Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to support political development in Ukraine; and if he will make a statement.

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

The United Kingdom is a strong supporter of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and President Zelensky’s commitment to reform and fighting corruption. We have provided financial support to the tune of £38 million this year, across multiple areas, and we lead robust sanctions on Russia for its attacks on Ukraine’s sovereignty. We look forward to welcoming President Zelensky to the UK as soon as a date can be found.

[Mr Whittingdale]

Will my right hon. Friend welcome President Zelensky’s decision to extend the visa-free regime for UK citizens for another year? Does my right hon. Friend share his ambition for Britain and Ukraine to conclude a new framework agreement as soon as possible, including possible liberalisation of the visa regime for Ukrainian citizens?

[Christopher Pincher]

My right hon. Friend is a doughty champion of Ukraine’s determination to look westward and be a modern European country. We will certainly welcome, as soon as we can, the ratification of such an arrangement, and I congratulate the President on his announcement on visa-free access for UK nationals. That will certainly help trade with the UK, which we want to ensure is successful, but we also need to protect our own borders. The Home Secretary is responsible for border control, but we keep our border policy under constant review, and visas to and from Ukraine is something I discuss with her regularly.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On political development and the importance of having human rights protected, including in Ukraine, I am aware of a number of examples where Christians have been persecuted, injured and politically challenged for their beliefs. What has been done in discussions with Ukraine to ensure that human rights are protected and people have the right to express themselves?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his question. We of course discuss these matters with Ukraine. I am particularly concerned about the repression of fundamental human rights—the right to speak the Crimean language—in Crimea by the annexing forces, and I raised that issue when I went to Kiev last year. We will always place these issues, be they in Ukraine or elsewhere, high on the agenda.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

3. What progress the Government have made on tackling climate change through international co-operation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

With the rights of indigenous peoples in danger around the world—particularly from the Bolsonaro Government in Brazil—does the Minister agree that the rights of indigenous peoples should be embedded in the proposed international treaty on human rights and transnational corporations?

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

I think the hon. Gentleman was present at a Westminster Hall debate last year when I made clear the work that the British Government are doing to help indigenous peoples in places such as Brazil. We have to make sure that we support such people. I think the point was made by the former Member for Bishop Auckland that tariffs are a good thing. Tariffs hurt the poorest and tariffs on food hurt the very poorest. We will make sure that we support indigenous peoples wherever they are, and particularly in Brazil.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I note the Minister’s earlier remarks about the Iran nuclear deal, but does he accept that since it was signed in 2015, Iran has launched major cyber-attacks against the UK, including on this Parliament? It has used its warships to harass our fleets in the Gulf and it has supported a huge arms build-up in the middle east. Where is the evidence that Iran can be a trusted partner for peace?

General Affairs Council: 28 January 2020

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2020 Written Statements

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

Andreja Metelko-Zgombić, Croatian State Secretary for European Affairs, chaired the General Affairs Council (GAC) in Brussels on 28 January. I represented the United Kingdom.

Adoption of A items

A number of A items were considered, including on accession negotiations with Serbia, the EU position on TIR convention and the safeguarding of the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine. A full list can be found on the EU Council’s website at https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/gac/2020/01/28/.

Presentation of priorities of the Croatian presidency

The presidency presented on their priorities for their presidency. These include: sectoral and horizontal legislation related to the next multiannual financial framework; enlargement policy, particularly in the run-up to an informal EU-western Balkans summit in May; implementation of the EU strategic agenda; cohesion; and promoting the EU as a community of values. The presidency also listed as a priority enabling an orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU and starting negotiations on a future partnership.

Conference on the future of Europe

There followed a substantial discussion on the proposed conference on the future of Europe, including its content, scope, composition and functioning. This followed recent communications from both the Commission and EU Parliament setting out their position on the conference.

Any other business

I intervened, on the occasion of the last attendance of a United Kingdom Minister at an EU Council, in relation to the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU. In doing so, I reiterated that while the United Kingdom will be leaving the EU, we will not be leaving Europe; and that while we will have a different relationship, we will continue to stand together as sovereign equals to defend our shared values. I further reiterated the United Kingdom’s hope that we can deliver on our joint aspiration for a high quality free trade agreement to be agreed by the end of the year.

[HCWS77]

Foreign Affairs Council: 20 January 2020

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2020 Written Statements

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

The High Representative of the European Union (EU) for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HRVP), Josep Borrell, chaired the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) in Brussels on 20 January. The United Kingdom’s permanent representative to the EU (Sir Tim Barrow) represented the United Kingdom.

Current affairs

The HRVP and Foreign Ministers had an exchange of views on a number of pressing issues.

The German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas briefed on the outcome of the 19 January Berlin conference on Libya. Ministers discussed EU engagement towards a political solution, in particular in helping to implement the agreed ceasefire and enforce the UN arms embargo.

HRVP Borrell discussed the situation in Bolivia and set out EU support towards the general election on 3 May 2020. He also touched on Venezuela and concern about recent escalations following the events in the National Assembly.

The HRVP debriefed on his recent trip to New Delhi, India, where he participated in the Raisina dialogue and he discussed preparations for the upcoming 15th EU-India summit, scheduled for 13 March.

Cyprus raised Turkey’s hydrocarbon exploration activity in the eastern Mediterranean, following Turkey’s announcement on 18 January that it would engage in further drilling.

Sahel

Following France’s and the G5 Sahel (Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, and Niger) leaders’ summit that took place in Pau on 13 January, Ministers exchanged views on the deteriorating security and humanitarian situation in the Sahel and the role the EU could play as an important partner and donor in the region. They expressed support for renewing the existing Sahel strategy to try to increase the impact of the EU's security, stability and development engagement. Ministers emphasised the importance of an integrated approach between the different actors involved and resources deployed. Ministers also welcomed the planned EU-G5 Sahel summit in March, noting it would be an opportunity to identify joint priorities and ensure G5 ownership.

Climate diplomacy

The Council adopted conclusions on climate diplomacy and agreed to focus diplomatic outreach to third countries to encourage key partners and emitters to implement concrete actions and achieve the best results ahead of COP26. There was support for a proposal that all new EU international agreements, including all trade agreements, contain a clause to hold partners to ambitious climate standards.

The United Kingdom underlined that success in Glasgow would rely on concerted diplomatic efforts and the importance of ensuring tangible outcomes when updating nationally defined contributions (NDCs).

Middle east peace process and the wider region

Over lunch, Foreign Ministers discussed the middle east peace process and restated their national positions on the recognition of Palestine. The United Kingdom underlined the importance of firmly rejecting illegal annexation but made clear that our position on recognition was unchanged and reiterated our commitment to a two-state solution.

Ministers touched on the future of the joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPoA) and the importance of continuing efforts to de-escalate tensions in the region. The United Kingdom, France and Germany underlined the importance of the E3’s work to find a diplomatic path through the JCPOA’s dispute resolution mechanism to bring Iran back into compliance and preserve the deal.

Council conclusions

The Council agreed a number of further measures:

The Council approved the terms of reference for the EU-Ecuador dialogue on human rights. Since 2014, the EU and Ecuador meet at least once a year to review the state of their relationship and discuss issues of common interest.

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 a decision on the conclusion of the enhanced partnership and co-operation agreement between the EU and the Republic of Kazakhstan (12409/16). The decision will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union in accordance with Article 17 (1)(a) of the Council's rules of procedure.

The Council appointed 120 members and 114 alternate members to the European Committee of the Regions (CoR) for its new five-year term running from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025 (14986/19).

Regarding public access to documents, the European Council approved on 15 January 2020 the reply to confirmatory application No. 39/c/01/19 (doc. EUCO 35/19). On 20 January 2020, the Council adopted by written procedure the reply to confirmatory application No. 38/C/01/19 (doc. 14533/19).

[HCWS68]

Foreign Affairs Council

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2020 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), Josep Borrell, will chair the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) in Brussels on 20 January.

The FAC will discuss current affairs, the Sahel, climate diplomacy, and will be followed by an informal ministerial lunch to discuss the middle east peace process.

Current affairs

HRVP Borrell will raise Bolivia, ahead of the future elections, and the prospects of sending an EU electoral observation mission for May’s elections.

On Venezuela, the HRVP will touch on recent developments following the parliamentary elections on 5 January and plans for EU engagement.

We also expect Germany to debrief on the planned Berlin summit on Libya. HRVP Borrell will focus on what role the EU can play in support of any outcomes in Berlin.

The Sahel

We expect HRVP Borrell to debrief on the outcomes of the G5 Sahel summit in Pau on 13 January. Ministers will discuss the EU’s approach to the Sahel in the context of the deteriorating security situation in the region.

Climate diplomacy

Ministers will assess the EU’s climate diplomacy strategy, drawing on the December European Council outcome. They will consider how they can work together to drive ambitious action at COP26, in order to deliver on the promise of the 2015 Paris agreement. The United Kingdom will emphasise the importance of, and its commitment to, tackling climate change as a national and global priority ahead of COP26.

Informal ministerial lunch on the middle east peace process

Following the FAC, Ministers will discuss the middle east peace process and the wider security and stability in the middle east. The United Kingdom will reiterate its support for a negotiated settlement based on the two-state solution, leading to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state. Ministers may also discuss developments in the wider region which were last discussed at the FAC on 10 January, following the E3 (France, United Kingdom and Germany) triggering the dispute resolution mechanism (DRM) on 14 January.

Council conclusions

The Council is expected to adopt conclusions on climate diplomacy to give momentum and focus to its external engagement ahead of COP26.

[HCWS41]

Foreign Affairs Council: 10 January 2020

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2020 Written Statements

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

On 10 January, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HRVP), Josep Borrell, convened an extraordinary Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) in Brussels to address recent developments in Iraq and Libya. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Middle East and North Africa (Dr Andrew Murrison) attended the meeting.

Libya

Ministers exchanged views on recent developments in Libya, including the military escalation around Tripoli and the EU’s engagement. HRVP Borrell briefed on his recent diplomatic engagement, including with the E4 (France, Germany, Italy and United Kingdom) and with Libyan Prime Minister Serraj. HRVP Borrell updated Ministers on his plans to engage with all players involved, with the objective of moving towards a political solution within the framework of the Berlin process and UN-led mediated efforts.

The United Nations (UN) Special Representative and Head of the UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL), Ghassan Salame, briefed Ministers on his work to prepare for the planned Berlin summit, which will focus on practical initiatives towards long-term stability in Libya.

Dr Murrison expressed full support for German efforts to boost regional co-operation, and underscored the need for international unity, particularly in support of the UN process and of the strict enforcement of the UN arms embargo.

Recent developments in Iran and Iraq

The Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), Jens Stoltenberg, briefed Ministers on the latest developments in Iraq.

Ministers emphasised the need for the de-escalation of tensions in the region and maximum restraint as well as condemning attacks on coalition forces engaged in the fight against Da’esh. They stressed their continued support for Iraq’s stability and reconstruction and urged Iran to return to full compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA) without delay.

Dr Murrison supported calls for de-escalation and shared our deep concern at Iran’s latest announcement of non-compliance with the JCPoA. Dr Murrison also offered the United Kingdom’s condolences to those affected by the Ukraine Airlines crash, and called for EU support for a full investigation.

[HCWS37]

Outcomes of the Foreign Affairs Councils: 11 November and 9 December 2019

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2020 Written Statements

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

The 11 November and 9 December Foreign Affairs Councils (FACs) took place in Brussels while Parliament was dissolved. Federica Mogherini, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HRVP), chaired the November FAC with her replacement Josep Borrell chairing the December FAC. The United Kingdom’s Ambassador to the Political and Security Committee, Paul Johnston, represented the United Kingdom at both the November and December FAC.

November FAC

At the November FAC, HRVP Mogherini briefed Ministers on Venezuela, Bolivia, and Lebanon and touched on Turkey’s actions in North-East Syria. Ministers also adopted a framework for sanctions in response to Turkey’s hydrocarbons explorations activity in the eastern Mediterranean.

On Hong Kong, the United Kingdom stressed the need for support for the right to peaceful protest; condemnation of the violence; the need for a proportionate response; the importance of China upholding the Joint Declaration; and the need for investigations into the treatment of protestors.

Ministers discussed the EU’s approach to Iran and Gulf Regional Security, following Tehran’s announcement of further non-compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA).

The United Kingdom highlighted our commitment to the JCPoA while noting that Iranian actions were putting the deal under pressure. We stressed the importance of all parties engaging in comprehensive negotiations and of the Instrument in Support of Trade Exchange (INSTEX) to avoid the collapse of the deal and to support regional security.

Ministers discussed the political situation in Afghanistan and reviewed the prospects for peace, following the presidential election. HRVP Mogherini underlined the EU’s willingness to contribute both politically and financially to peace talks, and its readiness to support an inclusive Afghan political process. The United Kingdom stressed the importance of reductions in Taliban violence and renewed US-Taliban talks as an important step towards the relaunch of intra-Afghan negotiations.

Ministers had an exchange of views with the Sudanese Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok. They reaffirmed the EU’s strong political commitment to support the civilian transitional government, as well as the EU’s readiness to provide financial aid for the transition, including in support of economic and state structure reform. They highlighted the importance of ensuring that the civilian transition remains an inclusive process, including an appropriate role for youth and women.

December FAC

In December, Ministers expressed their concerns about the Turkey-Libya memorandum of understanding on delimitation of maritime jurisdiction and on security and military co-operation. They also reflected on the political situation in Libya and the Berlin process, which aims to find a sustainable solution to the situation in the country.

Ministers exchanged views on Ukraine, in the context of the Normandy Format leaders’ summit, which took place in Paris the following week, and the situation in Iran, following the recent meeting of the Joint Commission of the JCPoA, as well as recent protests. HRVP Borrell briefed on the situation in Bolivia, Moldova and Hong Kong. On the latter, the United Kingdom underlined the importance of meaningful government efforts around dialogue to prevent a return to violence.

Ministers discussed EU-Africa relations in preparation for 2020’s Ministerial and summit-level meetings between the EU and the African Union (AU). They addressed the political, economic, security and demographic aspects of the relationship as well as important cross-cutting issues such as climate change and digitalisation. Ministers emphasised that the next summit would be an important milestone in modernising and scaling up the EU’s partnership with Africa.

Ahead of human rights Day on 10 December, Ministers discussed the promotion and protection of human rights in the world. They assessed the EU’s work on human rights, the instruments at its disposal and its priorities for the coming months, reaffirming the EU’s leadership in the protection and promotion of human rights worldwide. HRVP Borrell announced the launch of preparatory work on a possible sanctions regime to address serious human rights violations.

During the working lunch, Ministers informally discussed the FAC’s working methods. The new HRVP set out his priorities, including the Western Balkans, Europe’s Neighbourhood and the Middle-East, as well as on how the EU could work together more effectively to deliver operational outcomes.

Conclusions

At the November FAC, the Council extended sanctions on Venezuela for a year due to persistent actions undermining democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights. It also adopted a framework for restrictive measures in response to Turkey’s hydrocarbons explorations activity in the eastern Mediterranean.

At the December FAC, the Council agreed a number of measures:

The Council decided to maintain individual restrictive measures against several personalities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) regarding the obstruction of the electoral process and human rights violations, and to lift these measures for two other persons.

The Council also adopted conclusions on the DRC that support the most recent elections as the first peaceful transfer of power in the country’s history and state the EU’s readiness for a gradual engagement in support to the DRC Government’s reform agenda, based on reciprocal commitments.

The Council adopted conclusions on Sudan, recognising the opportunity for democracy, peace and prosperity following the political transition. They highlight Sudan’s importance in the region’s stability and reaffirm the EU’s commitment to accompanying Sudan on its reform path towards democracy. While welcoming the transition Government’s recent steps, they reiterate the EU’s concern for the deteriorating humanitarian situation and call upon the Sudanese authorities to remove remaining bureaucratic obstacles to humanitarian and development actors’ work.

The Council adopted conclusions on the civilian Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) Compact, reaffirming its commitment to make civilian CSDP more capable, effective, flexible and responsive. They highlight CSDP missions’ significant contribution to international peace and stability as an essential part of the EU’s integrated approach to external conflicts and crises. They also emphasise the need to strengthen the EU’s role and capacity to act as a security provider through CSDP.

The Council adopted conclusions on the EU Arctic policy, and noted that the EU should continue to make a significant contribution in both regional and multilateral fora.

The Council adopted a decision in support of strengthening biological safety and security in Latin America in line with the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004) on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.

The Council extended the implementation period of the decision in support of the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons to a total of 48 months. This extension of the implementation period will allow the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which is responsible for the technical implementation of the project, to reach its planned objectives.

The Council adopted a decision in support of SEESAC disarmament and arms control activities in south east Europe reducing the threat of illicit small arms and light weapons (SALW) and their ammunition.

The Council adopted the EU position within the Ghana-EU Economic Partnership Agreement Committee regarding the definition of the concept of “originating products” and methods of administrative cooperation.

The Council adopted a decision setting out the EU’s position within the administrative committee for the international convention on the harmonisation of frontier controls of goods, which aims to reduce barriers to international trade and facilitate the movement of goods at the international level, to reduce administrative burdens on member states.

[HCWS36]

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.

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]

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]

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.