Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords]

Geoffrey Cox Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 1st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman]

Of course the hon. Gentleman raises a worry, which has been expressed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and I were in the United States a fortnight ago, when we met several members of the US Congress who are keen to crack down on Delaware, Nebraska and the other states there. Leading by example, which is what the last Administration did, is a way to make progress on this issue. I will come back to the international links later in my speech.

[Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)]

What does the hon. Lady say to the 50,000 or 60,000 inhabitants of the Cayman Islands, who were given a constitution in which the responsibility for the governance of their financial and economic affairs was solemnly conveyed to them by this Parliament? The measure she is supporting will require that constitution to be amended so that the section that conveys on them the power to make their own orders in these affairs will have to be removed. What does she say to them?

[Helen Goodman]

My understanding is that the position on the British overseas territories, as set out by a White Paper when the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham) was a Foreign Office Minister, is that it is appropriate for this House to legislate for the Cayman Islands and the overseas territories if it is considered necessary. Given the long list of crimes, which I have just read out to the House, that are facilitated, it can be argued completely that when we are making changes in this respect, this is an international, foreign policy issue, as that is what we are talking about; we are talking about the financing of international crime and of terrorism. This is not like trying to intervene in street lighting or purely local matters. It simply has a completely different import for the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I welcome the contribution from our anti-corruption champion—the hon. Gentleman was appointed by the Government to fulfil that role. Indeed, he is right, but I hope that he will work with me and others in ensuring that we get better coverage for the public registers. However, that should in no way limit what we are attempting to achieve today, which will be a remarkable, important and really world-changing measure in the fight against corruption.

Our overseas territories are an integral part of Britain and they should be guided by the same values as us. Clamping down on corruption and toxic wealth is morally right. We will never be a truly global Britain on the back of stolen principles. Other Members have mentioned the White Paper that was published by the Government in 2012 on our relationship with our overseas territories. I simply refer Members to one phrase in that document:

“As a matter of constitutional law, the UK Parliament has unlimited power to legislate for the territories.”

The Government put that phrase pretty high up in that White Paper, so they are jealously guarding their powers in relation to the overseas territories. These are powers that we should always be reluctant to use, but they are also powers that Governments of both parties have employed in the past.

[Mr Cox]

In 2009, we gave the people of the Cayman Islands a solemn pledge in this House. We said, “We will not legislate for you in these areas of public responsibility without your consent.” By this measure today, we are breaking that promise to them, and it is beneath the dignity of this Parliament to do away with that promise and that pledge of good faith.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I simply draw the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to what his Government stated in 2012 in the White Paper. In that White Paper, they set out the fact that they were jealously guarding their right to legislate as and when that became appropriate. That is what his Government said in 2012.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

The truth is that the traffic in illicit money has an impact not just on people here in the UK—for example, through the acquisition of properties here—but worldwide. We see that in the losses in tax revenues, particularly to the poorest developing countries.

[Mr Cox]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman and I are going to agree. I am going to make some progress because I know that other Members wish to say certain things.

Openness and transparency do not stop the overseas territories from choosing to try to compete on tax. Although I would not approve, they can all set a corporation tax rate of zero. If they believe that that is a way of attracting financial services into their countries, they are free do so. We are asking for openness and not much more. I do agree with their argument that our registers need to be improved, but that is not an either/or; it is a both/and. We need both to improve our registers and ensure transparency in our overseas territories. To those who argue that the money will transfer to other tax havens, I say this: there may well be some leakage, but our tax havens play a disproportionately large role in the secret world that makes tax havens. If we lance that boil, it will be far easier for us to secure transparency elsewhere and much harder for other tax havens to sustain their business models.

Our campaign on transparency is not and has never been partisan. My party believes passionately that transparency is vital in the battle against financial crime and money laundering, but all Members of this House—from all the political tribes—share our determination to eliminate the wrongdoing that inevitably springs from the secrecy that pervades our tax havens. We cannot sit here and ignore the practices that allow Britain and our British overseas territories to provide safe havens for dirty money. If we can act to root out the corruption, we must do so. Our proposal is simple but powerful. It is easy to implement but lethal in its effectiveness. It is not just legally possible; it is morally vital. Britain and our overseas territories will not get rich on dirty money. We must act now and new clause 6 is an important move in doing so. I ask the House to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

That is a fair point, and those of us who have been supporting the Government loyally on this and working with them accept that it is a weakness in the argument. If we set an example, we hope that other people will follow. I hope that when the Minister winds up he will say how we will try to influence other countries and jurisdictions to follow this example.

[Mr Cox]

My hon. Friend has enormous experience of these territories and he will know, as I know, that the operation of surveillance and monitoring of flows of capital through the overseas territories is one of the best intelligence sources that we have on the movement of criminal moneys. To demand that the overseas territories all suddenly go public will give one hit—just like the WikiLeaks thing was a one-hit wonder—because no one will then trust those jurisdictions where the light of publicity has been shone. All it will mean is that the money goes to where it is darkest, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) said. The surveillance and intelligence operations that have been so effective will no longer be applicable. I know the jurisdictions well, and that is what will happen.

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

I very much hope that what my hon. and learned Friend says will not happen. Unfortunately, there will be a period of time when many corporate registrations will go elsewhere and we will then need the rest of the world to catch up.

Will the Minister, when he winds up, spell out very clearly how the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development will work with the territories to help them with the transition over the next few years? What specific efforts will be made to help them to diversify their economies away from financial services? What expert advice will be given to build up parts of businesses that we hope will attract international interest? Will he outline to the House what measures he thinks his Department can take in terms of representations we make to other jurisdictions? Having set an example, we need to make a virtue of it. We need to go out and ensure that we play our part even more fully in OECD and G20 initiatives across every single organisation involved, particularly the IMF and the World Bank. Will he spell out what we will do to work with them to ensure that we raise standards elsewhere in the world?

Finally, I would have supported the Government’s proposed amendment as I thought it was sensible and pragmatic. It would have helped to build a consensus with the overseas territories, rather than move in a direction that could lead to very serious constitutional problems and difficulties unless we are very careful indeed. The Minister needs to use all his diplomacy and experience to ensure that the transition is done properly and correctly.

--- Later in debate ---

My second point is about national security. We have heard several arguments this afternoon about why it is terribly important that we step super-cautiously around the constitutional privileges that we have granted to overseas territories and Crown dependencies. I respect that argument, but the reality is that money squirrelled away in those places is now being used to enable the undermining of our constitution. Therefore, if we want to drive forward the rules-based order that Her Majesty’s Government are keen to champion, we must act against the enablers of attacks on this country’s sovereignty and integrity.

[Mr Cox]

It is perfectly within our power—the Government have committed to do this—to institute a public register that requires the beneficial owners of any overseas entity wishing to own property in this country to be declared in public. We can do that as it is part of our jurisdiction. However, does the right hon. Gentleman not see that the step that is now being taken goes much further than that and requires the overseas territories to make things public even in relation to property that is not owned in the UK?

[Liam Byrne]

That is absolutely what I am proposing, and my reason is this country’s national security. Let me give the hon. and learned Gentleman a simple example. Back in November 2017, my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) raised the issue of some significant agents of influence in this country: the Chandler brothers, who happen to run an important think-tank that has enjoyed unrivalled access to Ministers during one of this country’s most important national debates. The risk—I put it no stronger than that—that we are running is that that support is financed from sources that derive from the Russian Federation, and it may therefore be part of the panoply of active measures that have been drawn together since the re-election of President Putin in 2012. He has made no secret of that. He set it out in a state of the union address to the Russian people in 2013. Some call it the Gerasimov doctrine, but, whatever it is called, we saw the sharp edge of that sword on the streets of Salisbury just a few weeks ago.

I want to give the House an example of how this influence can unfold in an innocent country like ours that has perhaps been a little inattentive to some of the risks that have been growing over the past few years. As the hon. Member for Isle of Man has mentioned—[Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely) has mentioned—he would have a different kind of specialism if he were the hon. Member for Isle of Man—the individuals to whom he referred are men of influence who help to finance an important think-tank.

I note with interest that the think-tank is financed by the Legatum Institute, which is registered in the Cayman Islands—registration number FC028686, for those who take an interest in these things—but why should these brothers be of such interest to us? Well, we know that Christopher Chandler and his chief executive, Mark Stoleson, have both taken Maltese passports through the passport-selling operation Henley & Partners. They both publicly accept that they hold accounts at the Iranian-Maltese bank Pilatus, the assets of which were frozen and its chairman arrested at the behest of the FBI in March. Both Pilatus and Henley & Partners were the subject of investigations by the Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, who was assassinated late last year.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight has referred to more. Richard Chandler’s file contains the additional statement:

“Richard Chandler and his brother Christopher play an important role in the capital of the companies Lukoil and Gazprom (linked to longstanding…Russian figures who could be linked to organised crime).”

Furthermore, they maintain relations with an individual, a Chechen mafia figure, who was “expelled from Monaco”. They are connected with money laundering. These allegations are made in the file.

--- Later in debate ---

16:31

Division 143

Ayes: 301

---

Labour: 246
Scottish National Party: 32
Liberal Democrat: 10
Plaid Cymru: 4
Independent: 3
Green Party: 1

Noes: 314

---

Conservative: 303
Democratic Unionist Party: 10
Independent: 1

[Mr Cox]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you know, at the conclusion of the debate on the amendments, I informed you that I wished to raise a point of order. I intervened on several occasions in the debate and I should have made it clear—as I would had you called me to speak—that I have on occasions practised in some of the Caribbean countries that formed the basis of our discussion in my capacity as a member of the Bar. I have done that for more than 20 years and I have a familiarity with those jurisdictions as a result.

The other matter I wish to raise is that before the commencement of the debate you informed us that you were not able to select the Government amendments. Can you clarify whether it was open to you to select those amendments, because you mentioned also that they had been submitted late? So that there should be no misunderstanding, especially outside the House, will you confirm that it would have been open to you, even though they were submitted late?

[Mr Speaker]

Yes. I do not wish to be unkind to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but—uncharacteristically for someone who is normally as fastidious and precise in his use of language and exegesis of what others say—he errs in quoting me. He said that I had indicated that I was not able to select the amendments. I accept that the error is inadvertent and not deliberate, but I never said that I was not able to select the amendments. I said at the outset that I had decided not to use my discretion to select the late starred new clauses and amendments from the Government, which were tabled yesterday afternoon and appeared in print for the first time only this morning. I absolutely accept that I have discretion in the matter, and I used that discretion as I thought right.

As for the other part of the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point of order, he was being most courteous in advising the House of that matter, but—and I do not mean this in any sense discourteously—I think it would be true to say that he was more interested in what he had to say to me and to the House than anything that I might have to say to him on the subject. He has made his point with force and clarity and I thank him for doing so.

Parliamentary Sovereignty and EU Renegotiations

Geoffrey Cox Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)]

On this day of all days, let me commence by striking—I hope—a note of humility. The truth is that I do not know whether the conclusion I have reached is right or wrong. I think that the problem we face in questioning our consciences in relation to whether or not our country should take this historic step to depart from the European Union is almost too big for a single individual to compute. All the potential economic consequences, and all the other consequences for our social and other fabric, are of a complexity by which individuals, and even Members of Parliament, would rightly feel daunted.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Mr Cox]

Not just now.

I think that the Prime Minister was right—completely right—when he said to the House this week, “Do what is in your heart.” We can never be sure, if we leave the European Union, that the economic consequences of doing so will play in one way or another, but we can have faith that they will, and, speaking for myself, I have that faith. Ultimately, we must ask ourselves, “What do we believe is right? What is important to us, as Members of Parliament and as representatives of our country and our constituents?”

That is why I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) struck the right note. For a long time I have remained silent on this issue, trying to wrestle with the rights and wrongs of it, and waiting until we have seen the final version of the proposals to be made by the Prime Minister. The draft decision was published by the Commission the day before yesterday; I have read it, and I have to say that I do not believe that it is a sham. I believe that it represents the best that the Prime Minister could do within the parameters that he had set himself. I think that there is much useful stuff there. If it is worked on, and if detail is provided and is sufficiently substantial and well drafted, no doubt it will provide some modest measure of satisfaction, and some ring-fencing for us in a thoroughly, fundamentally unsatisfactory position. However, I do not believe that it amounts to the rewriting of the DNA of this organisation which I believe the country is crying out for.

For that reason, I have concluded—and this is the first time that I have said so—that I shall be obliged to vote to leave the European Union. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, I believe that it is a question of freedom: the freedom of this country to be true to itself, and to follow the policies that the House and its Executive believe are the best policies, fitted and suited for the interests of this nation: not diluted, not representing an accommodation of, and a constant adjustment to, the competing interests of 29 member states, but following the path that this nation sets and that is right for this nation’s interests. For 40 years we have shifted, adjusted and felt uneasy in our skins at the compromises we have had to make as a consequence of our adherence to the Union.

I say to our partners in the European Union that this is not an act of hostility. It is a rebirth of our country in its full independence and its full freedom, to enable us to set our commercial policies, to be decisive and clear and give a lead to the international community in foreign policy, to set our own defence policy in the way we judge to be in the best interests of those we represent, to enable us to have clear lines of democratic accountability and to fulfil the spirit and genius of our own nation.

I say to this House and to those who listen outside: let us trust in the genius of our own people. Before 1974, did this country do so badly? Were we not leaders in the development of human rights? Did we not have 400 years of peaceful political evolution? This country does not have to be afraid of resuming its own independent self-governance. We can offer more to the world by that means than by being a muted voice in a big organisation with whose objectives and outcomes we do not feel at ease.

I shall not attempt to address now the technicalities of this issue or the economic rights and wrongs. I shall conclude on a note of freedom with the words of John Milton himself:

“Methinks I see in my mind a noble and puissant nation rousing herself like a strong man after sleep, and shaking her invincible locks. Methinks I see her as an eagle mewing her mighty youth, and kindling her undazzled eyes at the full midday beam.”

When he spoke those words, he spoke in defence of freedom and truth. Let us believe in the genius of our country.

Greenpeace Activists in the Russian Federation

Geoffrey Cox Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on his speech and on securing the debate and I applaud the approach with which he commenced. It does not help those who are currently incarcerated in Murmansk to insult or offend their custodians. What we must do—I apprehend it was the approach intended by the hon. Gentleman—is to appeal to the Russian authorities, to His Excellency the Russian ambassador, who I know is taking an interest in the proceedings this morning, and to the President of Russia. I hope that speakers in the House today will base their appeal not only upon an analysis of what occurred that day and during those days in which the Arctic Sunrise was pursued and seized, but upon the compelling compassionate grounds, which are represented in part by the attendance of the families of some of those who are in custody today.

In my constituency, I have the families of Alexandra Harris and Kieron Bryan. Both families are suffering the inevitable shocking anxiety and anguish of knowing that those whom they love are isolated and segregated in a faraway place and accused of something that they are convinced, as I am, they did not do, and they are anxiously awaiting their return. It is in that spirit that I hope those who are listening, particularly the Russian ambassador, will interpret all the remarks that we make this morning.

Kieron Bryan is 29. He was a videographer on the Arctic Sunrise. He was nominated for an award. He is a talented, young and idealistic man. He was not there to break the law; he was on board the ship merely to record what happened and to keep a record. Alex Harris is 27—my own daughter’s age—and was on board as a digital communications officer, in charge of the Twitter account. She was fresh from joining Greenpeace in Sydney, and has been a volunteer in Vietnamese orphanages. She is, again, an idealistic young person who was not there to break the law—far from it—and to whom the idea of illegal violence would have been anathema, as it would to Kieron Bryan.

We all in this country can be proud of such young people. They were not intending to threaten the Russian state. They were intending to make a point about drilling in the Arctic. We all know, as the hon. Member for Rhondda has said, that drilling in Arctic conditions is a dangerous, arduous task, and it is inevitable that there will be sensitivities among those whose task it is to protect such installations, but those sensitivities should not lead to disproportionate reactions. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, but, on reflection, I hope that the Russian ambassador, the President and the authorities currently conducting the proceedings in Murmansk will reflect that there is an important principle of law: proportionality.

Proportionality must be applied in all circumstances to all the actions of a sovereign state and its court system. The actions currently being taken against Alex Harris, Kieron Bryan and others who are under the custody of the Russian authorities are not proportionate.

As the hon. Member for Rhondda said, article 101 of the UN convention on the law of the sea interdicts illegal acts of violence for private ends on the high seas. The hon. Gentleman is completely right. Even if there was an illegal act of violence, which is doubtful, in the mere ascension of the rig with the intention of placing a banner upon it, it cannot be said that it was for private ends in the ordinary sense in which international lawyers mean it. Private ends must mean some form of deliberate attempt to secure a gain. In such circumstances, I would urge the Russian authorities to reflect on whether the charge of piracy is proportionate.

As the hon. Gentleman has said, to charge those young idealistic people—whose interest is not in violence but in peace, and, while some may think it misguided, is in preservation and creation, not destruction—with piracy is to bring into disrepute the very law that prohibits it. That is why I urge the Russian authorities, His Excellency the ambassador, who is listening to this debate, and those who may be listening in Russia itself to feel that the proportionality of their actions is under severe question.

There is another point that the hon. Gentleman did not mention: the United Nations convention prohibits actions of this type only on the high seas. The fact is that the oil rig was within the territorial waters of Russia, so any act against it would not necessarily be an act under the UN convention, and the action that was taken is not prohibited by the UN convention. The Arctic Sunrise was three nautical miles from the oil rig at the time—plainly, as the hon. Gentleman said, in international waters. In such circumstances, the exercise of power under the convention is questionable at least.

However, I do not wish to dwell upon the steps that were taken by the Russian authorities and whether or not they were lawful. I wish to dwell upon the plight of the individuals themselves. In the grim conditions of the Murmansk jail in which they reside are two young people whose families I represent. Kieron Bryan is a constituent of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who will speak eloquently on his behalf, but I hope she will forgive me if I say that I feel a powerful connection to the families of both Alexandra Harris and Kieron Bryan. They are Devonshire people from the area of Torridge that I have the privilege to represent. Alexandra Harris was brought up in a farming family of generations. She went to Dolton and then Great Torrington school. She attended that school with a constituent who works for me in my constituency.

Kieron Bryan was brought up in Shebbear, a great village in Torridge that I know well, so I feel particularly close to those two young people at this particular time. I urge the Russian authorities to understand that those two people, as well as all their colleagues at the time, were not there in any destructive, illegal or lawbreaking spirit. It is ironic that they are incarcerated in Murmansk, the port to which many convoys sailed through the Atlantic to bring to the Russians succour in a time of great need. I ask the President of Russia, the Russian ambassador and the Russian authorities to think again. The human reality of Alexandra Harris’s, Kieron Bryan’s and others’ plight is brought home, as the hon. Gentleman said, by the letter that Alexandra’s mother published only recently and which she has asked me to draw to the attention of the House and the Minister. The letter said:

“I’m worried about what’s going to happen. I have moments of feeling panicky, but then I try to tell myself that there’s nothing I can do from in here and what will be will be so it’s pointless worrying. But it’s hard. Surely my future isn’t rotting in prison in Murmansk?! Well, I really hope it isn’t.”

It is our job—the job of the Minister, the Prime Minister and all those who care for justice and for freedom—to see that it is not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bradshaw]

I absolutely agree, not least because more Britons are being held by the Russians in Murmansk than people from any other country. As has already been said, there are six of them, of whom three are from Devon.

In a letter to me from his jail in Murmansk, the marine engineer from Exeter, Iain Rogers, has complained bitterly about what he sees as the British Government’s lack of action, compared with what is being done by his fellow captives’ Governments. He makes this direct appeal to the Prime Minister:

“I find it hard to believe that you are not outraged that British subjects have been kidnapped at gunpoint, detained and abused and yet so far you have done nothing except sit on your hands. It is time to act Mr Cameron. You have a duty to protect UK citizens and international law.”

Iain’s mum, Sue Turner, visited the Foreign Office last week. I understand that she did not get to see a Minister, which is regrettable, but she did see an official. At a vigil held for the Arctic 30 in Exeter on Sunday, she told me that she and the rest of the relatives share a concern that they are not being given enough information. She said that when they asked why more was not being done and said publicly, she was told by the Foreign Office official that Russia had not responded well to criticism from abroad in the past. We all know that, and it may well be the case, but this has been going on for more than a month.

Many of us do not have a great deal of faith in the Russian judicial system, and other Members have already referred to the prosecution of Pussy Riot and the state- sponsored persecution of gay and lesbian people in Russia. The British Government should make it absolutely clear to the Russians—yes, privately if necessary—that the situation is unacceptable, and that severe damage will be done to our bilateral relations and Russia’s already battered international image unless the hostages are freed forthwith. The Government also need to tell the relatives and the British public what they are doing to help.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has quite rightly said that it would be inconceivable for the Sochi winter Olympics to go ahead unaffected if these 30 people from all over the world are still held illegally in a Russian jail. Does any hon. Member think that that would be an acceptable backdrop to an international sporting event? I hope that the Minister will reassure us by telling us what the Government are doing, and what representations he, and the Prime Minister personally, have been making. Are they supporting or are they a party to the Dutch legal action, and if not, why not?

[Mr Cox]

On the Dutch legal action, it is important to remember that only the Dutch have the standing to bring such an action: it was their sovereign-flagged ship, and they therefore have that status under the convention. We could not bring that action. Of course, we can support it morally, but we cannot be a party to it.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I defer to the hon. and learned Gentleman’s superior legal knowledge, but I hope that the Minister will at least tell us that we are supporting the Dutch legal action politically and morally.

Finally, what conversations have there been between the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary and Cathy Ashton? I would have thought that—given her very good reputation in recent months for bringing together parties, including the Russians, over Iran and Syria—the European Union’s foreign policy representative would be well placed to organise a co-ordinated European Union response to this intolerable behaviour by the Russian authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on securing this debate. The attendance this morning and the passion with which right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have spoken indicate clearly to anyone studying our proceedings, in this country or Russia, that there are extremely strong feelings in Parliament and among the wider British public about what has happened offshore and in Murmansk.

In the 11 or 12 minutes remaining, I will focus on the British nationals who have been detained. That is not to dismiss the importance of wider issues of Arctic policy that the hon. Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), raised. The Government published a new policy framework document on the Arctic last week, and there may be opportunities for a wider debate on those matters in the House.

The arrest of the six British nationals who were on board the Greenpeace vessel Arctic Sunrise was, and remains, of great concern to the British Government. We hope that there will be a resolution to the incident that is acceptable to all parties. The priorities that govern our approach at the moment are, first, to try to do everything we can to ensure the proper welfare of the British citizens and the two New Zealanders detained—the New Zealand Government have asked us to take responsibility for providing consular support—and, secondly, to find an outcome to the affair that is acceptable to all parties concerned.

We learned of the arrest of those aboard the Greenpeace vessel on 19 September, and on the same day we decided to deploy a consular team to Murmansk before the vessel got into port. We contacted the Russian authorities to secure access rights, and on 24 September, consular officials were able to meet the British nationals when they arrived in Murmansk to check their welfare and collect messages to pass back to their families.

Murmansk is some 1,000 miles from Moscow, and we do not have a permanent British consulate there, but because of the seriousness of the incident and the number of people involved, each week we have dispatched a team of officials to Murmansk from our missions in Moscow and St Petersburg. Our consular officials attended the preliminary court hearings for all British nationals between 26 and 29 September. As the House knows, all 30 detainees were remanded for up to two months and transferred to pre-trial detention facilities while the authorities investigated further. Both before and after the hearings, our consular officials were allowed to talk to the British citizens and take messages from them to pass to concerned relatives in the United Kingdom.

Our officials carried out further consular visits to all six British detainees on 3 and 4 October. We were able to check on their welfare and address any concerns; this included helping to ensure that one British national who had earlier collapsed in court received appropriate support. We have since continued to visit the British nationals regularly, and our officials were present during the appeal hearings that concluded this week. As the House knows, the court dismissed all the appeals and upheld detention. Due to our lobbying efforts, at present all the British nationals are being held in the same detention facility, and have had regular access to Greenpeace lawyers.

Briefly, on the points raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda, our understanding is that all the detainees have access to lawyers, who were provided by Greenpeace in the first instance. We have also provided lists of local lawyers who we understand are able to do business in English—clearly, the FCO cannot vouch for the quality of any particular legal representative. We take up with the Russian authorities any concerns about prison conditions and access to appropriate medical treatment, as well as other concerns that detainees may have. Our latest information is that some of the detainees are sharing cells and others are in a cell on their own. We have raised any concerns expressed to us by the detainees with the prison authorities. The detainees are telling us at the moment that the conditions are what they term “broadly acceptable.” I am not saying that the conditions are comfortable in the remotest, but the detainees themselves describe the conditions as “broadly acceptable.”

Our priority is to ensure that we continue to provide consular assistance to the British nationals in Murmansk and to maintain contact with their families here in the UK. I have made it clear to my officials that when it comes to prison conditions and access to visits of any kind, I want to ensure that we hold the Russians to the letter of what they offer under their own prison rules, law and constitution.

On 2 October, the Russian investigative authority charged all 30 detainees with acts of piracy. Bearing in mind the clearly stated view of President Putin, many hon. Members will have been surprised that piracy charges were brought. The UN definition of piracy in the convention on the law of the sea does not appear to uphold the charges. The charges, however, are being brought under a particular provision of the Russian criminal code. I agree with those who have said during this debate that the key issue is the proportionality of the charges. We are in regular touch with Greenpeace lawyers on that issue, but the legal picture is complicated by the Russians arguing that the action comes under their domestic law.

As some hon. Members have commented, the Dutch have taken the ship’s detention to international arbitration. That is a legal matter for the Dutch as flag nation, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) said, but we remain in close contact with the Dutch authorities on that aspect of the case.

[Mr Cox]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Lidington]

I will, but I would be grateful if my hon. and learned Friend was brief.

[Mr Cox]

The arrest of a ship on the high seas must be done under the UN convention. Is it the opinion of the Foreign Office that the arrest of the ship was within or without the legal power under the convention?

[Mr Lidington]

With respect to my hon. and learned Friend, I am not here to comment on the Russian legal case. I am certainly not saying that we agree with the case, but the Russian argument is that the Russian domestic criminal code applies to the rig, and that the small boats from the main vessel that approached close to the rig were in breach of that criminal code. That is the Russian argument, and it may be something to take up in more detail with the Russian ambassador when hon. Members meet him.

It is not only in Murmansk that we have taken action. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the issue with the Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in New York on 25 September, and he followed that with a letter to him on 6 October. Senior FCO officials raised the case with the Russian ambassador to the United Kingdom on 26 September. Our ambassador in Moscow raised the case with deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov on 2 October and met deputy Foreign Minister Titov yesterday to discuss the case further. We will maintain that senior-level engagement. We continue to use working-level contacts with the Russian Government, and to explore other options to raise the issue with senior Russian interlocutors.

European Union Bill

Geoffrey Cox Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Quite possibly, but that is the essence of democracy, and one of the reasons we were put here in the first place is to keep check if not on what our own Government are doing, at least on what institutions to which we are giving powers might be doing with them. I would like the Minister to reiterate the comments I have heard from his officials about the emergency brake and new clause 4 possibly not being needed.

[Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)]

Why has my hon. Friend chosen to put a veto in the hands of the other place? I can understand why the matter might be subject to a vote of this House, but why also to a vote in the other place?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Well, that sounded better to me when I was writing it down. It seemed perfectly logical for this to be a matter for both Houses, and the other place does scrutinise European matters, as we have discussed. It has a depth of expertise on European matters, although it might be completely wrong in its conclusions.