Belarus: Presidential Elections

Debate between Dominic Raab and Cheryl Gillan

Thursday 24th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I think the hon. Gentleman is right to call for mediation. At the moment, it feels like there is little movement in that direction. We support it. I know that the Germans and others in the EU have been reaching out on all sides. I would just say that, given the nature and the character of the regime in Belarus, and given the support that it is receiving from Moscow—notwithstanding the points the hon. Gentleman made—to give it its best chance, we must put the pressure on and hold the regime to account. Those two things do not run in tandem; actually, I think they reinforce each other.

[Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) [V]]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which I chair, is currently producing two urgent reports: one on the political reform in Belarus, and one by our own Lord Blencathra on the urgent need for electoral reform in Belarus. The Standing Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has also called on Belarus to launch a “democratic, broad-based and inclusive” national political process as a first step towards a peaceful way out of the current crisis, and in particular to open the door for those reforms, starting with the constitution and the election process. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is ready to support that process, in close co-operation with the Venice Commission, which has written many opinions on Belarus. I wonder what support and encouragement the Foreign Secretary can give to that process, alongside co-ordinating the USA-UK response and the OSCE response.

[Dominic Raab]

I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend and Members from across the House in the Council of Europe, which is an important institution. It does not get the same media or public attention as the EU, but it does incredibly important work, particularly in this field. I give my full support to the efforts that she and the Council of Europe are making. Not only will our work with the OSCE investigation of vote rigging and human rights abuses provide moral support, but its findings will provide practical support in making progress with her important work.

DFID-FCO Merger

Debate between Dominic Raab and Cheryl Gillan

Thursday 18th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

He is shaking his head before he receives the answer—I thought we were going to have a sensible debate about the pros and cons of this change. I listened carefully to what he said, so he might do me that courtesy in return. We had an integrated approach, and we brought the alignment as far as we conceivably could on covid, the repatriation of nationals, the hunt for a vaccine, and keeping supply chains open. However, this situation has brought to light and made clear to us how much more effective we can be if we integrate through this merger.

The hon. Gentleman asked when the Prime Minister made the final decision. Obviously he spent weeks considering it, but he announced the change on Tuesday, swiftly after the conclusions had been resolved. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the aid budget will be protected, and we are committed to the figure of 0.7% of gross national income—I think that reassures those who are concerned that somehow the aid budget will be cut as a result of this change, which is not true.

The hon. Gentleman asked about DIT and trade, and as the Prime Minister made clear on Tuesday, we will ensure that our trade envoys are responsible for formally reporting to ambassadors and high commissioners in their respective countries. More broadly, the International Trade Secretary, who answered questions in the House a few moments ago, is doing an exceptional job in striking those free trade deals, which are a great opportunity for businesses and consumers in this country. That will continue. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned third party support. There has been widespread agreement on this from the Chair of the Select Committee, from my predecessor as Foreign Secretary, and from the HALO Trust, which is a charity that deals with landmines and welcomes this move.

I will leave the hon. Gentleman with one thought: of OECD developed countries, only one has a separate Ministry of Development. Indeed, the tide has been in the direction of integrating foreign policy with aid and development, as that is the progressive thing to do. I understand why the Labour party, which set up DFID, feels proprietorial about it, but what matters is the effectiveness of foreign policy. What we have learned during coronavirus is that this merger will ensure that we can be as effective as possible, and deliver more efficient value for taxpayers’ money.

[Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) [V]]

In the past week we have seen three changes to the machinery of government, including the merger of the FCO and DFID. All those moves are designed to maximise our resources, as we reignite and re-establish the UK’s global position. In order to continue that restructuring and make it even more comprehensive, particularly with the trade commissioners reporting to the ambassadors, what plans does my right hon. Friend have to support our business export activities, by eventually bringing the Department for International Trade into the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office? Surely that would now make sense.

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my right hon. Friend, and pay tribute to her expertise and experience in this area. We are not proposing to integrate DIT into the new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but through the structure with trade envoys we want to maximise our impact in those countries where we are seeking to liberalise, free up, and open up greater access for British businesses and British exports.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Raab and Cheryl Gillan

Wednesday 29th April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) [V]]

I associate myself with the remarks of the First Secretary in saying congratulations to the Prime Minister and Carrie.

Research from the all-party group on autism found that before the coronavirus crisis more than two in three autistic adults were not getting the support they needed. Sadly, in some areas, emergency powers to ease duties under the Care Act 2014 have had to be triggered. Can my right hon. Friend guarantee that autistic people will not be disproportionately affected by these changes, and will he publish which councils have to resort to emergency powers?

[Dominic Raab]

My right hon. Friend raises a really important point. We of course want to ensure that all autistic children or any other children with special needs going through this terrible crisis are as protected as they possibly can be. When it comes to looking at the future arrangements for schools, on top of the key workers, we have got to make sure that we do as much as we can to protect vulnerable children, particularly those with particular needs. She talked about the funding going through to local authorities. I will speak to the Education Secretary and the Communities Secretary and make sure that we can come back with a specific answer on the point that she raises.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Raab and Cheryl Gillan

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), I have many constituents who are highly concerned about this. The revocation of article 35A affects property ownership and rights in Jammu and Kashmir, and many of my constituents are very frightened that this could lead to a dramatic transformation from majority Muslim to majority Hindu. The new Prime Minister is famed for being robust. Can he now be robust in defending the rights of these people and their families?

[Dominic Raab]

My right hon. Friend raises the issue that others have raised, but in a particularly poignant way. The reality is that we have raised the issues around human rights. We have been clear both in our direct dealings with the Indian Government and at the international level that any reports or allegations concerning human rights must be dealt with transparently, thoroughly and rigorously, and human rights standards must be respected.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Dominic Raab and Cheryl Gillan

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making, although I do not accept that characterisation. It is absolutely right that cases that are procedurally before the dock of the court, if I may put it like that—that have been lodged before exit day—will continue to conclusion. However, in relation to facts that may or may not give rise to a cause of action at an indeterminate point in the future, we would end up with a long tail of uncertainty if we went down the path that she suggests. I gently say to her that it will be possible to continue those cases before the UK courts because of the way in which we will retain EU law. There would be more, not less, uncertainty for citizens and businesses alike if we allowed the kind of indeterminate access to the court that she suggests.

[Mrs Gillan]

Surely, the Minister is ignoring the legitimate expectation that I have talked about. Frankly, if the Government do not look again at the matter, it will constitute an abuse of power, because it will remove from individuals rights that they legitimately expected to carry through to the end of a case.

[Dominic Raab]

My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point about legitimate expectations. I think there is an equally legitimate expectation, demand and need to have some finality to the legal and institutional arrangements that give rise to cases before the European Court.

[Mrs Gillan]

Will the Minister give way again?

[Dominic Raab]

Perhaps I can give way to my right hon. Friend when I come on to her amendments.

I turn to amendment 203, tabled by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, and to the related amendments 353 and 354. They would remove clause 6(7) and partially reinsert it into clause 14. Clause 6(7) provides key definitions of terms in the Bill that are crucial for the proper interpretation and full understanding of its content. Subsection (7) aims to alleviate any potential confusion and ensure that there is no vagueness or ambiguity about the different types of retained law mentioned in the Bill. That is vital for those who read, implement and interpret the Bill, because of the different effects of each type of retained law. The placement of the definitions in clause 6 is specifically designed to make the Bill easier to navigate and more user-friendly, by placing the definitions close to where they are used and deployed in the text.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

That is kind, but I will make some progress; otherwise I will lose the thread in relation to amendment 303.

The amendment is at odds with the clear and certain position set out in the Bill, because it would continue to bind UK courts to some post-exit ECJ decisions and case law where the matters giving rise to the case have occurred before our exit. Those judgments would continue to be binding even after an implementation period. Strictly interpreted, the amendment would go further still. It would apply to anything happening before exit day and so would also include ECJ judgments on cases referred from outside the UK. For example, a preliminary reference made by another EU member state in relation to the interpretation of EU law might also fall within the scope of the amendment, if the facts of the case arose before exit day. The consequences would be far-reaching and risk creating considerable uncertainty and practical difficulties for the administration of justice.

UK courts and tribunals would continue to be bound by some new ECJ judgments for an indeterminate period. Those binding judgments could continue to be issued long after we have left the EU as cases continue to progress to the European Court from across the EU. Yet those judgments would not have formed part of the snapshot of retained EU case law that, under clause 6(3), will be binding on our courts, so far as is relevant, and subject to the rule in clause 6(4). By contrast, such post-exit judgments would bind our courts in all circumstances, including where the retained version of an EU regulation had since been modified by this Parliament or a devolved Administration. That would create foreseeable and entirely avoidable uncertainty, and it would not be necessary, because individuals whose cause of action predates our exit would, of course, continue to be able to take their case to the domestic courts, even if after exit they cannot reach the European Court. That is the fundamental point in relation to the procedural framework.

I now turn to amendment 304, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, in relation to retaining ECJ referrals and jurisdiction for anything that happened before exit day. In leaving the EU, we will bring an end to the jurisdiction of the ECJ—we have made that clear. The proposed amendment would frustrate that objective, because our courts could continue to make references to the ECJ in relation to cases where relevant matters have occurred before our withdrawal from the EU. As a result, different rules and processes would apply for those cases, compared with those where the relevant circumstances arose after exit day. That would, I fear, give rise to more not less uncertainty, because it would be impossible to predict for how long UK courts would continue to be subject to binding judgments from Luxembourg.

When we exit the EU, we will know exactly how many pending UK cases are registered with the European Court, awaiting a preliminary reference and thus covered by any proposed agreement we have with the EU on the treatment of pending cases. That is important to deliver certainty about how and when the Court’s jurisdiction in the UK will be brought to an end. The amendment would remove that certainty. Like amendment 303, it is not necessary. Individuals will not lose their ability to vindicate their rights in court after exit. They will be able to take such cases to our domestic courts.

Forgive me, Sir David, but I thought it necessary to address my right hon. Friend’s amendments in detail. Equally, I want to say that I recognise the eloquence and the force with which she champions her constituents. Ministers will take away the underlying issue that she has brought and powerfully moved for consideration. I hope that on that basis she will not feel she needs to press the amendment.

[Mrs Gillan]

I am following the Minister’s arguments very carefully, with helpful interventions from some of my colleagues. I appreciate that this is a very tricky matter, but it does relate to my constituent. I am therefore grateful that the Minister has undertaken to take the proposal away and look at the principle in relation to this case, because I feel that it would be most unjust not to do so. I have no love for the European Court of Justice and I want the Bill to go through, but not at the cost of justice for my constituent. This case has thrown the matter into stark relief. I am grateful to the Minister for that undertaking and I look forward to talking to him further on the matter.

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her constructive approach. We will take that consideration forward after these proceedings.

I will now rattle through the final amendments, so I have done them all justice and given them due consideration. I will turn next to amendment 306, tabled by the Opposition. Clause 6(2) states that our courts are no longer bound by decisions of the European Court after our departure or required to consider in future cases, although they may do so if they believe it to be appropriate. Clause 6 is a vote of confidence in our judiciary: its independence and its expertise. Using similar exercises currently undertaken with court judgments in other jurisdictions, our courts are best placed to decide to what extent, if any, they pay regard to EU law in any case before them.

The intention of amendment 306 is to remove that discretion from clause 6 and replace it with a duty that sets fetters on which aspects of EU case law our judges must consider, although only in certain areas. In practice, that would create a presumption that EU decisions should be followed in those areas. That is the clear intention, but it is inappropriate. It would undermine the purpose of clause 6 in both its fundamental objectives. It would frustrate the return of control to this House and the UK Supreme Court and expose the UK to substantial additional and unnecessary legal uncertainty.