Diplomatic Service and Resources

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Richard Benyon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The role of defence attachés in our defence manufacturing capability and our ability to market that important part of our economy is so important. I entirely support what he says.

France also has a truly impressive integrated soft power strategy. The opening of the Louvre museum in Abu Dhabi is a key indicator of that. Off the back of Government investment—not private investment, but cultural investment by the Government—flows influence that directly benefits France’s Exchequer. It is hard to compare like with like, but it is possible to argue that Germany spends about three times what we spend on its posts abroad. Even if we strip it down, it spends at least £4.6 billion, which is well over twice what we spend. We spend way more than Germany on development aid in Zambia, yet we employ about 11 people to deliver it, while Germany has around 150 people delivering its aid projects there. That is because we deliver our aid through a variety of organisations, including non-governmental organisations and international institutions such as the World Bank, whereas Germany uses a well-developed cadre of in-country experts in education, health, agriculture and other disciplines to implement its projects. At the end of the day, that means that German taxpayers get a better deal because German business is intrinsically linked to the soft power investment that its Government makes.

I am here not just to whinge, but to suggest a way forward. I want the Minister to reassure us. If he cannot, I want him to take on board the genuine concerns of people who have seen how our country operates abroad and believe that, impressive though that is, we need a dynamic shift in our ability to engage in the dangerous and highly competitive world in which we find ourselves. Can he assure us that every penny of official development assistance that can be used to develop a growing number of highly professional diplomats, defence attachés and other personnel is being used to maintain us as a relevant power in the coming decades? Can he convince me that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office understands Africa? Does he understand my concern, as someone who has travelled widely in Africa and was for some years our trade envoy in Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Mozambique, that our position as a favoured partner may be under threat?

In a few years’ time, a quarter of the world’s population will live in Africa. It is a continent of huge natural resources and has massive potential as a partner in trade and so many other areas, but it feels like Britain risks being left behind. China’s investments abroad are not altruistic. In many ways, what it is doing is good—I have seen new roads, electricity generation projects and vast business parks, including in Ethiopia, that are changing people’s lives and providing wealth and opportunities for female empowerment, among other things—but it has a massive benefit to China, too. There can be a similar benefit to Britain if we play to our strengths on a continent where we are still admired and where such things as our language and our time zone are distinct advantages.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs was in Paris the other day. We had an interesting discussion about how Britain and France can co-operate in Africa. There are countries where the former colonial power is not well regarded. We have been able to play an important role in places where France is the former colonial power—Mali, the Sahel and so on—in return for exactly the same co-operation where we are the former colonial power. Now that we are leaving the European Union, I wonder whether we need to be wise about how we manage our relations with our European allies.

[Richard Benyon]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Our trade envoy, Lord Risby, is doing great work in countries such as Algeria in promoting what we do. I have not heard this from him, but I imagine that he is able to have conversations that the French perhaps find it harder to have. On defence engagement, we are using the Lancaster House agreement to our benefit. We are assisting the French forces in Mali with lift—with helicopters and things like that. That partnership in the fight against terrorism—against organisations such as Boko Haram and al-Shabaab—delivers influence and benefit in a variety of ways.

My final point is that Ministers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office require political intelligence.

[Chris Bryant]

Uh-oh. [Laughter.]

[Richard Benyon]

Perhaps I should have worded that better. They require intelligence about what is going on politically in those countries. They need to know who is on the rise in different parties, who the new influences are and who could be the next generation of leaders. Our diplomats provide that intelligence superbly, but Parliament should hold the Executive to account to ensure that we have enough of them and that we have them in the right places.

I argue that there should be a new strategy, even if we were not leaving the EU. However, Brexit brings a new urgency to our deliberations. It is not too late to see a paradigm shift in our strategy, but influence is hard won and easily lost. We need to understand that with influence comes jobs at home and stability abroad. That is something that even the Treasury should understand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I agree. Each of us in the Chamber can speak for our own food and drink sectors. I am pleased to have Portavogie prawns and Comber potatoes in my constituency, both of which are names in their own right across Europe, and we want to see them across the whole of the world. We will build on that trade to make that happen. A number of new gin distilleries are also starting up: two have done so in my constituency in the last year and a half, and the hon. Lady probably has those as well. The sector is growing, and we want to ensure that that continues.

[Chris Bryant]

But according to the Prime Minister yesterday, the biggest threat we face at the moment relates to Russia. We have been proud that, over the past few years, we have managed to go to European Council meetings and get the rest of the European Union to sign up to international sanctions against Russia. At the moment, the Prime Minister is speaking to Macron and, no doubt, Merkel and other leaders around Europe to try to get the whole of Europe signed up to a common position. That will be vital to us. It will be much more difficult for us to achieve that when in future we will not get to sit at the table when common security and defence policy is agreed. How does the hon. Gentleman think that will happen?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his “but.” It is always good to have his input. Let us be honest: we all see the common threat, which at this time is Russia, as the Prime Minister told us yesterday in the Chamber. It is across the fronts of all the papers and front-page news on the media today. Already, France, Germany and other European partners recognise the common threat of Russia. I am confident, as I hope he is, about how we can espy the common enemy, understand where the focus has to be and then move forward accordingly.

An oft-cited statistic on trade with the Commonwealth bears repeating: in 2015, UK exports of goods and services to the Commonwealth were worth some £47.4 billion, while imports were worth £45.5 billion. The right hon. Member for Newbury referred to the Commonwealth, and we cannot forget about it. It is important for us to have it in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nicholas Soames]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. He was a distinguished and successful Foreign Office Minister, and he has seen all these things in action. He is completely right: we will have to redouble all our efforts, call in all our chips, and work very hard to retain our influence and position on the world stage. That is an incontestable fact.

[Chris Bryant]

Some people have suggested in recent months that after Brexit, instead of spending so much time on Brussels, we should spend more time on other European capitals. My feeling is exactly the opposite: to secure the foreign policy and security outcomes we want, will we not have to double our efforts in Brussels to ensure that we win arguments?

[Sir Nicholas Soames]

I agree, and I would say further that we will have to ride every single horse in the park, not just the European horse. We no longer have a diplomatic network in the way that we used to, because our diplomatic network has been subordinated, in a perfectly sensible way, to working within the European Union. We will have to revitalise that, and indeed there is now a great rush to hire people or move them around, to ensure that the embassies are properly equipped. My father was for a time the British Ambassador in Paris. I was in the Army at that time, and I look back on those days, before we were members of the European Union, at the sheer scale of British diplomatic efforts to achieve what we set out to achieve, which was truly remarkable. We will have to replicate that right across Europe in order to retain our position.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Sir Nicholas Soames]

I will continue if I may.

These relationships with allies, friends and networks do not just drop into our lap; they require continuous and ceaseless effort, and the most serious diplomatic work. Take the example of the last few months. With our allies we continue to be engaged in an active diplomatic and other campaign to counter Islamist extremism. We have also once again entered an era of deterrence in the face of threatening rhetoric and aggressive behaviour from Russia. While military deterrence must be properly integrated with political, economic, diplomatic and other hybrid deterrence measures, credible conventional military capability remains a vital part of a strategy designed to keep the peace. It also ranks, pari passu, with the diplomatic effort required to ensure the same thing. In an environment of uncertainty, it is essential that we stand with all our diplomatic, military and other assets, ready to reassure, and if necessary defend, our allies in a manner that will force any potential opponents to think twice. As I have said, that requires not just military assets, but most especially our diplomatic reach across the world.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Thank you, Mr Bailey, for getting round to this knight, as Sir Lancelot may have said to Guinevere. I am delighted to join in this important debate this morning. I hope that it will not be the last we shall have on the subject.

I do not seek to replicate much of what my right hon. and hon. Friends have said. I just want to pick up on one or two issues, the first of which is our physical global imprint—our estate. I hope to go from here later to a lunch to congratulate James Stourton and Luke White, who have produced a magnificent book called “British Embassies: Their Diplomatic and Architectural History”. It is an extraordinarily good book on Britain’s overseas estate. Looking through it, it is possible to have one of two reactions—to giggle in bemused embarrassment at the awful post-colonial life that our embassies represent, or feel rather proud that we possess some of the finest properties, many of which, incidentally, were gifted to us by the then Heads of State of the host countries. That is something that other countries look on with envy.

In my four and a half years at the Foreign Office, I was pleased to open some rather small embassies that had been closed, in Asunción and in El Salvador, and a consulate in Recife, and so on. It was always a source of pride to be reopening embassies, however small, rather than going around closing them. I cannot think of a single example, in retrospect, about which we can say, “Gosh, weren’t we clever to sell X embassy: we are in much better accommodation now”—Madrid being one of the great disasters. I was rather involved in the Bangkok embassy site; the rationale for the sale was that it was inappropriately located and no longer fit for purpose, although, needless to say, we had just spent some huge amount of money on accommodation on that site. I note with horror what I have picked up on my various visits—that the Chancellery building in Paris, which will be well known to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), whose bedroom no doubt overlooked it for many happy years, is possibly going to be sold. What a ridiculous message it would send to Paris, at the heart of Europe, as we exit the European Union, to sell our Chancellery building on the rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré.

My right hon. Friend the Minister does an excellent job in the Foreign Office now. I do not know whether he sits on the body I sat on—the Foreign Office board, where many of these things are discussed. It strikes me, in my experience, that these things are never brought to the attention of Ministers. Perhaps they are brought to the Foreign Secretary, but on the whole they are decided by the permanent under-secretary and others—the mandarins within the Foreign Office. There is absolutely no doubt, to my way of thinking, that these are Treasury-led decisions. It is about saving money, not about looking at our global footprint and where we want to be represented.

In future, whenever there is any discussion, there is an oversight role here for the Foreign Affairs Committee, on which many hon. Members sit, to have a view on any proposed changes to the diplomatic estate globally, and not at the eleventh hour, when the decisions have effectively already been taken. I would like to see that change, and I would welcome the Minister’s view on that.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Richard Benyon]

rose—

[Sir Hugo Swire]

I will take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention first, and then that of my right hon. Friend.

[Chris Bryant]

The Foreign Affairs Committee intends to do exactly as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. If I can correct one thing, I do not think the Madrid decision was made on a Treasury basis. The old building was difficult to maintain and was listed under Spanish law and all the rest of it, but we did move to the wrong place. I opened it, as it happened—the highest embassy we have in the world, I think, because it is in the highest capital in Europe and on the 75th floor, or whatever. It is virtually inaccessible to lots of people and it was a terrible mistake for us to move there. My biggest concern—

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions should be short and not speeches. I want to bring the Front-Bench spokespersons in at 10.30, so would everybody bear that in mind?

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

I will come to the soft power aspects and the institutions that contribute to that in a moment. First, I want to look at the numbers and the reductions that the Foreign Office budget has had since 2010 and is projected to have.

[Chris Bryant]

I slightly disagree with the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames). I do not know whether my hon. Friend noticed, but Emmanuel Macron went to India the other day and said, notwithstanding our historic relationship with India, as part of the former empire and all the rest of it, that he intends France to be India’s prime access point to the European Union in the future. We have to be very careful about not relying on the past.

[Helen Goodman]

If we leave the European Union, we obviously cannot be the prime access point to the European Union. That stands to reason.

I will come to the soft power assets in a moment, but I just want to say something about the numbers. The Foreign Office budget reduction is slightly unclear. Is it 16%, 30% or 40% over the 10-year period? Whatever it is, it is quite a significant amount of resource. I realise that some of the Foreign Office budget has gone into the Department for International Trade and some into the Department for Exiting the European Union, but the smallest cut that one can glean from looking at the numbers is about 16%, which is none the less extremely large. It seems to me that it is difficult for the Government to project the global Britain role while at the same time reducing resources in the Foreign Office.

Turning to our soft power assets, we are all very proud of the World Service and pleased with the British Council, and we all think that the Commonwealth is a fantastic network. There is another soft power asset, which I think we should look at alongside those assets. I am talking about our universities and higher education. We have soft power assets in this country as well as overseas.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) for securing this vital debate on an issue of national importance. I pay tribute to his valuable work on the Intelligence and Security Committee. I know from experience the time-consuming but absorbing nature of its activity, albeit that, by its nature, it is rather unsung and, in theory at least, low profile.

I thank everyone who contributed during the debate; there were some excellent contributions. I shall endeavour to answer all the questions, as I have a little more time than I had anticipated. There are one or two more technical aspects on which I will write to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), if I am able to do so, subsequently.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury rightly talked about the need for a dramatic and dynamic shift of resource. He touched on our Africa strategy. As he will be aware, our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out, at her first G20 meeting in July 2017, a new long-term vision for our partnerships with Africa, centred on supporting African aspirations for economic growth, trade, job creation and investment. Ministers across Her Majesty’s Government have worked closely together to refresh our approach in order to deliver on that vision. We are clear—I reiterate the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury—that our substantial development spend in Africa needs to be directed more broadly towards the UK national interest, as well as supporting those in greatest need in Africa.

Let me touch on the point raised just now by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. I agree with her fundamentally, in that I think it is dangerous for us to look on aid as intermingled with other strands of British interest. We can take, for example, the deteriorating political situation in Cambodia at the moment. We have some important long-term aid programmes in Cambodia that deal with mine clearance and are designed to work for the most vulnerable in that country. The notion that we should hold the Cambodian Government of the day, however much we might disapprove of their work, to ransom in some form in that regard would be quite wrong. Indeed, I made it very clear in my meeting with the Cambodian ambassador only a few weeks ago that we would continue, on exactly the same terms, to fulfil our aid obligations.

However, I do believe that there is at least some mileage in the view that we need to look at this issue. I have sympathy with a number of my right hon. Friends, who talked in their contributions about the idea of DFID coming back into the Foreign Office. There is a sense in which there needs to be a broader focus. Particularly in the post-Brexit world that we will be living in, we need to focus all our energies in a one-Government situation.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury talked about official development assistance, which was also raised by the Opposition spokesman. It is right to say that the Foreign Office is and will continue to be a large ODA-spending Department. The Department closely complements DFID’s efforts, and we are trying to deliver on the Government’s aid strategy commitments through our own programmes—in particular, the cross-Whitehall conflict, stability and security fund and the prosperity fund, for which I now have responsibility in the Foreign Office. That also involves grants to external organisations, and our global remit means that we are designing those to deliver a breadth of programming in support of our national security strategy that other Departments simply do not have the resource to do. I believe that programmes of that sort will very evidently begin to add value by responding quickly to specific or niche requirements in volatile environments. I am talking about pursuing higher-risk programmes where political sensitivities require a different approach, but also exploring and testing options before scaling up and unlocking larger interventions by others.

It is recognised that some of the ODA and non-ODA programmes will have to be blended together, in order to secure some of the best outcomes in the future. That applies not just to Africa, but to Asia and the Pacific—an issue close to my heart and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire). I accept that an unintended consequence will be that some aspects of our annual report will be rendered more opaque.

In many ways it would be a pleasure to have a much broader debate, along the lines that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) developed. I hope that we will be able to have further discussions both offline and on the Floor of the House in future. He is well aware that I have a significant amount of sympathy with much of what he said. We need to be realistic about where we are in the future. I will be honest: I gave considerable thought to whether I should be a Minister in this Government. I was, like him, passionately—on emotional and geopolitical grounds as much as anything else—keen that this country should stay in the European Union. Yes, in my heart of hearts, I do believe it was a mistake. However, we have to make it work. I think it is also important that people of my mind play their part within Government, rather than just beyond Government, not to frustrate that Brexit outcome, but to try and make it work as well as we can and to put that voice across.

[Chris Bryant]

I do not disagree with what the Minister has just said, but the key thing is how we ensure that we are able to secure the policy outcomes on defence, security and foreign affairs, in relation to places such as Russia, the middle east or Iran, after Brexit. I urge the Foreign Office to do a full review of our presence in Brussels itself, because it will need to become much more like a lobbying operation than it has ever been before.

[Mark Field]

I have a lot of sympathy with that view and I think there is little doubt that we will need to do that. I saw that when I attended the Foreign Affairs Council only last week, in the stead of the Foreign Secretary.

I will talk a bit about the British Council, because that was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex. I fully recognise the fantastic work of the British Council and its soft power potential post-Brexit. I have seen that with my own eyes in virtually all my overseas visits in Asia, and indeed even last week when I was in Paris. Funding for the British Council has increased over the spending period. There are issues, as I think my right hon. Friend is aware, about the signing off of accounts. We need to get those accounts ready, not just to impress the Treasury, but because I want to be able to make the most aggressive case for the importance of that soft power, and the British Council’s integral importance in that, when we leave the European Union, but that does require the British Council having its financial house in order. We are working closely with the Treasury to try to achieve that impact.

Government Policy on Russia

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I do not think the Government have been robust or consistent enough over these past few years, and I have said that for a long time. Putin’s violent record is a matter for all to see—Beslan, the Moscow theatre, Crimea and Ukraine, Anna Politkovskaya and many other journalists, Sergei Magnitsky, Boris Nemtsov and so on. The truth is that this Government have repeatedly just shrugged their shoulders. After the Litvinenko inquiry found that Putin was personally responsible, the Government did absolutely nothing in response. What happens when a murdering dictator is told that nothing is going to happen? They just do it all over again. I urge the Foreign Secretary to think long and hard about a proper Magnitsky Act, which many other countries have adopted already. Let us make it absolutely clear to Russia: you cannot kill people on our soil with impunity.

[Boris Johnson]

I agree with the last sentiment the hon. Gentleman expressed, but I do not agree that the UK stood by and did nothing after the murder of Alexander Litvinenko. On the contrary, we have led the world in tough action against Russia: both at the United Nations and in the European Union we have been in the forefront of those calling for tough measures against Putin’s Russia. I made exactly those points in Moscow when I saw Sergei Lavrov, as some hon. Members may recall. As for the hon. Gentleman’s substantive point about a Magnitsky Act or a Magnitsky amendment, as I said in an earlier answer to an Opposition Member we are certainly willing to look at sensible proposals.

International Court of Justice

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

The Chagos islands issue is not mentioned directly in the report, although it is used as an example of where the UK has taken votes to the UN in recent times and lost. It is clear that not being on the ICJ diminishes the UK’s voice on making sensible decisions at the UN. One of the report’s conclusions is that the real difficulty is not directly the loss of a judge on the ICJ but in how we get a judge back on to the ICJ. Incumbency is a special thing in being able to promote a future election. Indeed, not being the incumbent will make it much more difficult next time.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend got the same impression as I did. Repeated witnesses told us that there was a kind of shrug at international meetings, with people saying, “What on earth are you doing with regard to Brexit? Why are you choosing to step back from your international role?” That might have contributed to this election result.

There was a second kind of shrug from all the Government Ministers, who seemed to go, “You win some, you lose some. Does it really matter?” If that is the sense permeating throughout Government, we certainly will lose influence around the world. Do we not need a much stronger sense of leadership from the top of Government, and particularly from the Foreign Secretary?

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend is also a member of the Committee. He is right that we extensively questioned Lord Ahmad, the Minister of State for the Commonwealth and the UN, on the reasons for the loss of our place on the ICJ, and he did not seem to have any reasons for that loss. We questioned him in depth on what countries had fed back to him on why they did not vote for the UK, or why they voted for the UK in the first round and then changed their vote to another nation. Again, he did not really have a reason. There seems to be significant complacency in the Foreign Office, and Ministers, the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office will have to up their game significantly post Brexit to ensure that the UK’s voice is not diminished.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 20th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

The actions of the United States Government in this case have nothing to do with us. Our view on UNRWA remains absolutely clear. I met the director of UNRWA just this morning at the Department for International Development. We will continue to support it and to fund it. To leave refugees in Lebanon and Jordan without support would be a disaster. UNRWA needs to continue to get support, and it will do so from the United Kingdom.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

8. What the cost to the public purse was of the launch of the Institute for Free Trade held on his Department’s premises.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)]

There was no cost to the public purse.

[Chris Bryant]

Oh, come off it! Come off it! The right hon. Gentleman must think that we were all born yesterday. The truth is that this was a private party, which was going on on Government premises, sanctioned by the Foreign Secretary. He has been trying to dress up a tinpot bunch of ideological crackpots as an institute, quite against the law, and he has broken the ministerial code. He has been caught in flagrante delicto, hasn’t he?

[Boris Johnson]

I am under the unhappy duty of contradicting the hon. Gentleman. He is talking the most perfect tripe. The event that took place was completely non-partisan. Members of all parties were present. [Interruption.] Including the Labour party. EU and non-EU ambassadors were represented. It was fully in line with Foreign and Commonwealth Office rules on hosting such events, and I have here a letter from the Cabinet Secretary to confirm that, which I am happy to pass to the hon. Gentleman. I am afraid to say that the Cabinet Secretary has been pestered with complaints from the Labour party about this absolutely blameless event, which was there to support and encourage free trade, which is a major objective of Government policy and should be an objective of the hon. Gentleman—or is it not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I readily defer to the Foreign Secretary’s knowledge of this important event.

[Chris Bryant]

He was there for a long time.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not know how long he was there, and I cannot say that I greatly care. We have had the answers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Boris Johnson]

I am so glad that my hon. Friend asked that question because we are not only upgrading seven ambassadorial posts in the 27 other EU countries, but increasing our staffing across the network in the EU by 50.

[Chris Bryant]

No you’re not.

[Boris Johnson]

Yes we are. Again, I am getting some negativity from a sedentary position on the Opposition Benches. In addition to beefing up our relations with our EU friends and partners, we will open 15 embassies in Africa.

Same-Sex Marriage in Bermuda

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why he has allowed Her Majesty’s Governor of Bermuda to assent to a Bill that will abolish same-sex marriage in Bermuda.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Harriett Baldwin)]

We are obviously disappointed about the removal of same-sex marriage in Bermuda. The Domestic Partnership Act, to which the Governor of Bermuda assented yesterday, ensures that Bermudians who have been legally married in Bermuda since the Supreme Court decision will retain their married status and enjoy the same legal rights as those in domestic partnerships.

Less than a year ago, same-sex couples had no legal recognition at all under Bermudian law. While the Act withdraws the entitlement for same-sex couples to marry, it replaces it with a provision for domestic partnerships for all couples, regardless of gender. The intent of the Act is to provide domestic partners with the same benefits as married couples, including provision for pensions, inheritance, healthcare, tax and immigration.

After full and careful consideration of Bermuda’s constitutional and international obligations, the Secretary of State decided that in these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to use the power to block legislation, which can only be used where there is a legal or constitutional basis for doing so, and even then, only in exceptional circumstances. It is important to recognise that the regime for domestic partnerships implemented by Bermuda in its Domestic Partnership Act can also meet the European Court of Human Rights requirement for legal recognition of same-sex relationships.

The Government are committed to promoting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality globally through projects, partnerships and persuasion. In engaging with the British overseas territories, we have to respect that they are separate, self-governing jurisdictions with their own democratically elected representatives and the right to self-government.

[Chris Bryant]

However the Government try to dress this up, it is a backward step for human rights in Bermuda and in the overseas territories. Same-sex Bermudian couples who have been married under the ruling of the Bermudian Supreme Court have now been rendered an anomaly. Gay and lesbian Bermudians have been told that they are not quite equal to everyone else and that they do not deserve—this is the word being used—the full marriage rights that other Bermudians enjoy. Cunard and P&O’s Bermuda-registered ships will be banned from holding same-sex marriages at sea.

Does the Minister not worry that when she tells the Russians to respect LGBT rights in Chechnya, or when she tries to convince India, Pakistan or Indonesia to change the law to benefit LGBT people, those countries will just laugh at her and say, “The first territory in the world to repeal same-sex marriage is British Bermuda, and they did it with your express permission.”

The Minister for Europe and the Americas, the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), said last week in the House that the Government were absolutely committed to “promoting equal rights”—a point that the Minister has repeated today—but did the Government make any attempt to persuade the Bermudian Government to accept the ruling of the Bermudian Supreme Court in favour of same-sex marriage? Did the Minister or any Minister—the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister or anybody on behalf of the Government —ring the Bermudian Premier or any of the Ministers in Bermuda to try to change their minds?

Do the Government not see that the Domestic Partnership Act expressly contradicts the Bermudian Human Rights Act 1981? It even states as much in the Act itself. Will the Bermudian Supreme Court not conclude exactly the same now as it did earlier last year, so we will be back to square one? Most importantly, how can it possibly be right that lesbian and gay British citizens in Bermuda—and, for that matter, in Northern Ireland—are worth less than British citizens in this country?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I want to put on the record that I fully appreciate the voice the hon. Gentleman has given to this issue in Parliament not only today, but in his recent Adjournment debate, at business questions and so on. I want to make it clear that we are disappointed that the right to marry has been removed, but we have to recognise that the Act provides legal recognition of same-sex relationships, as required under the European Court of Human Rights. The Secretary of State considered the implications extremely carefully at Bill stage. Without going into the details, Mr Speaker, of the range of conversations that were held, I can say that we are seriously disappointed—

[Harriett Baldwin]

I was not implying that, Mr Speaker. I was saying that I do not have the full details in front of me, but obviously there were extensive conversations internally—

[Chris Bryant]

Will you write to me?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I am very happy to commit to following up on that with the hon. Gentleman in writing. As he will appreciate, this was carefully discussed by those at our end and, balancing the issues concerned in this particular case, the Secretary of State decided not to intervene in the matter.

Same-sex Marriage: Bermuda

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The relationship between the United Kingdom and the overseas territories is an important but complex one. In large measure, the overseas territories are independent of the UK. They make their own decisions and draw up their own laws, which are ruled on by their own courts, but that is not the end of the story. Their constitutions have been drawn up in consultation with Her Majesty’s Government; their Governors are appointed by Her Majesty’s Government; and their external affairs, defence, internal security and policing remain the responsibility of the Governor, acting on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government.

The UK Government often step in, sometimes with financial and military support, as happened recently in the Caribbean following the terrible hurricane season. At other times, the UK Government take a different line on a matter of important policy, such as when I, as a Minister, had to suspend the Government in Turks and Caicos because of corruption, or when David Cameron pushed the overseas territories to implement public registers of preferential ownership, to end some of the secrecy that attends the financial provisions in those territories, which have sometimes brought the British financial system into disrepute.

That is as true for Bermuda as it is for any of the other overseas territories. I honestly have no desire to upset the delicate balance, but it is my firm belief that British citizens should enjoy the same freedoms in Bermuda as in England or Wales or, for that matter, Northern Ireland.

Bermuda has made significant strides in recent years on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights. Immigration law has been changed to allow immigration rights for non-Bermudian same-sex partners of Bermudians. Gays and lesbians, either by themselves or as a couple, are now able to adopt, and its anti-discrimination legislation includes protection on the basis of sexual orientation.

Another positive step came last year. On 5 May, the Supreme Court in Bermuda ruled in a case brought by Winston Godwin and his Canadian fiancé, Greg DeRoche, that

“the Applicants were discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation…when the Registrar refused to process their Notice of Intended Marriage…The Applicants are entitled to an Order of Mandamus compelling the Registrar to act in accordance with the requirements of the Marriage Act; and…A Declaration that same-sex couples are entitled to be married under the Marriage Act”.

It was clear that the then Bermudian Government were not very happy with the ruling. They had held a very poorly attended referendum on the matter the year before, on 23 June 2016—that was quite a day for referendums. It was a referendum that no lesbian or gay organisation or individual had ever called for, but which the Government insisted on. That referendum suggested, on a turnout of less than 50%, that Bermudians opposed both same-sex marriage and same-sex civil unions by roughly two to one, which was why Justice Charles-Etta Simmons made the following clear in her summation:

“The politicians failed, the referendum failed, so I will step in and protect the rights of a minority”.

Many people in Bermuda, and in many other overseas territories and countries around the world, rejoiced at that moment.

There were two sensible, non-confrontational courses that the Bermudian Government could have taken: abide by the ruling of the Court; or appeal to the Privy Council in this country—that is the standard process for appealing a decision. In fact, the Minister of Home Affairs announced on 9 May that the Government would not appeal, and on 31 May, the first same-sex marriage took place in Bermuda. There have now been eight such marriages in total and four further publications of banns of marriage.

Then came a new Government, after an election, who decided to draft a law to abolish same-sex marriage and replace it with “domestic partnerships”, albeit allowing those same-sex marriages that had already been celebrated to stand, rather in a position of limbo. It is a deeply unpleasant and very cynical piece of legislation. It sounds quite nice on the face of it, as if it is just the same as civil partnerships in this country, but it is not. It seeks to keep marriage officers separate from domestic partnerships officers, as if to protect them from some kind of infection. It allows a domestic partnership to be voided on the sole grounds of “venereal disease”. It was introduced by a Government whose members have openly declared that they are opposed to civil unions of any kind whatsoever and pretended not even to know that same-sex couples have regularly been denied the right to make important medical decisions on behalf of their sick and dying partners in Bermuda.

Section 53 of the law states:

“Notwithstanding anything in the Human Rights Act 1981, any other provision of law or the judgment of the Supreme Court in Godwin and DeRoche v The Registrar General and others delivered on 5 May 2017, a marriage is void unless the parties are respectively male and female.”

In all the history of legislation, I have never seen a measure that so clearly declares from the outset that it is inconsistent with all the other laws in the land, including the Human Rights Act, the constitution and the judgment of the Supreme Court. It is almost begging the Supreme Court to come to exactly the same decision as it did last year. Unfortunately, this Bill was agreed by both Houses in Bermuda on 8 December, but it cannot become law unless and until the UK-appointed Governor, John Rankin, signifies Royal Assent on behalf of the Government, which so far he has not done.

I believe that the Governor is entirely within his rights to delay a final decision or, if he chooses, to refuse Royal Assent, as the Bermudian constitution states at section 35:

“unless he has been authorised by a Secretary of State to assent thereto, the Governor shall reserve for the signification of Her Majesty’s pleasure any bill which appears to him, acting in his discretion—

(a) to be inconsistent with any obligation of Her Majesty or of Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom towards any other state or power or any international organisation;

(b) to be likely to prejudice the Royal prerogative;

(c) to be in any way repugnant to or inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution;

(d) to affect any matter for which he is responsible under section 62 of this Constitution; or

(e) to relate to currency or banking.”

On the basis of least two of those limbs, the Governor has very good cause not to grant Royal Assent.

As section 12 of the constitution expressly guarantees freedom from discrimination and the Bermudian Human Rights Act 1981 also expressly prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation on at least seven different points, it is difficult to disagree with the Supreme Court, and therefore equally difficult to see how the Governor could agree Royal Assent. There are other reasons why the Governor should withhold assent. It would have been one thing if the Bermudian Government had introduced civil partnerships as a forward step when there was no such provision in law in Bermuda, but this is a retrograde step—it is taking a step backwards—that deliberately limits the rights currently enjoyed by many Bermudians.

Incidentally, this is not just a matter of marriages contracted in Bermuda. The law also applies to Bermuda-registered ships, including many cruise liners that used to be registered out of the United Kingdom, so the service of marriage at sea that Cunard and P&O offer, such as on the Queen Mary 2, the Queen Victoria and the Queen Elizabeth—there is some irony in this—is currently available to same-sex couples. I understand that there was a great big party on one P&O liner when the Supreme Court decision was announced—considerable amounts of champagne were drunk—and there have since been three same-sex marriages on board P&O cruise liners. If the proposed law goes ahead, those marriages will cease. Cunard believes it is likely that Bermudian law will not permit a same-sex wedding ceremony on board its ships after the end of this month, adding:

“We are very unhappy about this decision and we do not underestimate the disappointment this will cause those guests who have planned their weddings.”

I am certain that those people will be taking new cases to the Supreme Court in Bermuda.

I have received a great number of emails, tweets and messages about this issue. Some of them have been quite pleasant, but others have not. Some have told me in very robust terms to butt out, saying this should just be up to Bermuda, but I disagree. This matter impinges on how Britain is viewed around the world, and I take just as active an interest in the human rights of LGBT people in Moscow, Tehran and Beijing as I do in the human rights of those in Hamilton, because the thing is that human rights are, to use a Biblical phrase, a seamless garment. We cannot divide them up. As one Bermudian put it in an email to me,

“all people have the right to be equal under the law and the right to exercise their full range of human rights, without exception. This is how I live my life and this is what I encourage others around me”

to do.

Black and white, man and woman, gay and straight, Russian, Iranian, American, Canadian and Bermudian—it is all exactly the same. We are all human beings and our human rights should not differ. To the person who told me not to interfere because we have not yet sorted out Northern Ireland, I should add that when the Labour Government legislated in favour of LGBT rights in England and Wales, we decided to advance that legislation in Northern Ireland as well, even when Northern Irish politicians objected. The Government here in Westminster need to look hard at the situation in Northern Ireland and implement equality. It is unfair that our Northern Irish brothers and sisters are unable to enjoy the same rights as everybody else.

Some people say, “You change hearts and minds first, and then you change the law.” I profoundly disagree with that. There is clear evidence that changing the law helps to change people’s hearts and minds. For two centuries and more, people—including people who considered themselves to be good upstanding Christians—considered slavery to be just part of the natural order. It was laid down and allowed. Indeed, many bishops had large plantations and many slaves. We now know that that was a cruel and despotic belief. Today, we find it unthinkable that people could conceive of slavery as acceptable.

It is my profound belief that in 100 years’ time, people will wonder what on earth people were thinking when they condemned homosexuality as a sin, when they barred gay and lesbian couples from declaring their love for one another in marriage and when they fought tooth and nail to say that marriage had to be exclusively between a man and a woman. Because, really, what harm does it do anyone else if two men are allowed to marry? Has the sky fallen in in Bermuda? Have straight husbands suddenly abandoned their wives, or have heterosexual wives run off with each other? Have straight marriages lost their sparkle? Of course they have not.

If anything, straight couples should be rejoicing that so many people want to form long-lasting, stable relationships and to get married, because marriage is a thing of beauty. The public declaration of love between two people—from this day forward, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part—binds people and families together. It gives a safe home to thousands of children and to elderly parents as well. It enriches life and gives hope, and often it banishes the loneliness that for generations and generations gay men and lesbian women thought would be their lot.

For many gay men and lesbian couples, same-sex marriage provides a public affirmation that chases away the ghosts of shame and self-loathing that so many grew up with, thanks to the hateful judgmentalism of others. Why on earth would anyone want to deny that to anyone else? Why on earth would a Christian want to deny that to anyone else? Why on earth would we perpetuate the homophobia that has left youngsters emotionally bruised by hateful taunts in the playground, or physically battered almost to death outside gay bars because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Of course I would much prefer it if the Governor did not sign the Domestic Partnership Bill into law—if he did not grant assent. I hope he does not, and I hope that the Foreign Secretary does not instruct him to do so. If necessary, I hope he just lets it lie on the table until the Supreme Court has another go, as it almost certainly will. What would be even better, if I am honest, would be if the Bermudian Government thought again, respected all their fellow citizens, embraced the principle that the first rule of equality is to protect minorities and withdrew the Domestic Partnership Bill. I say to the Minister for Home Affairs in Bermuda, the Hon. Walton Brown, “If you withdraw the Bill, it will one day be the single action in your political career of which you will be most proud. One day it will be, and your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren will say, ‘That is what he did.’”

To the Premier, the Hon. David Burt, I would add, “You are a very clever man. You graduated cum laude from George Washington University and you led the Progressive Labour Party very successfully to power in the elections last year. You have said publicly that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, and that this is not really about your religious beliefs, and yet you hold that same-sex marriage is just not culturally acceptable. Those are your words.” I am sorry, but that is just cruel. If this is an innate part of some people’s personality—some would say that God created them that way—it is simply cruel to deny an opportunity that everybody else would want for themselves. It is not rational and it is not progressive—it is just naked prejudice.

The Labour party of which I am a member has always supported LGBT rights, even in the dark days of the Victorians, the Edwardians and the Georgians, right up to legislating to get rid of the horrible legislation in the 1960s. I say to Bermuda and to the Premier of Bermuda, “I hope you change your mind.” I hope Bermuda changes its mind, and I hope the Government do not sign this legislation into law.

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

May I start by personally welcoming you back to the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, after a difficult period over Christmas. We offer the congratulations of the House on your knighthood.

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for securing this debate. I appreciate that he raised this issue in business questions on 11 January, and I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss it now at greater length.

The United Nations declaration of human rights makes it clear that human rights and freedoms are “interrelated, interdependent and indivisible”. They are the guarantors of freedom, non-discrimination and the innate dignity of every human being. They apply equally to all humankind. When lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people demand their rights, they are not asking for anything unique to them; they are simply asking to be accorded the same rights, dignity and respect that really should be given to everybody as a citizen in the world.

This Government are committed to promoting and protecting the rights of LGBT people, not only because it is the right and just thing to do, but because we believe that the strongest, safest and most prosperous societies are those that are the most open and inclusive. They are societies in which all citizens can live freely without fear of discrimination and can play a full and active part in national life.

Last year marked 50 years since the partial decriminalisation of homosexuality in England and Wales. Since then, the hon. Gentleman and I have shared and championed this cause over many years, from the equalisation of the age of consent through to the introduction of civil partnerships—from which both of us have benefited—to the introduction of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and the recognition, here at least, of gay marriage. In our lifetimes and, indeed, in our parliamentary lifetime, attitudes to homosexuality have been transformed, barriers to opportunity have been broken down, and this country now has one of the strongest legislative frameworks in the world for preventing and tackling discrimination.

This Government, like the Government who preceded us, are committed to promoting LGBT equality globally through projects, partnerships and persuasion. Today, we are spending more than £1.5 million over three years through the Magna Carta fund to promote and protect the rights of LGBT people where they are under threat. We are working with like-minded countries to promote our expertise through international organisations and through bodies such as the Equal Rights Coalition. Where we find discrimination, we work publicly and privately with Governments and civil society to change attitudes and improve legal protection.

However, it is important to recognise that, even in our own society, the transformation in attitudes did not happen overnight. Indeed, our Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 passed into law four only years ago. This knowledge influences how we handle progress in other countries. It is not reasonable to expect or demand sudden change in other countries when it took so long to happen in our own. We must also recognise that this kind of change of attitude cannot be imposed from the outside. It must emerge from within as old prejudices are exposed, argued against and set aside.

We can of course help to encourage change, but in doing so we must be aware of the local situation and be respectful of individual democracies. This is also the case in relation to our overseas territories. The British overseas territories are separate, self-governing jurisdictions with their own democratically elected representatives. I am pleased—as, I am sure, is the hon. Gentleman—that the British Antarctic Territory, the British Indian Ocean Territory, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, the Pitcairn Islands, St Helena, Ascension, Tristan da Cunha, and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands have all taken steps to recognise and legally authorise same-sex marriage.

In places where that progress has not been mirrored, we believe our best approach is to encourage, persuade and, if necessary, cajole through engagement with both Governments and civil society. Our relationships with the territories are best served if they are based on partnership and consensus. That is why this Government have no plans to impose same-sex marriage in the overseas territories. However, Ministers have been clear with overseas territory Governments that they must respect applicable international obligations.

In Bermuda, public opinion on same-sex marriage and civil unions is split. Bermuda’s non-binding referendum in 2016 on this very issue failed to attract the 50% turnout required by legislation to answer the question definitively. The majority of those who did respond were actually opposed to both same-sex marriage and civil unions; 69% opposed same-sex marriage and 63% opposed civil unions. In May last year, the Bermuda Supreme Court found that the established definition of marriage, as only being between a man and a woman, was inconsistent with Bermuda’s Human Rights Act 1981. The court therefore declared that same-sex couples should also be entitled to be married. As a result, the first same-sex marriage in Bermuda took place that same month.

Following Bermuda’s election last year, the governing party introduced the Domestic Partnership Bill. This would withdraw the entitlement for same-sex couples to marry and replace it with a provision for domestic partnerships for all couples, regardless of gender. The intent of the Bill is to provide those who are described in Bermuda’s law as “domestic partners” with the same benefits as married couples, including provision for pensions, inheritance, healthcare, tax, and immigration. We are obviously disappointed about the removal of same-sex marriage rights, but any intervention in the legislative process in any British overseas territory without its consent would be an exceptional step. Therefore, the Secretary of State is considering the implications of the Bill very carefully.

There are three important points that I urge the House and the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind. First, if the Bill receives assent, it ensures that Bermudians who have been legally married in Bermuda since the Supreme Court decision will retain their married status and enjoy the same legal rights as those in domestic partnerships, putting this on a clear statutory footing.

[Chris Bryant]

I am aware of that fact; indeed, I referred to it in my own comments. However, the problem is this. Just imagine living in a society where at one point to be same-sex married was allowed and the marriage was allowed to stand but nobody else’s in society was allowed to do so. That is a pretty effective way of demeaning that relationship and that marriage contract. I see why it has been done, but I do not think it is a saving grace.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

There is no doubt, in terms of the hon. Gentleman’s argument, that that does create a slightly unusual anomaly for what I understand to be eight couples. In that sense, he has a point. Whether it is demeaning depends on how one regards the alternative that is being offered.

The second point is that the European Court of Human Rights has consistently held that there is not yet a right to same-sex marriage, but there is a requirement to provide some legal recognition of same-sex relationships.

The final point worth bearing in mind is that less than a year ago same-sex couples had no legal recognition at all under Bermudian law. Now they have the equivalent of recognition through civil partnership, if the Domestic Partnership Bill goes through. While I would not wish to do anything but express regret over the backward step following the Supreme Court ruling, we should acknowledge that the Bill does represent progress by comparison with the situation just a year ago and does extend—albeit a step short of marriage—equal rights and recognition to a legal partnership between same-sex couples.

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

My hon. Friend speaks with great insight about the situation in Iran, and I assure him that no stone will be left unturned in our efforts.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

From my experience of trying to get two British nationals out of jail in Laos in 2009, what is needed when dealing with a very difficult country is absolute commitment and persistence —to go to bed every night worrying about what is happening to that British national in another country; to be very disciplined; and to make sure that every single member of the Government is speaking with the same voice. The Foreign Secretary could not possibly argue that that has happened in this case. What I really do not understand, though, is that when he made a complete mess of appearing before the Foreign Affairs Committee, his office rang to correct other, completely incidental parts of the record, but still refuses to correct this part. Will he do so now? Otherwise, frankly, he will have learnt nothing from this.

Israel: Meetings

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

Having been around a bit, I would hope that the ministerial code makes it clear what the sequence of events ought to be. Most Ministers should let the local embassy know they are going to be there, in case something happens while they are—that is reasonable practice, including sometimes for holidays. Certainly, if a Minister is going to have meetings in a country, they need to make it very clear that they want to have them and get them set up. That is the appropriate process. Again, my right hon. Friend has said very clearly that she did not do that, and she has apologised, and I suspect that someone will not be doing something like this for a very long time.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is a real shame that the Minister is acting as an air raid shelter here—I think if he reflects later, he will not be proud of what he has done today. The honest truth is that if the Secretary of State had said in this House what she said in public last week, when she misled the public, by now she would have been referred to the Committee on Standards. I honestly say to the Minister: either there is a Government with collective responsibility in which people talk to one another before they potentially meet significant people in other Governments, or there is not a Government, and if there is not a Government, it is not a question of whether the Secretary of State should resign, but a question of whether they should all resign.

[Alistair Burt]

To return to the core of the issue, my right hon. Friend accepts that she should have discussed the visit before she went and made it very clear what she was going to do. In relation to what she said to The Guardian last week, again she has made it clear that her words left room for misinterpretation and misunderstanding, which is why she issued the statement yesterday and is clarifying matters. She regrets not being clearer in her language, which is appropriate, and I think it perfectly reasonable that I have been asked to do this today, given that she is continuing her work as International Development Secretary abroad and so could not be here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Bearing in mind what the Minister has just said and what has been said about giving advance notice, would it not be nice, and rather charming, if the Secretary of State just told you—today, perhaps—that she was going to make a statement next Monday, so all of this could be cleared up in the round?

[Mr Speaker]

I always welcome communication from the right hon. Lady, whom I have known for many years. If she becomes aware of these matters and wishes to indicate to me an intention to come to the House, she is welcome to do so and I would welcome it, but that has to be for her to judge. We will leave it there for now.

Counter-Daesh Update

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Foreign Office says that it has three strategic objectives, the first of which is protecting our people. I fear, from the bluster that the Foreign Secretary has shown today, that he has learned absolutely nothing about what has happened in the past week. He said in his statement: “My point was that I disagreed with the Iranian view that training journalists is a crime, not that I wanted to lend any credence to Iranian allegations that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe had been engaged in such activity.” But what he said to us as a Committee last week was this:

“When we look at what Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe was doing, she was simply teaching people journalism”.

There is not a single eight-year-old in the country who could not say to the Foreign Secretary, “This does not match what you said last week.” Not a single eight-year-old would not be able to tell the Foreign Secretary how to do his job better. I fear that, if he cannot show some contrition today, then the honest truth is that he should not be in his job, because our people are not safe.

[Boris Johnson]

With great respect, I think that I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s point. I was giving the Foreign Affairs Committee an account of the allegations made that I had personally heard, in the course of my intercessions, from the Iranians. I do not for one minute believe that they are true, but that is what they say. Our job now as diplomats—and I hope that we have the support of the entire House of Commons—is to get Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe released. The best way to do that is not to score party political points but to concentrate our energies and our criticism on those who are actually responsible for her incarceration.

Catalonia

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

My hon. Friend draws a false parallel between Gibraltar and Catalonia. I repeat that we fully support Spain as it upholds the working of its constitution and will stand with it in opposing illegality wherever we see it.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

A lot of fake news has come out of Catalonia, not least regarding the number of casualties, which was grossly inflated by the Catalan authorities. It was reported on the television that one woman had had every finger broken, one by one, by the police, but she later went on television herself to say that this was simply untrue—that none of her fingers had been broken. Will the Minister assure us that if in this country a councillor were to agree an illegal budget they would be pursued by the law, that being the law of this land, and that we will respect the law of other countries when it is pursued there?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I agree very strongly with the hon. Gentleman. Each country has its laws, and those laws, having been made by a sovereign Parliament—do not forget that Spain is a properly working democracy—should be upheld. We have been robust in saying so. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has spoken to Prime Minister Rajoy, I have spoken several times to the Spanish ambassador in the UK, and we issued a very firm statement last week, when the declaration of independence was made, standing firmly with Spain as it upholds the workings of its constitution.