Gibraltar: UK-EU Negotiations

Robert Neill Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. We agree that we need to stand steadfast in our support for Gibraltar. I say again that we will not agree to anything that compromises sovereignty. It is important that today’s conversations are taking place between the Minister for Europe and the Chief Minister, setting out the future discussions and looking at what might be—we hope not—a non-negotiated outcome. We will be working closely with the Government in Gibraltar and we will continue to see what support they might need in any scenario that might arise, but we are working in good faith towards a deal.

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

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as chair of the all-party group on Gibraltar. Does the Minister recognise that our group has visited Gibraltar not once but repeatedly since the Brexit process and has kept in regular touch with the people on the Rock, their businesses and the Government of Gibraltar? Does he also agree that, ultimately, the only people who are best placed to judge what is in the interests of Gibraltar are its British people and that the first duty of a British Government must be to protect their interests at all times? Does he also agree that the very close co-operation between His Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom and that of Gibraltar is recognised on both sides and that in no circumstances are either side prepared to cross any red lines, but that a pragmatic solution, recognising Gibraltar’s unique geographical position, is necessary and achievable? Will he commit to the Government’s renewed determination to achieve that within those proper principles that we all stand by?

[David Rutley]

I recognise the important work of the all-party group under my hon. Friend’s stewardship as chair and the important work that he has done in engaging with the people of Gibraltar and the Government there. He rightly says that there are opportunities not just to protect sovereignty but to ensure future prosperity for Gibraltar and its people. I restate that, as was made clear in the letter sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), the UK Government and Gibraltar have

“never worked more closely together”.

That is entirely right, given the seriousness of, and where we are in, the negotiating process.

Beneficial Ownership Registers: Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

The right hon. Member makes a really important point, which I will come to later. He is right: this is a national security threat as well as a threat to our economy.

The Government have yet to comply with the legislation by making an Order in Council to mandate compliance by the overseas territories. After discussions between the Crown dependencies and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and myself, the three Crown dependencies —Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man—announced in May 2019 that they were committed to introducing public registers and set out a plan to do so. Although I welcomed that in principle, I was concerned that their commitment was qualified and that their action plan contained a number of opt-out clauses. However, on the basis of their commitment, we chose not to legislate but to trust them. It now seems that our trust was misplaced. They are reneging on that commitment and using every excuse not to comply.

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

I understand how strongly the right hon. Member feels. May I point out that, as a matter of constitutional fact, we have no right to legislate for any of the Crown dependencies? Constitutionally, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of this Parliament.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I have enormous respect and time for the hon. Member, but I have an opinion from a renowned KC that we sought at that time—I will come to it later—which contradicts entirely his point and says that we do have the constitutional right to legislate.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to see the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) in her place and I congratulate her on securing this debate. She and I have agreed on many issues and have worked together closely in the past. I happen to support the concept of a public register of beneficial ownership in the United Kingdom, and I supported it when it was first introduced.

I declare my interest as chair of the Gibraltar all-party parliamentary group. As the right hon. Lady has observed, Gibraltar has established a public register of beneficial ownership. It is right, therefore, that we should not treat all the overseas territories as homogenous. In one respect, Gibraltar, with its particular links both to the United Kingdom and Europe, has chosen to go in that direction, and we should support it in having done so. That was its decision as a self-governing overseas territory. It has continued to do that, even though it must be observed—and we should not make light of this fact—that the ruling of the European Court of Justice has now meant that some 23 of the 27 EU states have closed their registers. We should be careful about dismissing that. It does not apply to us anymore, because we have left the European Union, but we should not dismiss that fact and simply pooh-pooh it, because it has an impact on others. Gibraltar chose, despite that, to continue with its register.

That brings us to the position of the Crown dependencies. I refer to this matter, of course, as chair of the Justice Committee; we have to remember that the constitutional position of the Crown dependencies is totally different from that of the overseas territories. They are not part of the United Kingdom and never have been. I say that with due respect to any legal opinion that can be produced—frankly, though, one legal opinion counts for very little against centuries of constitutional convention and the views of successive British Governments of all parties.

The simple fact is that the Crown dependencies have never been subject to this Parliament. They are not represented in this Parliament. They have their own legislatures, which are sovereign in those matters. We should not allow good intentions to lead us into arrogance as an institution and purport to legislate in areas where we have no right. I happen to think that, if I were in one of those legislatures, I might well be making the case for broadening out their registers, but it is not for us to presume to do so.

There has been some progress. As a Select Committee, we took some evidence from the Crown dependencies in our role of scrutinising the Ministry of Justice, which handles the relationship—it is not the Foreign Office that does so. I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) in his place. He has established a very constructive relationship with the Crown dependencies.

What we have is this: the Crown dependencies have chosen at the moment not to go down the route that we have gone down. If we want them to go down that route, we must persuade them to do so of their own volition as sovereign independent countries. That may well be where they get to. At the end of the day, there has been some movement. As a matter of fact, were they here, they would say that they do have central, fully compliant, authorised and accurate registers of beneficial ownership. They are not open to the public as of yet, but they do meet international standards. They are subject to the Moneyval monitoring process of the European Union and they comply with all the international standards. We have chosen to go further than those standards, but they have gone as far as that.

Secondly, all three of them, in lockstep on national interest matters and money laundering, transpose into their domestic law all the sanctions that we have brought in as the UK in relation to Russia, and it is no good pretending otherwise. The national security argument is therefore, frankly, a rather thin one. There are better arguments to make, such as good practice. None the less, they told us when they gave evidence to the Committee that there has been an intention to move towards a greater degree of openness in their registers. They have taken the view, and it is their choice at the moment, on their legal advice—their legal system is as good in their sphere as ours is in ours—that they wish to take stock of the decision of the European Court of Justice and the impacts it may have on them, not least because they have a data adequacy agreement with the EU.

When they read the detailed decision of the ECJ, as I have, the Crown dependencies found difficulties in both a disproportionality between general public access and rights to privacy—those rights under the charter of fundamental rights, I might observe, mirror exactly those in the European convention on human rights, which, as it happens, binds us still—and in relation to data protection. They were concerned about a potential risk to their data protection equivalence with the EU.

Let us hope that we are able to find a way in which we can all agree a sensible step forward. As I understand it, the Crown dependencies are committed to making an announcement later this month that they will be extending their work further. They are looking first of all at obliged entities—people who need to carry out due diligence—and then at the concept of legitimate interest. That is a step forward. Let us perhaps wait and see what they say. We will get more progress with our Crown dependency friends by co-operation and discussion than we will, with respect, by lecturing.

Sanctions

Robert Neill Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

The hon. Gentleman is generous as ever in offering to assist us to make progress. I hope that, as we bring in the secondary legislation, it will be another step towards tightening the pressure on those who would wish to use legal representation for the wrong things.

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

I welcome the Minister’s willingness to engage on the general licence; it is very important to the Law Society, and for good and sound reasons. We all share the policy objective, so will she perhaps agree to meet, at both official and ministerial level, with representatives of the Law Society so we can thrash out the exact detail and get it right?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I will be happy to do so. I know that we aim to have this in place in the coming days. As I said, we are working closely with the legal sector and are grateful for its constructive engagement on this important issue. I am happy to commit to my officials meeting the Law Society to hear its particular concerns and indeed, I have no doubt, offers of its views on how we can make the scheme as effective as possible.

Once we have issued the licence, we will consider whether amendments to the SI to address the issue are appropriate and necessary. We will do that in conjunction with the legal sector and bring such amendments forward, if needed, at the earliest opportunity.

As with all other sanctions, this latest package has been developed in co-ordination with our international partners. We will continue to work with the legal community to monitor the effects of the legislation to ensure that it is achieving its objectives. We will also continue to co-ordinate with our international allies to identify and address any gaps or loopholes that emerge in our respective sanctions regimes.

To conclude, this latest measure demonstrates our determination to target those who participate in or facilitate Putin’s illegal war of choice. Through our sanctions regime and those of our allies, Russia is increasingly isolated, cut off from western markets, services and supply chains. Key sectors of the Russian economy have taken a significant hit and its economic outlook is bleak. The UK Government will use actions to intensify the military and economic pressure on Russia until Putin ends his brutal invasion of Ukraine. We welcome the clear and continued cross-party support for this action and for the sanctions regime. I commend the regulations to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Neill]

I welcome the tone and approach of the Minister’s remarks, and I fully understand and support the policy objectives of the regulation, as does every decent lawyer in this country. For completeness, I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. We want the UK legal system to retain its reputation as an able, efficient and honest jurisdiction, which it is. However, it is important that we get the detail right, so, with apologies from one lawyer to another, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that, if I say the detail matters sometimes, there may be a little detail to raise with the Minister in the context of her very welcome assurance that she will meet, and have officials meet, to discuss what comes next. I appreciate that the regulations have—rightly—had to be developed at pace, and that we have sought to be aligned with our allies, but there are some bits to which further attention needs to be paid.

I am grateful to the Law Society of England and Wales for the briefing that it has sent to a number of hon. Members. Given that we all endorse the policy objective that Russia must never be allowed to gain from its barbaric and disgraceful invasion of Ukraine, and that Russian entities must never be able to gain from it, we must do it in a way that retains the ability of UK-based international law firms to advise, with the highest level of professionalism, on the way in which clients may wish to divest themselves of interests in Russia, for example, or on the risks or otherwise of potential transactions that might involve an element of a Russian entity of one kind of another. It is in everybody’s interest that they are able to do that, but I am concerned, as is the Law Society, that the wording of the regulations, however well intended—I think that they are totally well intended—may have the unintended effect of limiting it.

In particular, there is concern that the very broad language of the regulations is broader than that of our counterparts in the United States and the EU in terms of limitations. The Minister is absolutely right that we should align, so that is something we perhaps now need to revisit. Licensing may be one way, and a revised statutory instrument may be another—perhaps the two go together—to align the language

I will set out one or two of the practical consequences. The language of new paragraph 8A(1)(a)(i) to schedule 3J —I think I have got that right; it is all in the detail, Madam Deputy Speaker—is quite important. Essentially, it prohibits advice that facilitates or enables activity that would be prohibited if it were conducted in the UK or by a UK person—let us call it “UK-prohibited activity”. It then goes on to prohibit any advice in relation to, or in connection with, UK-prohibited activity. In that context, “advice” includes the provision of legal advice that involves—here is the rub—

“the application or interpretation of law”.

Well, that is pretty much what lawyers do, hopefully: they advise people about the application and interpretation of the law. Early advice is the best way to prevent people from getting into legal problems and prevent needless litigation. There is, I accept, an exemption covering advice, but, as the Minister will know, there is real concern that the exemption is narrowly drawn—too narrow, I would argue.

On the face of it, that means in practical terms that British companies cannot get advice from English and Welsh lawyers on whether their activity will comply with international sanctions regimes, for example. They could go to American lawyers for that. Many American-based law firms have entered the UK legal markets. It would be a bizarre situation if one could not go to the UK law firm for that advice but could go to the New York office of the American law firm. I do not think that was the intention behind the policy. We must ensure that the language reflects the intention.

In the same way, if, for example, an international company wants to know whether a specific activity that it is contemplating for perfectly good and legitimate commercial purposes is prohibited by UK, EU or US sanctions—all of which vary somewhat—the UK lawyers can answer on whether or not that activity is prohibited by UK sanctions, but once the lawyer has said, “Yes it is,” they are not then allowed to advise on whether it is prohibited by EU or US sanctions. That cannot be a sensible or practical approach, and it cannot be what the Government actually want to achieve.

The whole advantage of UK international law firms is, of course, that they have many multidisciplinary lawyers and people qualified in many jurisdictions. Our strength is that people come to us because we can advise on a range of law in a range of jurisdictions. At the moment, however, a lawyer would be committing an offence if they took the obvious step. Instead, they have to say, “Okay, it is illegal in the UK, but I cannot tell you whether it is illegal in the EU or the US.” That is clearly not a situation that anybody wants to see. The difficulty is that the language does not reflect the intention. Surely, giving such advice does not enable or facilitate unlawful activity. It allows a company to know whether, if it does the activity, it might infringe the law, and whether the law is applicable to it. The language does not reflect that policy intention as it stands.

Another example is that the advice exception in regulation 60DB(3) is limited to advice on compliance with sanctions, and not to other forms of compliance advice. The logic is that one seeks advice from one’s lawyer on the whole range of potential legal risks that one might run in taking a particular course of commercial activity. The facts will be the same, and may raise questions about sanctions compliance, but as it stands—this is of real concern to the Law Society—a UK lawyer could supply the client only with advice on sanctions, not on whether they comply with other criminal offences. The strict wording of that regulation would, on the face of it, criminalise lawyers giving advice on whether that same form of action falls foul not just of sanctions, but of anti- money-laundering, anti-bribery and export control laws.

Surely we want any UK lawyer to be able to give one-stop-shop, rolled-up advice on all the legal risks that might arise from that activity, but at the moment, once they have established the first part—that it falls foul of the UK sanctions regime—they cannot go on and do the obvious and common sense thing of saying, “And, by the way, you also fall foul of this, that and the other.” That cannot be the intention, but as it stands, that is where we could end up.

That is why the general licence is, in the short term, so important. Individual licences, which were referred to by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), have been tried in the past. Not only is there difficulty in how effective they are in policy terms, but there are practical difficulties as well.

That is where advice about disinvestment comes in, for example, because UK companies might very properly want to withdraw from transactions involving Russian entities or individuals. Surely we want UK lawyers to be able to advise them fully and frankly on how best to disinvest. But if they have either to be caught by the risk of a criminal sanction or to get an individual licence, we know that Russia—not a rule-of-law country, to put it mildly—is well able to take actions to sequester property and prevent the return of assets to British nationals and British companies in a way that we would never countenance in this House. When dealing with people of that kind, we do not have that leisure, frankly. Once a company has taken the decision to disinvest, they want to get the assets out quickly. Waiting for an individual licence would not make that possible. That is why a general licence, rather than individual licences, is important.

That is why it is important to sit down with the Law Society, hear the lived experience of law firms in the UK, and get the regime right so that it sticks. Regrettably, this war, and therefore the sanctions, may go on for longer than any of us would wish—however long it takes to get Ukraine its freedom and to get rid of that wretched regime in the Kremlin—so we must have something that will stand the test of time. That is why I am so anxious for the Minister to engage in detail with the Law Society about this.

I have a final example. We could have a situation in which an EU firm based in the UK can go to their Paris office for advice on different terms of legal trade from the UK office. That cannot be to the advantage of the UK legal system, and it does not help us to align with our allies.

I have greatly shortened the briefing that I received because everyone wants to get away for the summer recess. I hope I have flagged up some serious practical points. There is an issue of principle, but the detail matters. If we can work together to get that right, I hope we can come back to the House after the recess with the general licence and a revised approach to the SI, which will give us a permanent system through which to bear down on the evil of the Russian regime while enabling British lawyers, with their expertise, to play their part in that fight. At the moment, they would have one hand tied behind their back, which was not the Government’s intention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Long may he persist.

I support the measure before us today. The Minister knows that I and other Members have campaigned for as robust a set of sanctions as possible. I have been critical sometimes of the processes we have used to get there. Oliver Bullough wrote a splendid book that lays out why it is important to deal not only with financial instruments but with some of the people who have effectively enabled others to bypass sanctions regimes and hide their money from prying eyes in the UK.

It was a joy to hear the extremely learned hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), not least because he referred to “every decent lawyer”. I detected a characteristic wink at that point, because not every lawyer is decent, m’lud. I gently suggest—

[Sir Robert Neill]

rose—

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Now look what I have done.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I have prosecuted some less than decent lawyers over the years, so I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. But he knows just how good the English legal system is collectively, and I know he will want to recognise that.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I have great admiration for lawyers, especially those who advise me, as is occasionally necessary—[Laughter.] It is a serious point: if the UK stands for anything in the world, it is the rule of law. The hon. Gentleman and I have often had to join cause on occasions when we have worried that the Front Benches have not quite seen things in exactly the same way as we do.

I will not rehearse all the arguments, which were laid out so beautifully for the hon. Gentleman and others in the Law Society’s note. He understood it better than I did. The important point is that all British businesses should be withdrawing from Russia. It is extraordinary that any British businesses are still doing significant business in Russia. I do not wish to make any partisan points, but I think it is still true that Infosys has a substantial presence and has not managed to wind down its presence in Russia. That is worrying. Mantrac is certainly still operating in Russia, and some of the money it has earned there will have made its way into its recent £5 million donation to the Conservative party. We should be doing more due diligence about these matters.

I do not understand how Unilever can still claim that it is only selling Magnum ice creams in Russia because they are an essential item. They might be an essential item for somebody who is going to watch the “Barbie” movie later this year—that sort of fits—but in all seriousness, I honestly do not think that Unilever should still have a significant presence, or any presence, in the Russian Federation. Its remaining there is a problem. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to the point about British companies being able to advise on how to disinvest as fast as possible. If the regulations were to make that more difficult, that would be a bit of an own goal on our part.

I have some other, very minor, points to make. One is that the sanctions regime is now getting very complex. These are No. 3, the third regulations in this Session. I know that this Session of Parliament has gone on a bit—one could argue that the whole of this Parliament has gone on a bit, maybe a bit too long—but we are relying on lots of statutory instruments and secondary legislation. The amount of such legislation has grown enormously over the past 20 years, not just since 2010 but before then, and there is a danger that it is very difficult for lawyers to keep up with what the law is. Of course, there is no excuse for lawyers to say that they do not know what the law is, but none the less, these regulations came into force on 30 June—they are already in force. That is the problem with the way in which we are legislating these days. When there is a Labour Government, I hope that we will use secondary legislation much less frequently, because we need to be able to amend legislation on the Floor of the House or in Committee to make sure that Governments do not make silly mistakes.

I note the subtle difference in the exemption that exists for advice. Of course, advice can cover a multitude of sins and is sometimes designed to do so, but I note the subtle difference between the exemptions granted in the UK, those granted in the US and those granted in the EU. If I heard the Minister correctly, she attributed those to the different legal systems that exist in those jurisdictions. That may be true, but I would like her to expand on that and explain why it is necessary for us to make distinctions in that way. Otherwise, the point made by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is absolutely right: an international law firm could just say, “All right, I’m popping over to Paris, Madrid, Berlin or wherever for the weekend, and we will do it from there.” That would be a mistake. I also think that sanctions need to be a stiletto blade, not a blunderbuss, if they are to be truly effective in peeling away support from Vladimir Putin within the Russian Federation.

In a previous debate on sanctions, I referred to the former leader of UKIP. Let me be absolutely clear: I have had no correspondence of any kind—electronic, in writing, or digital—with Coutts bank about him, or for that matter about anybody else, because I do not have many constituents who bank with Coutts. I have no idea why Coutts has closed his bank account, but I should have been more careful with the words that I used a year ago. The figure I gave was for his total income. I think he himself has stated that he was paid for his appearances on Russia Today, which is of course a part of the Russian state, and he has made clear his respect for Vladimir Putin as a nationalist. However, I do not think that the figure I gave was anywhere near the accurate figure, so I apologise if I have inadvertently misled the House. I had no intention of doing so, and I hope that puts the record straight. I had hoped that this afternoon’s debate was going to include a debate on the Procedure Committee’s report into allowing all Members of the House to correct the record, rather than just Ministers, but that option is not yet available to us. As such, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have rather stretched your generosity in making these comments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Neill Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

As I said, we are concerned about demolitions and evictions of Palestinians, which call into question Israel’s commitment to a viable two-state solution. We are pushing for it to reconsider forthcoming evictions.

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

For those of us who are friends of Israel—and proud to be—one of its strengths has been its independent judiciary, which has on occasion struck down arbitrary action by Israeli authorities. Will the Minister say, as friends, to his Israeli counterparts when he next meets them that any proposals that might reduce the independence of the judiciary in Israel would not help Israel’s cause, would not help stability in the region and would make it harder for its friends to advocate for its cause?

[David Rutley]

I understand my hon. Friend’s important point. We endorse the words of Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who is seeking a compromise. He recently said:

“In the midst of a deep and worrisome crisis, the responsible act of leadership must be to sit and talk”.

Overseas Territories

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 11th May 2023 Commons Chamber

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

This has been a most welcome and important debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on securing it. We have talked about the value of all the overseas territories as part of the British family. I want to concentrate on one part of that family, Gibraltar. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, having had the honour to chair the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar for a number of years now, and the pleasure and privilege of being a regular visitor to the Rock over that time. I, too, have benefited from the advice and assistance that many Members have had from the Gibraltar Government’s representative office in London, headed up by Dominique Searle, who is in the Gallery.

Gibraltar is absolutely clear in its determination to remain solely British in its sovereignty. That has been reaffirmed by 99% of its electorate at two successive referendums. It is important, therefore, that we reject the notion that it should be classified as a non-governing territory, as with the others. However, I gently say to some of my hon. Friends that it is entirely for the people of the overseas territories to determine their relationship in terms of representation here. Any inquiry may be interesting and useful, but it would be presumptuous of any of us to suggest to any overseas territory what form its representation and relationship should take—actually, it would run slightly contrary to the suggestion of self-determination. It is for them to initiate; it is for us, as their friends and family, to support them in all the choices they make.

One of the choices that Gibraltar made was to be British, and to accept a referendum result that it had voted overwhelmingly against. Gibraltar’s relationship with the European Union, because of a land border, is inevitably different, and 96% of the voters of Gibraltar would have preferred that we had remained in the European Union. However, the Gibraltarians, as part of the British family, went with the democratic vote of the British family, and we owe them in consequence of that. The most important thing that we owe them, which must be delivered by the Foreign Office, is a proper UK-EU treaty on Gibraltar that reflects the particular needs that Gibraltar has.

Gibraltar has transformed itself magnificently over the past few decades, from a traditional garrison-come-dockyard economy into a diverse and thriving economy with tourism, internet businesses and, in particular, a very successful financial services sector. To fuel and make that economy work, some 15,000 people a day cross the land border with Spain at La Línea. Keeping that land border free-flowing is an essential prerequisite of any deal, which must be achieved in a way that respects Gibraltar’s sovereignty and integrity. That should not be impossible to do. It should be the top priority of the Foreign Office in resolving the remaining EU-UK issues. I assure the House it is the top priority of the Spanish Foreign Office; it ought to be a high priority for us, too. The deal should work for both sides, because the economic prosperity that Gibraltar generates greatly assists those regions of Spain adjoining it in the Campo de Gibraltar. It would be in everyone’s interests, so we must get the deal done. Should we fail, heaven forbid, we would have a moral obligation to pick up the economic costs that would fall upon Gibraltar in consequence. The best thing to do is to make sure that never happens and that we get a deal.

The second thing is the practical support we can give to Gibraltar in various specific ways. The success of the University of Gibraltar has already been referenced. It is right that we should treat those students as home students for the purpose of access to UK loans. They should also surely have access to research funds, such as the successor to the Horizon programme. They lost that when we lost the EU, and we should ensure that is included in a deal. Gibraltar University has a successful midwifery course and programme. Bizarrely, Gibraltar midwifery qualifications are not recognised by the UK Nursing and Midwifery Council. I hope the Department of Health and Social Care will put that right. The most important thing beyond that is the position of Gibraltar’s health service, which cannot procure NHS supplies at the same price as the rest of the UK. That cannot be logical. Those are practical things. We talk about them being family and we should treat them as family.

[Henry Smith]

On the issue of Gibraltar airport, does my hon. Friend believe that it is incumbent on the British Government to seek to help the Rock as far as possible with solutions that could be extremely beneficial to Gibraltarians?

[Sir Robert Neill]

That is absolutely right. The airport was designed in a way that, had relations between Britain and the EU been different, could have been extremely beneficial to both sides of the border. That may yet still be possible. There is good will, and no one has worked harder than Gibraltar Ministers and their officials to try to get a deal on this. Absolute maturity and good faith have been demonstrated by Gibraltar, and it is important that we support it. It is also important that we talk to the MOD about the operation of the airport, because I was rather shocked to see that the airport had to close the other day because the Met Office could not send somebody to make sure that the weather forecasts were available. We have to get that right and treat Gibraltar on a proper basis. Those are basics that we ought to get right.

[Alicia Kearns]

My hon. Friend touched on the officials. May I put something on the record and ask his advice, as a learned friend? Recently, there was a controversy where a senior civil servant of the Foreign Office was lambasted and publicly named in the media as having undermined British sovereignty in Gibraltar. Does he share my unease that individuals in this House, or perhaps those associated with them, chose to brief against a Foreign Office civil servant who has no right of reply? They cannot contact the media, correct the record or speak up on their own behalf. I am gravely concerned about reputation and the standard that sets. Does he agree we should be considerate in the way we speak about civil servants, who cannot respond?

[Sir Robert Neill]

I entirely agree. I am glad to say that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar made a clear statement after that unfortunate comment was made, making it clear that there was no question of concern for the Government of Gibraltar as to the competence or probity of the official’s conduct. Fortunately, nothing was done to prejudice negotiations, but the raising of that did not help at that time, and it was a needless distraction. I hope therefore that we will show the same maturity as Gibraltarians have throughout the whole process.

The final thing I was going to touch on was the whole question of sovereign rate borrowing, which has already been referred to. Because of the pandemic, Gibraltar had to borrow significantly. We were grateful for the support it was given. It wants to continue to be able to borrow money at UK sovereign rates, because the sovereign rate guarantee means it can get a much more attractive rate. Given that we are already charging it more than the rest of the UK would pay for its NHS supplies—much of that went to keep its health service and economy going—surely we owe it the decency of a guarantee of 25 years’ repayment at sovereign rates on the money that was borrowed to assist it during the pandemic.

Gibraltar is a brilliant place. I hope many Members will join the all-party group, and I hope they will be at the national day again this year, joining the people of Gibraltar in reaffirming their British identity, but we need to give them practical support in the interim now.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Neill Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty]

We bring a huge amount of diplomatic pressure to bear. Clearly, it is difficult countering the deprivations of the Taliban regime, but we have a huge stake in the game because we disbursed £286 million-worth of aid this year alone. That is the right thing to do, because we know that women and children are disproportionately affected by this kind of conflict.

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

When Kabul fell, the Government rightly undertook to assist in the relocation of courageous Afghan judges who had taken a key role in the fight against the Taliban. Since then, however, a High Court decision has ruled against the operation of the latest resettlement schemes and there is concern that the level of support initially given is drying up. Will the Minister meet me to discuss, with members of British judiciary, schemes and ways by which we might improve and revise the system?

[Leo Docherty]

Of course, I am happy to meet. We have had some success extracting judges, but if my hon. Friend would like to meet me to furnish me with those specific details, I will try to try to expedite a response.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Robert Neill Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 27th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

As I have made clear, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement should have primacy. The fact is that it has been undermined over the past two years, as we can see from the fact that the institutions of Northern Ireland are not up and running. That is why the Government need to act, and we are doing so in a reasonable and legal way.

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

I entirely accept my right hon. Friend’s desire to achieve a negotiated settlement if at all possible; I know how much work has gone into that. To return to the legal point, she will know that the application of the doctrine of necessity requires both the legal tests to be met and the evidential base to be there, because it is largely fact-specific to show whether those tests have been met. I know that the Government have been working hard to assemble that evidential base, but can she tell us when it will be available to the House so that we can form a judgment as to whether those legal tests are met and, therefore, proportionality and necessity are met? It would be helpful to have that before we come to a conclusion on the Bill.

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. There are clearly very severe issues in Northern Ireland, including the fact that its institutions are not up and running, which mean that the UK has to act and cannot allow the situation to drift. I do not think that we have heard what the Opposition’s alternative would be, apart from simply hoping that the EU might suddenly negotiate or come up with a new outcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I have sat diligently through the entire debate, and I think that the House is soberly and carefully examining an issue that is not just about Brexit or our relationship with the EU, but which goes to the heart of the exceptional nature of Northern Ireland and its position in our great United Kingdom. That arrangement was reached a century ago, whether we like it or not. The consequences of Northern Ireland’s exceptional position have made this particular issue so vexed and complicated.

I was in Government when the final withdrawal agreement was negotiated. We all remember—I certainly do with great clarity—the need for there to be an agreement with the EU for us to be able to chart a way forward, not just in terms of our withdrawal and the period of grace that we had for a year after that, but our subsequent trade agreement. For me, that is of paramount importance.

I therefore come to this debate after very careful and measured thought. As an unalloyed pro-European, I still believe in the importance of Britain’s role with our friends in Europe and the importance of maintaining strong bilateral arrangements, and I do not want to see us doing anything hastily that could jeopardise that important continuing relationship. That is why we should heed very strongly the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), who was the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—he worked diligently to bring back that Executive, with great success—about the need for Franco-British bilateral discussions to proceed at pace. In my considered view, that will be how we unlock the sort of negotiation that everybody in the Chamber wants.

Hon. Members are right to talk about the need for negotiation, but the reality is that there is no negotiation. We cannot even call it a negotiation because Maroš Šefčovič, in working for the Commission, needs political direction from the EU and its member states—most notably, France—to be able to even call his discussions with the United Kingdom a negotiation. That is the reality.

Although masterly inactivity is sometimes absolutely the right way for nation states to proceed, I am afraid that that is not an option for us here. A nation should pursue masterly inactivity when it has a position of advantage and I am afraid that we do not have that, because our essential interests are under threat. We have identified our essential interests as the

“maintenance of stable social and political conditions in Northern Ireland, the protection of the 1998 Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement, the effective functioning of the unique constitutional structures created under that Agreement, and the preservation and fostering of social and economic ties between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom”.

Here is the point I want to make, in the short time I have: a lot has been said about necessity, as if it requires imminent peril or an immediate threat facing us just outside the door. Nobody is saying that we face that, but necessity in this context does not require that degree of imminence; it requires a degree of real threat, and growing evidence of a real threat to our essential interests. I would argue that there is such growing evidence. Clearly north-south is entirely unaffected—the respect we are showing for the single market is clear—but there is a growing problem when it comes to east-west. The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) put it very well when he talked about the prawn sandwich argument.

I have to say that at a time when there seems to be violent agreement among all the parties of Northern Ireland, and indeed among all of us in this Chamber, the full implementation of the protocol is not what we want to see. Nobody wants that. What on earth are we all arguing about?

[Sir Robert Neill]

My right hon. and learned Friend speaks wisely about these topics, as ever. He refers to the doctrine of necessity and the tests that must be met. I think he will agree that, whether it be imminent or emerging, there has to be evidence that the high threshold is met. Does he think that, in common with the approach adopted in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, if there is evidence so pressing as to justify a departure from an international agreement, with the risks that that involves, it should be brought back to this place for the House to decide in a vote? As was then suggested in that Bill, on the evidence available, there should be a parliamentary lock on the use of that important step.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. His amendment to that Bill was adopted by this House in 2020; I thought it was a sensible mechanism to allow this House of Commons to have its final say with regard to the implementation of these measures based on clear evidence.

My point is simply that this is not a matter of law or a question of legality. There is a respectable argument that can be deployed by the British Government to assert necessity, but this is not about the law; it is about the evidence that the Government will need to marshal to demonstrate that point. The Government’s responsibility is to be a good steward of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement.

--- Later in debate ---

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

This is a profoundly serious debate, because it is a profoundly serious thing for any country to depart from its international obligations. It is not an impossible thing to do, but it is a profoundly serious thing to do, and it should be done only under circumstances of the most exceptional nature and on the most profound and compelling evidence. That, again, is possible, but we need to test whether we are yet there.

Against that background, I start by saying that everybody accepts the importance of the Northern Ireland protocol as an attempt to reconcile conflicts that were inevitable post Brexit, given the nature of the Brexit that was decided upon. Equally, we must be honest and say that, despite best endeavours, it has failed to reconcile those problems. Therefore, I accept as much as anyone that it does need to change, and change significantly.

I recognise that there are economic dislocations, not in all of the Northern Ireland economy, but enough for it to be a serious problem, and certainly the non-functioning of the Executive at the very least gives rise to the risk of real societal divisions and tensions. Those are circumstances where it is envisaged that there might be changes, but we have to think about whether we are acting proportionately and wisely in what we do.

Looking at the position legally, it is this: logically, there is already a route set out in the protocol by which these matters can be addressed. If there is to be change, there is of course provision in article 13.8 and subsequent articles, and I think article 164 of the withdrawal agreement, for changes to deal with “deficiencies, or…situations unforeseen.” One might well argue that some of the ways the protocol has been interpreted—largely, I would accept, because of the intransigence frequently adopted by the EU side and the unwillingness to extend Mr Šefčovič’s mandate—have contributed to that. That might make a case for acting under those articles.

I also accept that the protocol was never expected to be permanent; it was always envisaged that it could be changed. Equally, however, all that presupposed that it would be changed by negotiation, rather than unilateral action. That is the difficulty we must face here. How do we reconcile the primacy of the Good Friday agreement, which I accept both politically and legally, and the need for adjustment with maintaining our reputation as a country that sticks by its word? Pacta sunt servanda, as we all say.

How do we get around that? The Bill, as currently drafted, does not achieve that. It could do, were it to be amended, and that is why I do not take the view that we should exclude the idea of legislation to act in the way envisaged, but it needs some serious thought. At the moment, as I have suggested elsewhere, it raises as many questions as it answers—and we do not have the answers.

If we are not to go down the route of renegotiated changes envisaged in the protocol, and there may be pressing reasons why that is not achievable in the timeframe available, we then have the ability under article 16 to take emergency safeguarding measures. Those have not yet been used. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) that that might be an appropriate route to use. It might not solve all the problems, but, for reasons I will come to, I would suggest that legally it would put the UK in a better position were it then to seek to go further.

If we are to rely upon necessity, as the Government do—I concede that it is a respectable and established concept in international law, but also one that, it is well known, must be used exceptionally and therefore rarely and with a high evidence threshold to be met—it would be much better to have exhausted all opportunities. Indeed, that is part of the doctrine. To invoke necessity, there must be a grave and imminent threat. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) that it need not be immediate, but it must be something more than merely contingent or a possibility, and it must be evidenced.

It seems to me that we do not yet have the evidence before us. Before this Bill passes its stages in this House, the Government, who are working on their evidence base and say they will be able to draw together the facts that can be applied to the evidence to substantiate the grounds of necessity, ought to come to the House with that evidence. Going forward, rather than having exceedingly wide Henry VIII powers, I would think it much preferable that we do as we did with the UK Internal Market Bill and require the Government, when they wish to disapply an element of the protocol, to come to the House and seek its endorsement, having presented that evidence to it.

Similarly, I do not see why clause 18, with such wide powers to do virtually anything, is acceptable—that should come back to the House—or why it is necessary in clause 20 to seek to oust the jurisdiction of the European Court at this stage. As yet, the potential jurisdiction of the ECJ is at least contingent and potential, and therefore not pressing and immediate in relation to the doctrine of necessity.

I will not support the Bill tonight, but I will not vote against it; I am deliberately abstaining tonight to see how the Bill develops. It could be amended into a workable form, but it comes with very many caveats and a lot of questions that Ministers need to answer. I hope they will seek to address those.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), although I profoundly disagree with the implication that those of us who decided Britain’s place in the world was best served by leaving the European Union view the EU—let alone the Republic of Ireland, for goodness’ sake—as “the enemy”, to use her words. Clearly, that is not the case.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is winding up, will be spoilt for choice when it comes to commenting on speeches. If I may say so, however, in a brief period of time the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) pretty much nailed it with his assertion in an intervention on the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry). The status quo is clearly not compatible with the Good Friday agreement and the Acts of Union, and the doctrine of necessity certainly applies in this case.

It is remarkable, is it not, that the protocol’s supporters appear to be the opposition parties, while those who drafted it and are trying to change it sit on the Conservative Benches? I also enjoyed the remarks of one or two Opposition Members who appeared trenchantly to support the other place in the hope that it will defenestrate this Bill, which I sincerely hope it fails to do. That said, though I welcome this Bill, I hope it will be improved in Committee and in the other place, and in particular that some of the swingeing powers that it gives Ministers will be clipped.

I have to say to Ministers, while assuring them of my support this evening, that I remain somewhat bewildered by their refusal to consider in a meaningful way triggering article 16. That is already available to them, and nobody has marshalled a creditable argument—certainly not one that satisfies me—that it could not or should not be done. The grounds for triggering article 16 are clearly there, in that we do not have anything approaching proper governance in Northern Ireland—not at all. Despite the May elections, the Assembly has failed to assemble and the institutions are not working.

Surely to goodness, those are grounds—the strongest grounds possible—for triggering article 16. They are far stronger, I must say, than the grounds chosen by the President of the European Commission early in 2021 to trigger this thing, albeit very briefly and ignominiously, on the grounds of trying to prevent vaccines from transiting from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland.

[Sir Robert Neill]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. Does he agree that, from a legal perspective, if article 16 were to be triggered, at least we would be able to argue that we had used all means available to us under the protocol, as is necessary to meet the necessity test—in other words, that the state has exhausted all the options open to it before it acts unilaterally? That is exactly the value of using article 16.

[Dr Murrison]

I absolutely agree with that. It is argued—of course it is—that triggering article 16 is meant to be temporary. Those of us who have been around a bit realise that temporary very often turns into something far more permanent. However, that would certainly be a reasonable first step in dealing with this situation, which pretty much all of us—apart from the SDLP—agree is unsatisfactory. I am still unsure, despite the earlier remarks of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, why the Government are not doing that. The Secretary of State, when he winds up, may like to address that.

I would also like to know where in this legislation there is a threat to the single market. Trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is pretty much a rounding error—a point that has been made by others. Companies such as Sainsbury’s do not exist in the Republic of Ireland, so goods going to Sainsbury’s in Northern Ireland from GB cannot possibly land up on Sainsbury’s shelves in the Republic, because there are none. There are more checks on this border than on the border with Chile, and checks for what? It is not clear to me why we need checks at this point in time, since we have an agreement on tariffs and we have standards and regulations that have not yet had the opportunity to diverge.

Many contributors today have talked about the doctrine of necessity, but what they have not mentioned is that there is a second part to that doctrine; it is a lesser part, but it is germane nevertheless. It does not deal with grave or imminent peril; it allows parties to rescind an obligation if to do so would not

“seriously impair an essential interest of the states towards which the obligation exists or of the international community as a whole.”

Where in this Bill, and where, indeed, in triggering article 16, would the threat to the single market come from? Indeed, I would argue, as Ministers certainly have, that the Bill is helpful in many respects to the single market, and it certainly is to the internal market.

So why is the EU doing all this? Why is it not giving Mr Šefčovič the powers he needs in order to negotiate properly with, first, Lord Frost and, secondly, the Foreign Secretary? We can all suggest geopolitical reasons for not doing that, and of course some member states are perfectly happy, for their own benefit, with the status quo. The Republic of Ireland is probably rather enjoying the current export opportunities as a result of Northern Ireland being unable to get what it needs from GB. But we have to hope that the EU, even at this stage, will recognise the damage this is doing to the Good Friday agreement and the prospects of ongoing peace and harmony in Northern Ireland, and that it will, even at this late stage, consider the interests of the people of Northern Ireland first, in which case this Bill will not be needed.

The Government, in my view, signed the Northern Ireland protocol in good faith. They were entitled to receive the same back from the EU, but after 18 months it is plain as a pikestaff that that reciprocation has not happened. It is not as if there are not technical solutions to the current problems. I wrote about this in my report when I chaired the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. It distresses me that, all this time later, nothing appears to have been done about the recommendations that I made, and that others have made subsequently, to deal with this perfectly elegantly. Of course, things may very well get worse, with the SPS offset through the movement assistance scheme likely to be viewed as ultra vires by the European Court of Justice, and the prospect of energy VAT—I hope very much that it will be reduced in GB—not being reduced in Northern Ireland, completely contrary to the Good Friday agreement and the Acts of Union.

The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who is no longer in his place, said that the EU “needs to move”. It does, but it will not; I hope this legislation gets it moving.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Robert Neill Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I have been clear that our No. 1 priority is to restore the balance in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which has been undermined by the operation of the protocol. What we are proposing—and I will be bringing out more details on this in due course—is a green lane of trusted traders that is properly protected for goods into Northern Ireland, and a red lane for goods that have to go through the full customs controls into the EU single market. I am very clear that, as well as the protection of the UK single market, part of our agreement is the protection of the EU single market.

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

I particularly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s repeated insistence on her intention for a negotiated settlement. Echoing the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), I emphasise that that is important not just in terms of the overall objective but in terms of the United Kingdom’s international reputation and our ability to demonstrate that we act with the greatest concern for our legal obligations. Will she consider making available in due course the draft of any proposed legislation, so that those of us who wish to work constructively with the Government to make sure that we do this lawfully can test the proportionality of the measures against the objectives and the legal advice she has received?

[Elizabeth Truss]

As I have said, our priority is to secure a negotiated solution. It will require the EU changing its mandate, and I hope that, following today’s statement and the comments by Members right across this House, we will see some more flexibility from the EU. We are committed to acting in line with international law—we are very clear about that. We will set out our legal position in due course, and I am very happy to have more discussions with my hon. Friend about the precise contents of the Bill.

UK-Taiwan Friendship and Co-operation

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) on securing this important debate, and thank everyone who has spoken in it. Taiwan, though it may not be large, is very important economically—a point that has been made—morally and politically, because it developed into a flourishing, genuine, established democracy at a time when many countries in the region went in the opposite direction. It is a peaceful democracy that makes no aggressive territorial claims on its neighbours and poses no threat to any of them. That, of course, is in great contrast to those who make aggressive territorial claims on Taiwan. That is why we should stand foursquare in support of Taiwan. We ought to be supportive of those who embrace values of democracy and freedom, and who wish to co-exist peacefully with others, secure prosperity for themselves, and contribute to the greater global good, which is what Taiwan has always sought to do.

I declare my interest as a member of the British-Taiwanese all-party parliamentary group. I, too, have had the pleasure of visiting it, and have met many Taiwanese representatives when they have come here, and I, too, salute the work of Ambassador Kelly and the Taipei representative office in the UK. He and his predecessors—we have had a number of representatives over the years—have done great work for their country, and to improve our relations.

I appreciate that the exclusion of Taiwan from many international organisations is unjust, unfair and unhelpful to the greater good. Changing that is not unilaterally in this country’s gift, but I hope that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will continue to make the case for that, and to seek to build a coalition with our democratic allies and partners in order to achieve that objective. We have to be persistent on that. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, we must never give up hope that decency and freedom will ultimately prevail against the forces of darkness, which are unfortunately in coalition against us.

I want to talk about the importance of Taiwan’s evolution; under Chiang Kai-shek, in the early days of the Kuomintang, it was a frankly autocratic society that did not always respect the rule of law, though there was nothing like the appalling behaviour on mainland China after the civil war. Taiwan was able to move away from that without disruption or violence. It became a functioning democracy that respects the rule of law and has established a vibrant, independent judiciary and legal framework. When I had the pleasure of visiting Taiwan, I had the honour of meeting President Tsai, whom I greeted as a fellow alumnus of the London School of Economics, where she did a doctorate of philosophy in law; she trained as a lawyer.

Taiwan has developed a vigorous and robust legal system. Since the 1990s, it has increasingly asserted the independence of the judiciary from the other arms of the state. In fact, the independent justice movement of the 1990s was one of the beacons that led to the democratisation of Taiwan’s society. Many of its leading lights were lawyers and jurists. That demonstrates the importance internationally of commitment to independent judges, courts and lawyers, and the rule of law. Taiwan has moved in exactly the direction that we should encourage others to take.

It is interesting that, since 2002, Taiwan has moved from having an inquisitorial system in criminal cases to something much closer to the adversarial system with which we in common-law countries are familiar—a system in which both sides have the right to be represented by counsel. I hope that we will continue to use the fact that we are the birthplace of common law and of that adversarial criminal justice system to try to assist Taiwan and build bridges. I hope that we can encourage British lawyers to develop partnerships with Taiwanese lawyers, and can build on the work of our further education contacts. The President is a great example of that, and of soft power. I hope, too, that we can encourage the work of the British Council, whose representatives I had the pleasure of meeting in Taipei, because it is an important means of developing those contacts, which we do not always make enough of.

Taiwan has undertaken further reforms in this field. In 2006, it abolished the regrettable mandatory death penalty for certain classes of offence, which it inherited in the days immediately after the war. In fact, there has been an almost complete cessation in the use of the death penalty in recent years, with one unfortunate exception, and there is still a vigorous and active campaign to support that change.

In 2009, Taiwan ratified the international covenant on civil and political rights and the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, which sets it apart from those who aggressively assert claims against it. A threshold for joining those covenants was an acceptance that Taiwan was on an

“irrevocable path towards complete eradication of the death penalty.”

Moving forward, we see a progressive and, in the proper sense, small-l liberal polity and system, which we ought to be supporting.

It is important to recognise, as has already been observed, the progress that Taiwan has made in relation to same-sex marriages and equal rights for LGBT communities. Generally, it has a good position, compared with many of its neighbours, on the index of commitment to the rule of law. That is something we should continue to sustain. As we go forward, I hope we can build upon those links.

Contrast has been made frequently to what has sadly happened in Hong Kong. I have had the pleasure of visiting that jurisdiction too, and it is a sadness to me, as when I read law at the London School of Economics a number of my colleagues went on to qualify as barristers in the United Kingdom, before returning to practice at the Hong Kong Bar. Some went on to hold distinguished office in the Hong Kong judiciary. They did so at a time when they still had the protection of the agreements we had entered into to ensure Hong Kong’s independent legal system. Sadly, those have been unliterally abrogated by the Government of the People’s Republic of China. I never want to see that happen to the legal system in Taiwan. I privately weep, almost, for some of my friends who stayed in their country, but who now see their freedom of action and manoeuvre as lawyers increasingly constrained, and a stranglehold put on what was once the most vibrant and successful legal and judicial system to be found in that part of south-east Asia. We must not let that happen to Taiwan.

That is why not only shall we stand four-square with the Taiwanese in political and moral terms, but, where necessary, without seeking to start aggression, we will ensure that military and naval force is available to deter aggression by others, and we will work closely with our allies, including Australia and others in that area. If we believe in democracy, the importance of the rule of law, human rights and personal freedoms, Taiwan is a beacon that we shall support.

It is important that we have this debate and we place this motion on the record. As a country, we have always sought to assert these things, sometimes with more success than at other times, but they are basically in our DNA. With the dispensation we have now in Taiwan, that is something we share with the Taiwanese people, who have worked hard to achieve that, at real sacrifice to themselves, over the years. It is important that we reassert our commitment to stand by them, against those who seek to snuff out the lights of freedom and justice. We must never allow that to happen.

British Council

Robert Neill Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

I have a lot of time for the hon. Gentleman, but references to little Britain are frankly nonsensical. I am not entirely sure whether he listened to my statement, but we are increasing funding to the British Council next year by 26%. That is not abandoning the British Council. We value the work of the British Council. We will be supporting it, we have stuck up for it and we have got it a good settlement going forward. We have helped to bail out the British Council when times have got tough, and we will continue to work with it to ensure that it continues the fantastic work it does around the globe.

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

The British Council gives extraordinarily good value for money, as the Minister knows. He will also be aware that taxpayer support for the British Council is significantly less than that provided by their counterparts—and, dare I say it, our commercial competitors?—in France, Germany and Japan. Research by the British Council demonstrates that its building of trust and connections generates greater economic activity. Will he bear in mind the importance of not spoiling the ship for a ha’p’orth of tar? In promoting our values, will he pick up on research showing that our commitment to the rule of law, our free judicial system and the quality of our legal system are also strongly recognised as being critical great British global values?

[Nigel Adams]

My hon. Friend is spot on, and that is exactly where we are on this. As the integrated review made clear, we value the influence of the British Council globally, and we will continue to support it in playing a leading role. In his foreword the Prime Minister reiterated our commitment to soft power and, indeed, recognised the contribution of the British Council, writing that it is one of the

“vital instruments of our influence overseas”.

That is why we are providing support and continue to work very closely with the British Council.