to hurt the poorest, so I would support a wide-ranging free trading policy. I discourage her from channelling her inner protectionist and pursuing a policy that would hurt everybody, including her constituents and indigenous communities in the rainforest.

[Steve Brine]

Will the Minister give way?

[Christopher Pincher]

Yes. I have only just begun; I have not even got on to my speech proper, rather like the hon. Member for Cambridge.

[Steve Brine]

I thank the Minister for addressing my point. I will not say this in prose, but obviously we will be outside of being a member state and that trade deal will be signed by the remaining members of the European Union. Were the Government to consider a trade deal with Brazil in the future, does the Minister agree that Brazil’s approach to tackling climate change should be a consideration that would be discussed by his colleagues in the Department for International Trade?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He said he will not speak in prose, but I will speak in plain verse: it is for Britain to decide what its trade policy and the models it applies in free trade agreements will be. That is a future decision for the Government to take. I am sure there will be debate on the matter across the House and through Government.

[Matt Western]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Christopher Pincher]

I will give way on that point, and then I really have to get into my speech, otherwise we will be here until 7.30 pm.

[Matt Western]

I thank the Minister for giving way specifically on that point. He will know, as will others in the Chamber, that a Trade Bill has been sat on the shelf waiting for more than a year. I sat on the Trade Bill Committee. That Bill included certain protections, certain measures and certain bodies that would have had some say in how we should be constructing our trade deals, whether that was on an ethical basis or through such bodies as the trade remedies authority. Those sorts of things would have come into play. The concern that most people in this Chamber, in Parliament and across the country will have is that those sorts of protections will not be available because the Trade Bill will no longer exist.

[Christopher Pincher]

Assuming that Prorogation takes place tomorrow, the hon. Gentleman is right, but there will be a trade Bill or trade Bills in the future, where I am sure those issues can be re-addressed.

The fires that ravaged the Amazon rainforest over the summer were not only heartbreaking for the people of the region—we have heard some of the stories this afternoon—but were and are a concern for all of us who care about biodiversity and climate. In some places, the devastating surge in fires has followed a sharp rise in deforestation rates this year. As has been pointed out already, deforestation has been on the increase not since 2015, which is what I said in the Chamber—I must correct the record—but since 2012, which of course predates the Bolsonaro Government. It is clear that although the recent fires may have been exacerbated by low rainfall and in some cases by strong winds, a key cause remains the use of fire to clear the rainforest for agriculture.

In Brazil, as we have heard, record numbers of fires have occurred during this year’s dry season, prompting international concern and prompting President Bolsonaro to send more than 40,000 military personnel to the Amazon to bring the fires under control, but the effect remains unclear. It is worth pointing out something that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) alluded to: Bolivia has suffered a similar fate this summer.

Fires since August have destroyed nearly two million hectares of Bolivian forest, including in the Chiquitania, the largest dry forest on Earth. In response, President Morales and opposition parties suspended campaigning activities for their October presidential elections and the Government set up an emergency environmental cabinet in the affected area. Europe, the United States, Russia and Bolivia’s neighbours have provided the most help to bring the fires under control. British experts were among the first to offer assistance and to be deployed. Rains in the past week have begun to extinguish the fires. I mention Bolivia simply to remind all hon. Members that the problem is not simply a Brazilian one, so we cannot lay the blame at the door of the Brazilian Government and President. There are other reasons for the problems that the rainforest faces.

We respect absolutely the sovereignty of the countries of the region over the rainforest, but that sovereignty comes with a responsibility to protect and preserve that precious resource. Although it is regrettable that some Governments initially sought to play down the extent of the problem, we welcome the current and historic leadership shown by the region to address the fires: for example, the creation of the forest codes in Brazil, which legally require landowners in the Brazilian Amazon to maintain 80% of the land as forest. It is also worth pointing out that on 27 August, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Brazilian Foreign Minister, who made it clear that anyone setting fires in the rainforest will be prosecuted. In fact, prosecutions are under way and the penalties for such fires include imprisonment.

Last month at the regional summit hosted by President Duque of Colombia, seven regional leaders signed the Leticia pact for the Amazon. Leaders pledged to improve co-ordination to prevent and manage forest fires, share best practice, and develop initiatives to accelerate reforestation and build sustainable forest economies. We fully support that regionally-led initiative and stand ready to help. The United Kingdom Government are committed to working with Amazon countries to support efforts to protect and restore the Amazon rainforest. Over many years we have partnered with communities, businesses and state and national Governments in Brazil and the wider Amazon region to preserve and restore rainforests for the benefit of people and nature, and for our collective effort to tackle the threat of climate change. Since 2012—this is another point I made in the Chamber during Foreign Office questions—the United Kingdom Government have committed £120 million in international climate finance programmes operating to reduce deforestation in Brazil and a further £70 million in Colombia. That suggests we are doing a lot more than nothing. That investment generates benefits for the local environment, for local communities and for the global climate.

At the G7, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—helpfully trailed by the hon. Member for Cambridge —pledged a further £10 million for our international climate finance work to support the longer-term efforts to tackle deforestation in Brazil. That will expand an existing programme that supports the protection and restoration of Brazil’s rainforests, including areas affected by the recent fires.

[Matt Rodda]

I thank the Minister for giving way on that point. It is interesting to hear him tiptoe around some of the issues in this important debate. Given the scale of the challenge that we face across the world, does he feel that £10 million is enough money to deploy on this important issue?

[Christopher Pincher]

We are spending £120 million, not £10 million. The hon. Gentleman is a little ahead of me, but I will mention some rather larger figures as my speech develops.

It is important to build an international coalition around our ambition, so we have worked with Germany and Norway to mobilise $5 billion—there is the big number—between 2015 and 2020 to help reduce tropical deforestation in developing countries. Our support helps to improve the capacity of national and regional Governments to reduce deforestation. It incentivises the protection of forests, conserves a way of life for many unique indigenous groups, and enables businesses and communities to build sustainable economies without destroying tropical rainforests, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) eloquently described. He has now gone off to a Delegated Legislation Committee, which is why he is not here for the wind-ups.

One of our programmes supports indigenous Brazil nut collectors to cut out the middleman and sell directly to mainstream buyers. Perhaps that is not such a difficult nut to crack. Furthermore, as a result of our Cerrado programme in Brazil, 38,017 farmers were enrolled onto the rural land registry, representing some 861,000 hectares of land where sustainable practices have now been adopted.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does the Minister really believe that the young impatient people out there, and the older impatient people, will find what he has said to be a satisfactory answer to all that we have just heard about this year being the most devastating for deforestation in the Amazon? The Government really need to do better. Does the Minister really think that the people out there who have been campaigning, and who will campaign for the next two weeks, will be satisfied with what he has just said?

[Christopher Pincher]

I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity of the people out on the streets of London campaigning about the impact of climate change, but it is better for us to work with economies such as Brazil’s, the ninth largest economy in the world, than to work against them in order to achieve the objectives that we all want, which is to see carbon emissions reduced, the rainforest restored and the poorest people get richer.

The United Kingdom is leading the world in the fight against rising temperatures, reducing our emissions by over 40% since 1990 and legislating for net zero emissions by 2050. We were one of the first major economies to do so. Since 1990, our economy has grown by 66%, so I disagree with those who suggest that there is a conflict between better trade, growth in economies and environmental concerns and calls for action.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Can I ask the Minister how this works in terms of co-operation between Government Departments? The other day in the Chamber, I asked the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy about the things I highlighted in my speech today and she basically said it was an issue for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and not anything to do with her. I said, “It is because it is about climate change and that is your brief.” We also hear reports of Ministers in the Department for International Trade lobbying on behalf of BP at meetings in Brazil. On the other hand, we talk about reducing our fossil fuel use in this country, so there does not seem to be much joined-up working.

[Christopher Pincher]

That charge can be levelled at Governments of all stripes down the ages. Government Departments work together to try to achieve the right result in this arena. For example, BEIS officials are embedded in the COP 25 plan, and in that meeting, to ensure that it is handed over to us smoothly at COP 26, with objectives that can be taken up in the Italian-British conference of the parties.

As we have all alluded to, we cannot tackle this threat to our very existence on our own. Only through international co-operation can we protect our precious planet, and protecting forests is essential if we are to meet our global climate change goals. The Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change special report on global warming makes it clear that the preservation, restoration and sustainable management of forests is critical for limiting global temperature rises to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels.

Our global leadership on climate change helped us to win our bid to host COP 26 next year. We will make telling progress towards carbon-neutral global growth only if we act together as a global community. That means that we need to have all the countries in the Amazon onside. Brazil is particularly important on climate change and deforestation, and has a critical role to play as a partner. We must work together to find solutions, which is why we have an ongoing dialogue with Brazil on these issues at ministerial and official level.

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs met last week with Brazil’s Environment Minister, Ricardo Salles, and she stressed the importance of efforts to halt deforestation. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to the Brazilian Foreign Minister, and I have met the Brazilian ambassador, Mr Arruda. We are committed to working with Brazil and other Amazon countries to tackle climate change and deforestation.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am listening carefully to the Minister’s speech, and to the diplomatic channels that the Government want to pursue to influence Brazil’s response to deforestation. However, could the Minister set out exactly what sanction or leverage they will apply? If talk is not enough and Brazil is determined to do something different, it seems that the exercise is quite futile.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I do not think that talk of sanctions will help the cause. Threatening Brazil will not encourage President Bolsonaro or his Government to talk with us about how we can collaboratively tackle the problem. It is better that we engage sensitively and sensibly than engage in megaphone diplomacy from afar.

We all care deeply about the future of our planet, and we are determined that COP 26 will deliver a greater ambition. It will promote tangible action to deliver the transformational change required by the Paris agreement. We are working closely with Chile to ensure a smooth handover from COP 25, as I described, and we firmly support Chile’s desire for an ambitious, blue COP 25 with a strong focus on oceans.

We remain committed to supporting the countries of the Amazon to tackle deforestation. Those countries will be vital allies in the fight against climate change. Brazil particularly, as home to 60% of the Amazon and 12% of the world’s forests, has a crucial role to play if we are to achieve our climate ambitions at COP 26 and beyond. If future climate negotiations are to succeed, we need to engage with Brazil and her neighbours positively and maintain a constructive dialogue, not shout at them from afar.

At the same time, the United Kingdom Government will continue to raise our concerns about deforestation and to support initiatives that protect the Amazon rainforest. Only through partnership and dialogue will we be able to preserve those precious tropical forests and avert the gravest forecasts of climate change. That is the responsible approach, the approach that will address the passions of the people outside the Chamber as well as within it, and the approach that the Government are determined to take.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

15. What recent discussions he has had with his Brazilian counterpart on the forest fires in the Amazon rain forest.

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Christopher Pincher)]

On 27 August, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Brazilian Foreign Minister, Mr Araújo. I will also be seeing the Brazilian ambassador, Mr Arruda, tomorrow, to reaffirm our commitment to working in partnership with Brazil on a range of issues, including the environment. In response to the very serious fires, the Prime Minister announced at the G7 £10 million for protection and restoration of the rain forest. That is in addition to the £120 million of funding we provide through our other programmes.

[Chris Law]

While we welcome the £10 million that the UK Government have committed to help to restore the Amazonian rain forest, it is paltry compared with the amount spent on advertising for the Brexit debacle. Can the Foreign Secretary tell me whether the money is spent by local partners in a way that ensures that indigenous people will take charge of the process to reforest their homes and protect our planet? What further funding is he willing to pledge today?

[Christopher Pincher]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s passion for the issue. I can confirm that we spend £120 million through our international climate finance programme. That goes to help to tackle deforestation and to help sustainable farming, and it complements the trading activities that we have with Brazil, which ensure that the Brazilian economy grows and prospers, including for those farmers, who are part and parcel of the problem, burning some of the rain forest.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Over 120,000 people have already petitioned this Parliament, urging trade sanctions to be used against Brazil to put pressure on it. Given that a Minister was in Brazil recently, what pressure was put on by this Government?

[Christopher Pincher]

The Minister of State, Department for International Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), was there as part of our international trade obligations, to ensure that we build trade with our strategic partners, such as Brazil. I will be seeing the Brazilian ambassador tomorrow and making clear that we want to help Brazil with its difficulties in these terrible fires, but also that we want to trade with it, because that is a way of building its economy and ensuring that the sorts of fires that are currently raging are put out and stay out.

[Hannah Bardell]

Last week, both the Taoiseach and French President said that they will attempt to block the Mercosur trade agreement if Brazil does not honour its environmental commitments. Does the Minister agree that the burning of the Amazon is a human and environmental tragedy that requires a global solution and this is no time for fragile male egos or social media spats? What steps has he taken to ensure that such situations receive an urgent and immediate multilateral response now and in the future?

[Christopher Pincher]

I hope that the hon. Lady will not think that my response is in any way macho. My concern is to make sure that the trade with our two countries prospers and that the Mercosur arrangement succeeds. It will result in the removal of something like 91% of present tariffs. That can only be to the benefit of Brazilian farmers and to the benefit of the Brazilian economy. If we help to ensure that these sensible trade arrangements are made, those fires can be put out and they will stay out.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

It has been suggested that changes to trade flows between the US and China may be fuelling some of the Amazon forest fires. Does my right hon. Friend agree that all leading nations should be working together to stop that devastation? What conversations are taking place with other leading countries?

[Christopher Pincher]

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met other Foreign Ministers at Gymnich earlier in the week. He has made clear the concern that we have about those fires. He has also made absolutely clear the importance that we believe trade has to building economies in South America and in the far east, which encourages a better response to such tragedies.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Deforestation in the Amazon is indeed a catastrophe of global and generational proportions. We must of course do the right things about it and I very much welcome the pressure that the Minister has described, but is he not also aware of the fact that the deforestation of the Amazon has decreased quite considerably over the last 20 years, and that while it was very, very bad, it is very much less bad than it was; and equally that the level of decrease, therefore, in the size of the forest has been reduced? Does the Minister therefore agree that this is a domestic matter for the Brazilian Government and that we must persuade them to do the right thing, rather than confronting or berating them?

[Christopher Pincher]

I certainly think it is better to talk than to engage in megaphone hectoring. Deforestation has increased over the last few years. It has in fact been increasing in Brazil since 2015—some time before the present Government took office. I think it is right that we engage with them—that we try to persuade them to use sensible methods to reduce and stop this problem. It is an international concern, and that is why we have raised it, and will continue to raise it, with the Brazilian authorities.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

I have spent some of the summer in the Ecuadorian rain forest —part of the same Amazon rain forest that we are talking about. What other countries have made representations to Brazil about the damage that it is doing to the world, not just to Brazil?

[Christopher Pincher]

The fires that are currently raging do not just affect Brazil; they also affect, for example, Bolivia. Bolivia is concerned about this, as is Venezuela, Peru and Colombia. So I think an international response is helpful. Certainly, those neighbouring countries that can help Brazil with its difficulties should be encouraged to do so.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The fires have affected 650 million acres of Amazon rain forest. In his answer just now, the Minister revealed that he did not understand that the problem with the Mercosur trade deal is that cutting beef tariffs incentivises destruction of the rain forest. What proposals will the Government be putting forward at the Chile conference on climate change in November?

[Christopher Pincher]

As the hon. Lady should know, high agricultural tariffs hurt the poorest. That will only encourage them to do the easy thing, which is to burn land, rather than to farm it sustainably and protect the rain forest. Mercosur is a sensible free trade agreement which should be encouraged, and I trust that in the fullness of time we also will undertake a free trade deal with Brazil—more details of that, I am sure, are to come.

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

3. What recent representations he has made to the Hong Kong Government on the political situation in Hong Kong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

8. What recent discussions he has had with the Government of Gibraltar on the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Christopher Pincher)]

I have spoken to the Chief Minister, Mr Picardo, by phone on a number of occasions in the past month and I will speak to him again later this afternoon. We have regular ministerial contact, including through the Joint Ministerial Council with Gibraltar, which has met nine times since its formation three years ago. Ministers and officials across the Government are working closely with the Government of Gibraltar in preparation for Brexit. Gibraltar is and will remain a vital part of our family, whatever the shape of our exit from the EU on 31 October.

[Robert Neill]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome my right hon. Friend to his post and his early engagement with Her Majesty’s Government over Gibraltar. Will he bear in mind and make it quite clear that we fully support Gibraltar politically and in practical terms as we leave the European Union? In particular, will he deal with the practical measures relating to the vast number of foodstuffs and the workforce that currently come across the border, which must be resolved before we leave?

[Christopher Pincher]

No one is more doughty in his championship of Gibraltar than my hon. Friend, and I am grateful for his kind words. Let me assure him—as the Prime Minister has assured the Chief Minister—that the United Kingdom will protect Gibraltar’s interests as we leave the EU. From 1967 to 2002, at all points in between and since, we have said that Gibraltar is going to remain a vital part of our family. The Government of Gibraltar are responsible for their own contingency planning, but, as I have said, the UK Government regularly speak to and meet Ministers to ensure that their robust plans are in place.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is the Minister not aware that whether it is Gibraltar, Hong Kong or Zimbabwe, people are struggling for the rights that they thought they had and that they find common cause with people in the United Kingdom who are struggling to get the political rights that they thought they had in this country? Is it not about time that we showed as an example that we believe in parliamentary and political democracy in this House?

[Christopher Pincher]

That was quite a wide-ranging question. Let me put it to the hon. Gentleman in this way: this Government are standing up for the rights of people—the 17.5 million people of our country who voted to leave the European Union—and respecting those that did not. We will make sure that we leave—no ifs, no buts—on 31 October.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

What assurances has the Minister sought from the Spanish Government that they will respect Gibraltar’s territorial waters both before we leave and after?

[Christopher Pincher]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We reject and object robustly to all incursions into Gibraltarian waters. I think that since the start of this year, there have been 499 such incursions and we have made 499 objections. He can be confirmed in his belief that we will support the people of Gibraltar.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

The Minister, I believe, supports a no-deal Brexit. How will the Minister assure the people of Gibraltar that there will be no disruption of the supply of goods, including food and medicine? News about delays of four hours at the border, resulting in huge economic loss, has leaked in the Yellowhammer document. If the Minister believes that the Yellowhammer document is outdated, what is the updated solution?

[Christopher Pincher]

The hon. Gentleman is misinformed. I do not support no deal; I want a deal with the European Union that works for Britain and for Gibraltar, but I am prepared to leave with no deal if we cannot get the deal that is good for us by 31 October. We engage regularly with the Spanish Government. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to Foreign Minister Borrell very recently about this matter. As I said, I engage regularly with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar. He assures me that Gibraltar is ready. We will make sure that Gibraltar is ready and that we continue the dialogue with the Spanish Government to ensure that there is a free flow of traffic, people and goods across the border after we leave.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

9. What diplomatic steps he is taking to help ensure that the UK is prepared to leave the EU on 31 October 2019.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

T3. The UK Government have pledged £10 million to tackle the Amazon forest fires. That is an embarrassing 14p per person in the UK to ensure they have oxygen to breathe. The Prime Minister has, we know, extremely deep pockets, so what representations has the Secretary of State made to the Prime Minister to ensure we make a realistic contribution to this global issue?

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Christopher Pincher)]

We are committing £120 million to international climate finance, and on top of that we are committing £10 million extra. This all helps to avoid and stop deforestation; it helps the sustainable agriculture of Brazil.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

T9. With the flow of migrants from Venezuela now at more than 5 million and with their misery ever-increasing, what steps are the Government taking to support our friends in the region, particularly Colombia and Peru?

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

Natalie Jackson has not seen or had any contact from her son Dylan, who is 11, in more than a year because her ex-partner has not returned him home after a summer holiday in 2018. The High Court has made Dylan a ward of court and ordered his immediate return, but his return was denied by the Turkish courts. I have written to the Secretary of State about this. Please will he answer, and meet me urgently so that we can deliver Dylan back to his mother?

[Christopher Pincher]

Given the urgency of this matter, I will of course meet the hon. Lady.

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

As the Foreign and Commonwealth Office reconfigures its global representation by beefing up embassies and opening other embassies post-Brexit, will my right hon. Friend undertake to conduct an audit into other Departments that are represented abroad to ensure that they are all brought under the ambassador or high commissioner in that country?