Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Neill Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hammond]

As the hon. Gentleman and the House will know, we have been studying options relating to the British Indian Ocean Territory and the situation of the Chagos islanders. The current Prime Minister has taken a great interest in the issue, but it is clear that it will now fall to the new Prime Minister to make a decision.

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

The people of Gibraltar feel particularly concerned about pressure from Spain now that we are leaving the European Union. Will the Minister for Europe confirm that their Government will be fully involved in the negotiations, and does he agree that their economy could be given an immediate boost, first, by a free trade agreement between Gibraltar and the UK, and, secondly, by ruling out any redundancies in the civilian, locally employed Ministry of Defence force?

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

My hon. Friend is a doughty champion of Gibraltar. I saw the Chief Minister, Fabian Picardo, yesterday; it was my third such conversation with him since the UK referendum. I have not only recommitted the British Government to the full involvement of Gibraltar in the negotiations for our exit from and subsequent relationship with the EU 27; I have also invited the Chief Minister to identify the key economic priorities for the people of Gibraltar as we approach those negotiations.

EU Membership: Economic Benefits

Robert Neill Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

That question has never been effectively answered—how many jobs are those advocating Britain’s exit from the European Union prepared to sacrifice on the altar of their notion of sovereignty? We have never had a straight answer to that question. What we do have is a range of independent estimates of what that number would be if we voted to leave next Thursday. I shall come to that in a moment.

It is because of the potential for the UK to open up the services market in the European Union that the deal the Prime Minister negotiated in February is so important. We now have a clear political commitment from all 27 other EU member states, plus the Commission, to accelerate the development of that market. These are the sectors in which the UK leads in Europe, and in which an expansion of the single market will disproportionately benefit the United Kingdom over the years ahead.

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

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that that commitment to a proper completion of the single market in services, added to the completion of a capital markets union, places the United Kingdom in a unique position to develop its world-leading sector, and that it would be mad to walk away from that opportunity?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is right. That is what I hear from many of my European colleagues: we are about to move from one phase of European Union development into a new phase that is hugely beneficial to the United Kingdom, yet we are talking about walking away from it. Our financial services industry alone currently contributes more than 7% of UK GDP and employs more than 1 million people, two thirds of them outside London, but there is not yet a single market for financial services across the EU. The potential is huge.

A fully functioning digital single marketplace could be worth as much as £330 billion a year to the EU economy, with the UK again set to benefit more than any other country, as the leading digital economy in Europe. By the way, it would be a huge boon for Britain’s digital-savvy consumers, who would be able to shop freely across the digital single marketplace. Individuals are already feeling the benefits of last year’s EU agreement, led by the UK, to end mobile roaming charges, which it is estimated will save UK consumers around £350 million a year, and for years we have all been enjoying the budget airline boom created by EU regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

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

A few moments ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) made a passionate and magnificent speech in support of our membership of the European Union. He and I have been on the same side on this matter for many years, and I endorse every word that he said.

Let me begin by referring, like the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), to matters that particularly affect my constituents. The largest employment sector in Bromley and Chislehurst, in Greater London, is its business and financial services sector. According to the Office for National Statistics business and employment survey, 32.4% of my constituents and their families work in that sector. It is critical to their local economy—and that is leaving aside all the jobs in the supply chain that result from the income that it provides. It is crucial to the London economy, which benefits the whole of the United Kingdom. Leaving the European Union would, without question, damage the interests of the financial services industry, in which Britain is a world leader. This is an issue in which I have taken some interest in my capacity as secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on wholesale financial markets and services.

We have a winner here, and we have an opportunity not just to make it survive, but to make it better and stronger in a reformed European Union. That is why, when I intervened on the Foreign Secretary’s speech, I wanted to stress the importance of the Prime Minister’s renegotiation achievements. There were two key achievements. First, there was the commitment that British financial firms based here in the UK, and therefore outside the eurozone—of which we will never be members: we will never be subject to its internal governance rules or their bail-outs—will none the less have the significant advantage of being able to trade freely within the eurozone and the rest of the single market. That puts us in a unique position which no other free trade agreement replicates.

If we add to that the commitment in that renegotiation to completion of the capital markets union, that gives us a double opportunity to push forward in this area, at which we excel. It would be lunacy to walk away from that opportunity. Of course the Prime Minister is right to say we could survive outside the EU; London and the financial services industry, and my constituents, would survive, but I believe there is a real risk that they would be impoverished and I see nothing patriotic in running the risk of impoverishing my constituents or the people of this country.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and makes an important point about patriotism. Does he agree that key to Britain’s national security is our economic security, and at a time when as a nation we are still borrowing as a nation more than the entire defence budget we need every single penny of public revenue to ensure our economy is strong, our finances are strong and our country is strong?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The economic interest is a national strategic interest of the United Kingdom. It is a damaging thing to this country for anyone to put that at risk; there is nothing patriotic in that.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

So far I can agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, but some of us can remember the 1975 referendum, and the reality is that the options put to us by those who want to opt out were looked at then—trading with EFTA and the Commonwealth countries. The reasons why Harold Wilson thought we should go into Europe are there for all to see.

[Robert Neill]

I would not like to speculate as to the motives of those who, sometimes from genuine belief, but maybe sometimes from cynicism, want this country to leave the EU. The hon. Gentleman is right, however, that the issue was debated then. He and I can remember it—we both voted in that referendum, I suspect. Of course the EU needs reform, as everybody has said, but any businessperson will tell us, “You don’t walk away from a major market that you’re in just because it isn’t perfect; you stay in there, you negotiate your trade and you make the market work better for you.” That is basic common sense, and frankly I am amazed and mystified that some people who really ought to know better cannot get that.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Robert Neill]

I have been generous in giving way so far and I am conscious that others want to speak. I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me, because I know he will speak later.

Given the position that we have of that double success for the City of London, it would be a tragedy—a criminal thing, virtually—for this country to turn away. The financial services industry, as well as being a key UK asset and part of our national strategic interest, is not just about people in the City of London and those working in banks, insurance and offices. A successful financial services sector affects every family in this country. It affects every pension fund. It affects the pensions of millions of people, whatever their income situation or previous position in life. To put that at risk is not to damage just that industry, but to damage the whole population of this country. It damages the revenue stream, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) just said, that underpins our public services. I am sorry to have to say this to some of my friends who I know genuinely believe otherwise, but it will be a profoundly unpatriotic thing to leave the EU.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Robert Neill]

One last time.

[Victoria Prentis]

My hon. Friend is making a passionate speech about various areas of the economy. Has he considered how leaving the EU might affect manufacturing industries, including a company in my constituency that has today told me that it has written to its employees to implore them to vote to remain?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

I am sure my hon. Friend is right. I too have manufacturers in my constituency. Every sector of the British economy will be damaged by Brexit. Uncertainty damages business. Economic uncertainty damages business and so does legal uncertainty, which, as a final point, makes me all the more amazed to see some people who ought to know better suggesting that somehow we could introduce some emergency legislation to circumvent the rules laid down in article 50 of the treaty were this country, regrettably, to decide to leave. That would be a breach of law. It would involve the UK being suspended from the EU, losing the protections the EU gives to our businesses and turning 200 years of British constitutional practice, whereby this country has never unilaterally abrogated a treaty we have entered into, on its head.

It would be a scandal to ask this House to do that, and I say now that I, for one, would never vote for it. But I want to make sure first of all that we never get into that situation. We need to make the positive case for why this country is better economically, socially and, I suggest, morally for being in the European Union—because ultimately we are a broader-minded, a broader-looking, a happier, a more diverse nation as a result of our membership, and I do not want the likes of the vile creature who leads UKIP to drag this country backwards.

Europe, Human Rights and Keeping People Safe at Home and Abroad

Robert Neill Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I will not follow the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) in quoting from a novel because, given what I am about to say, it would have to be “Crime and Punishment”, which might take quite a long time. However, I agree with what he said about the Bill of Rights to the extent that we must have a careful and considered debate on the matter. It is not something that should be rushed. These are important matters, and our international reputation in the field of human rights is a precious thing, as is our reputation for safeguarding the rule of law. It is legitimate to look at how best we can best achieve that in the current context. The Government are doing that in a calm way, and I have complete faith that the Lord Chancellor will take it forward in a considered manner.

I want briefly to touch on my old stamping ground of local government. I welcome the proposals in the Queen’s Speech relating to local government and planning. The proposal for 100% retention of business rates is one for which many of us have long argued. If I may take a modest measure of pride, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles) and I were proud when we were Ministers to bring forward partial business rate retention in the Local Government Finance Act 2012. We always thought that it was the first step along the road to 100% retention. The new Bill will put that on the statute book, but we must now look at even further freedoms for local authorities to raise capital against the opportunities for income. Perhaps we might see the development of a large and significant municipal bond market to take infrastructure projects forward. The proposal is welcome.

Reform of planning law is also welcome, but I hope that we carefully consider the extent of reform of the promised compulsory purchase legislation. Practitioners in that field want a thorough and complete updating of the law, and I hope that Ministers will take that on board. A sensible way forward was offered in a Law Commission report from 2003, but it is yet to be put on the statute book.

Prison reform is important to the Justice Committee, which I have the honour of chairing. On previous days and today, several hon. Members touched on our report on prison safety, which highlights the fact that our prisons have got significantly less safe and are now more dangerous. The number of assaults has increased both among prisoners and on staff. Suicides, self-harm and fires have all also increased. That is unsustainable, and it is to the full credit of the Secretary of State for Justice that that was immediately recognised. His response in a letter to our Committee yesterday made no bones about the fact that he regards the figures as terrible and that immediate action must be taken. He has put money where his mouth is by assigning an additional £10 million to prison safety with immediate effect. He is to be commended for that, and I congratulate him on that approach.

However, we need to go further. The prison reform Bill and the concept of reformed prisons will change the legal framework to ensure that work is proper and meaningful and that our prisons have a real sense of rehabilitation and purpose. That is critical, but it will be achieved only if we get the numbers down, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said. It is unsustainable to have a prison population of 86,000. Officers are overstretched. Efforts have been made to recruit new staff, but they have in large measure been offset by resignations from the Prison Service, often of experienced staff. The National Offender Management Service needs to get a grip on staff retention.

If prisons are bursting at the seams, purposeful work and serious rehabilitation cannot happen. As anyone who has been involved in the criminal justice system will know—I was a barrister for 30 years—we must deal with the key factors, such as the lack of family ties, of educational attainment, of literacy, of employability and of stable homes. We have to grasp the nettle, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, and say to the more populist press that getting prison numbers down is actually desirable and a good goal from a Conservative perspective, never mind anything else.

The ultimate test of doing good by society is to ensure that there are fewer victims of crime, and if we reduce reoffending, there will be fewer victims. It is now possible to achieve that through better technology, such as tagging, and through much more serious alternatives to custody, such as much more imaginative use of release on temporary licence. All those things are real opportunities, and the prison reform Bill presents a chance to seize them. The Secretary of State has been bold in a good and long tradition of Conservative social reformers, and I wish him well in that process.

Gibraltar and Spain

Robert Neill Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Westminster Hall

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

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) on securing this important debate. I, too, should declare an interest, as secretary of the all-party group on Gibraltar. I had the pleasure of visiting Gibraltar at the same time as my hon. Friend, along with several hon. Members from all parties. One of the important issues to bear in mind is that the strength of support for Gibraltar goes right across this House, and today is a good opportunity for us to reinforce that.

In opening the debate, my hon. Friend referred to the issue of incursions and the impossibility of reconciling some Spanish behaviour with what we would expect from a NATO friend and ally and a European Union partner. That is a matter of some sadness to me, not only as a frequent visitor to Spain and to Gibraltar over the years, but because, as a member of the UK’s delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I know that there are areas in which we work well with our Spanish colleagues. However, the relationship is clouded by the political obsession of some members of the current Spanish Government, and that stands in the way of our developing the normal sort of sensible and mature dialogue that we would expect two established democracies to have.

I very much welcome the proposal that Their Majesties the King and Queen of Spain might visit the United Kingdom in 2016. That would be a good step forward, but I hope too that we would not then see objections to members of the British royal family visiting Gibraltar. That would be a mature step forward in the relationship, and I hope that it would give us the opportunity to reinforce the Government’s position that there can be no question of bilateral talks, as suggested by Mr García-Margallo. There must be a tripartite forum involving the people of Gibraltar and their elected representatives. I am sure that the Minister will want to restate that position.

I want to touch on another matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke alluded to: the economic war that is, in effect, being waged by Spain against Gibraltar. We have seen that in the delays at the frontier, which seem to come and go depending on the level of profile and what distraction the current Spanish Government wish to create from their difficulties with their domestic agenda. There are also the incursions and harassment by the Spanish customs service. However, there has also been a damaging and, happily, unjustified—indeed, demonstrably so—campaign of economic slander against Gibraltar by Spain and its allies. The suggestion has been made, wholly erroneously—on one or two occasions it has been swallowed by Members of this House, although not very many—that Gibraltar is some kind of tax haven and that its economic, legal and regulatory systems were in some way lacking in transparency. Nothing could be further from the truth, as a number of debates in this House have amply demonstrated. This was shown by the European Union’s removal of Gibraltar from what it calls its tax havens blacklist—a recognition that Gibraltar has taken all the necessary steps to comply.

While in Gibraltar, I had the chance to meet its Finance Minister and senior members of its judiciary. It is worth remembering that Gibraltar operates a British-style common-law system to exactly the same standards as we would expect here. Its financial regulatory bodies are organised on exactly the same models as our Financial Conduct Authority and operate to exactly the same standards. The professional bodies that operate in Gibraltar for all related professions also mirror British standards exactly. Against that background, it is no surprise that the OECD Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes gave Gibraltar exactly the same score for transparency as Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States.

None the less, despite evidence that is as plain as a pikestaff, Spain sought to object to the EU’s removing Gibraltar from the blacklist. That was wholly irrational, but there is a risk that a degree of Spanish policy is sadly irrational in this matter. I hope, though, that the Minister will undertake to continue to press vigorously on Her Majesty’s behalf to ensure that other individual countries fall into line and remove Gibraltar from their own blacklists. Everyone accepts that Gibraltar is compliant and that all EU regulations are transposed properly, but some individual countries have probably not made it enough of a priority to remove it. I hope that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will endeavour to persuade individual states to follow the EU’s line. Latvia, I notice, has recently done so, as have a number of others. It is important that we get complete consistency on that.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I congratulate our hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) on securing this debate. My hon. Friend has just made a point about Spain’s position on the tax status being irrational, but is not its position also irrational in relation to the north African enclaves, which are Spanish territory? If those enclaves have the right to choose to be Spanish, it is only logical that Gibraltar’s residents have the right to choose to be British.

[Robert Neill]

The point is entirely correct. No one in the United Kingdom wishes to see the people of Ceuta and Melilla handed over to Morocco against their wishes—of course not—and the same decency should be extended by the Spanish Government to the people of Gibraltar. All I will say is that, following my visits to Spain and my discussions with Spanish parliamentarians, I think that the current Spanish Foreign Minister has a particular, personal agenda. Who knows what the position will be after November? There are people in Spain, particularly those involved in the local and regional governments in the Campo, the area immediately behind Gibraltar, who know that enormous benefit will come to their own people from a relaxation—a normalisation—of relationships and the building up of stronger economic links, but they have not yet been able to persuade a majority in the Cortes of that. We should be prepared to make the case vigorously to help them to do so. Who knows what November’s elections may bring in that regard?

[Dame Angela Watkinson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that many ordinary Spanish people have a very different attitude towards Gibraltar from that of their Government? Many Spanish people work in Gibraltar and need to cross the border every day to go to and from work. They are the ones who suffer from the delays that are set up by Spain, quite unnecessarily, as a demonstration simply that it can do that.

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Anyone who visits Gibraltar will meet dozens of people working in Gibraltar who are Spanish. Some of us have had the chance to meet Spanish trade unionists from the Campo and members of Spanish local authorities in the Campo who are very keen to improve relations, but suffer from an entirely different attitude coming from the Government in Madrid. It is therefore important that we in this House make clear our absolute determination to stand by Gibraltar, and use that, on a clear basis of evidence, as a means of persuading the majority of Spaniards that their current Government’s stance is not in their national interest, any more than it is in the interests of the people of Gibraltar, and that there will be real opportunities from a normalisation of those relations.

[Jim Shannon]

Both the hon. Gentleman and I have referred to the financial implications of the difficulties between Spain and Gibraltar, but other things have been concerning us as well, and it is important to put them on the record too. The buzzing of a commercial aeroplane by two Spanish jets in September 2014 was an example of the danger that can be caused. Also relevant is the use of the Spanish navy to harass fishing fleets and people on boats around Gibraltar. Those are just two examples of the use of Spanish military forces against Gibraltar. If Spain is not careful, someone will be either injured or killed as a result.

[Robert Neill]

Absolutely, and my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke touched on those matters. When we are dealing with a very limited and constrained airspace, as any of us who have been in and out of Gibraltar know, it is extremely dangerous to behave in the way that the Spanish air force has or as some of Spain’s naval assets have. The irony is that these are two NATO allies. That is the bizarre nature of the impasse at which we currently find ourselves. I hope that the Foreign Office will continue to be vigorous and also ensure that we use our considerable soft power, as it is sometimes termed, in persuading other actors in the European Union and the United Nations—where Spain again, sadly, has mounted an entirely misleading campaign with the decolonisation committee—to set out the facts, to support Gibraltar very clearly and to ensure that there is both physical security, in terms of the integrity—

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

In terms of the current negotiations about EU membership and so on, and the certainty of a referendum in the near future, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that the Foreign Office bears in mind at all times the interests of Gibraltar in all this and that, whatever the outcome of the referendum, Gibraltar’s interests are stood up for? If the United Kingdom decides to leave and Spain remains a member, that will clearly cause a lot of issues for Gibraltar. It is important that that is borne in mind very strongly by the Foreign Office in terms of the interests of the people of Gibraltar.

[Robert Neill]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I was saying that it is important that we continue to stress our support for the physical integrity of Gibraltar and its waters. The other issue is continuing support for the economic wellbeing of Gibraltar. I have alluded to some of that. From Gibraltar’s point of view, the other part of that will of course be the renegotiations. I know that the Minister is well seized of this. It is critical that Gibraltar maintains its access to the single market and freedom of movement, which gives it a legal basis to challenge the wholly unjustified approach adopted by Spain to the border. I am sure that that is in Her Majesty’s Government’s mind and that it is in the mind of the official Opposition, too. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), whom we are all happy to see here, will want to restate his party’s unequivocal support for British sovereignty in Gibraltar—from the very top down, I am sure—and add its commitment to giving the Government full-hearted support in protecting the interests of Gibraltar, not only in the renegotiations but in all other matters going forward.

European Union Referendum Bill

Robert Neill Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

No. We made a proposal to the British people, it was put to the test in the general election and we have received an overwhelming mandate to progress. That is what we will do.

The Bill also sets out the entitlement to vote in the referendum. Since this is an issue of national importance, the parliamentary franchise is the right starting point. It means that British citizens in the UK or resident abroad for less than 15 years and resident Commonwealth and Irish citizens can take part. The Bill extends the franchise in two very limited respects: to Members of the other place who meet certain qualifications and to Commonwealth citizens resident in Gibraltar. Members of the other place cannot take part in elections to this House on the grounds that they are already represented in Parliament, but it is clearly right that the franchise should be extended to them in the referendum. Gibraltar will also be deeply affected by its outcome. It is part of the European Union and its economy is closely bound to its relationship with the EU. Of course, Gibraltar already takes part in elections to the European Parliament as part of the South West of England. During debates on the private Member’s Bill in the previous Parliament, there was cross-party support for Gibraltar’s inclusion. I hope that that will remain.

We will extend the franchise to Gibraltar only with the consent of the Government of Gibraltar, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe has already agreed the principles for achieving that with the Chief Minister. Wherever possible, the Bill leaves it to the Gibraltar Parliament to make provision to implement the referendum in Gibraltar. The Government of Gibraltar intend to introduce their own referendum Bill, which will be complementary to the UK legislation.

Some will argue that we should extend the franchise further to 16 and 17-year-olds, perhaps, or even to citizens of other EU countries resident here. We do not agree. This is an issue of national importance about Britain’s relationship with the European Union and it is right that the Westminster parliamentary franchise should be the basis for consulting the British people. I concede that there are those in the House who will wish to debate whether that franchise itself should be extended to 16 and 17-year-olds, but the Government are not persuaded and that is a debate for another day. It would be wrong to include 16 and 17-year-olds in this referendum as an addition to the Westminster franchise.

I reject, too, the suggestion that EU citizens living in the UK should be included. The referendum is about delivering a pledge to the British people to consult them about the future of their country. It would be a travesty to seek to include EU nationals whose interests might be very different from those of the British people.

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

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments about Gibraltar, which will be warmly welcomed by the people of Gibraltar and which recognise that Gibraltar is a particular case. Will he also accept that many of us who supported my Bill and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) in the previous Parliament did so on the basis of the parliamentary franchise? I strongly urge my right hon. Friend to stick to that and not be drawn into debates about broader issues of the franchise that are not part of this Bill’s proposals.

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention and I intend to stick to the position I have set out.

Gibraltar

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) and his Committee on their excellent report and on giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue today. We have had excellent speeches from everybody in this debate so far. The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) and I may be able to look forward to the day when West Ham United sign up a Gibraltarian professional footballer if Gibraltar’s football team continues with its international success.

On a serious note, important issues have been raised. A key issue that we need to grasp—it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Ilford South and echoed by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox)—is that Gibraltar has become a central plank of Spanish foreign policy. I regret to say that the defence of the British citizens of Gibraltar is not generally perceived as a central plank of the policy agenda of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Although I cannot disagree factually with anything in the Government’s response to the report, the tone could and legitimately should be more assertive in the defence of Gibraltar as a British territory. Sometimes there is this sense, which I know is not shared by my right hon. Friend the Minister, that, going back to the errors of 2001-02, defending Gibraltar has been seen as a bit of an add-on in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and we need to do more to put that right.

One area where the Government’s response is not adequate is around the potential use of article 259. It is quite clear that Spain is in breach of its obligations as a member of NATO and of the European Union. Frankly, its behaviour is not consistent with that of a friend and an ally. That is the tragedy and the reality. Although there have been difficulties in the past, it might be worth noting that previous Parti Populaire Governments in Spain, while always wrongly maintaining their claim, have not felt it necessary to escalate the tensions at the border in the way that the current Rajoy Government do. The Aznar Government adopted a rather different approach. Of course the Government are right to want to de-escalate the situation, but it takes two to de-escalate. If Spain is not prepared to do so, and if it is in breach of its international legal obligations, we should not be afraid to use the mechanisms available to us.

May I say gently that I am concerned about the undue reliance on the European Commission in dealing with these matters? I say that because, as a junior Minister, I had experience of the workings of the Commission. History shows that the European Commission cannot be regarded as having acted even-handedly towards Gibraltar in the past. Appendix B of the report sets out the background to the legal dispute, which makes it very clear that Spain should never have been allowed by the Commission to include what is called the Estrecho Oriental—territorial waters site—on the list of sites of community interest under the habitats directive. The habitats directive makes it clear that member states are allowed to designate sites within their own territories. Under international law, the European Commission should not have permitted the area designated by Spain that includes parts of Gibraltan territorial waters to be included. It breached that fundamental requirement, but was not challenged by the Commission, so it is difficult for us to have complete faith in the Commission’s even hand in this regard.

The appendix also sets out what seems to me at least to be a significant charge of negligence against the Foreign Office—even though this happened before the Government came to office, I do not mean this as a party political point—in failing to present the designation of the site of community interest at the time. The previous junior Minister at the Foreign Office said:

“The UK had no reason to and did not check the thousand or so existing or proposed Spanish sites.”

I am sorry, but we know that Spain has consistently adopted a hostile policy towards Gibraltar and that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset has said, Spain has consistently sought to adopt an aggressive stance on territorial waters. One might think that if the FCO could have checked that—there is no reason why it could not have—it would have been an obvious check to carry out. It did not check and that is a serious error on the part of the FCO, which needs to live it down by being more robust.

I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Minister replies he will be more robust than the written text put out by the FCO on the question of the hypocrisy over Ceuta and Melilla. The argument is a strong one and the Foreign Office’s written response is too dismissive, simply saying that it is a different case. That is a nice bit of legalese, but morally it is not a different case. We should not only be saying that and putting much more pressure on Spain in that regard, but encouraging the development of practical links with Morocco, which has adopted a very constructive attitude towards Gibraltar in the past. Morocco has a better record of dealing with its recent difficulties than many other north African states and that is something practical we could do to strengthen transport and other links.

My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) talked about the integration and community cohesion in Gibraltarian society. He is absolutely right and I have noticed that because I, too, had the pleasure of visiting Gibraltar in the autumn and I saw precisely that cohesion and harmony, including among many of the Moroccan residents who have come to Gibraltar and stayed there. Those are links we should develop. We should also remember that Gibraltar has a significant, active and welcome Jewish population. In current times, that is valuable and something we should cherish. Part of the reason for that is that Gibraltar is not only an economic and social success but benefits from a robust common law jurisdiction. During my visit, I had the opportunity to meet senior members of the judiciary and of the police and the legal profession.

At the beginning of last month, we had the opportunity in a Westminster Hall debate to refute some of the utterly false allegations that have been put about by the Spanish Government, which have been swallowed by one or two Members of this House who ought to have known better, that Gibraltar is in any way deficient in its dealing with those issues. It was made very clear—I am delighted to say that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said this on behalf of the Government in absolutely unequivocal terms—that Gibraltar meets the highest standards of international legal co-operation. Its police force, its judiciary and its legal profession operate to exactly the same standards as we would expect of those within the United Kingdom.

I am sure that many of us will want to congratulate the Attorney-General of Gibraltar, Ricky Rhoda, on being awarded the honour of Commander of the British Empire. He will be retiring next year after some 15 years in service. He is a distinguished lawyer and a distinguished public servant who works to exactly the same standards as we see in the UK. We need to say that robustly, because part of Spain’s attempt to undermine Gibraltar’s economic interests has been to attack its financial regime, its legal regime and key economic interests such as bunkering, the gaming industry and the aviation industry. We need to be more assertive about this.

I have been critical of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in some respects, but this autumn I also had the opportunity of visiting our embassy in Madrid and I pay tribute to Simon Manley, the ambassador, and his team there, who do a very professional job. What is required is a clear direction from the centre that we regard Gibraltar and its interests as of the same high priority as Foreign Minister García-Margall has made them for the Spanish Government. There is political will within the House to do that and it would have support on both sides of the House. I hope the debate has given us the opportunity to set out that approach.

We want Spain as an ally and partner within the EU and NATO, but that cannot be at the expense of undermining our protection for a dynamic British overseas territory with British citizens who meet the highest of British standards in every respect. They were—dare I say—developing a thriving democracy before that happened in their larger neighbour. There is irony in the attitude adopted by members of the current Government in Madrid, who have a very short view of history. The Government and the Foreign Office should not be afraid to stand up and say that robustly.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Robert Neill Excerpts

Friday 17th October 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This Bill is about choice. It is about giving the British people a choice on something that is fundamental to our constitutional arrangements and fundamental to our future. It is a straightforward and simple Bill, because the proposition of choice and democratic fairness for our people is a simple one that everyone here should be able to grasp. It is not a Bill about the future of our relationship with the European Union, and it is not a Bill about whether we should, in the long term, stay or leave the European Union. As I say, it is about giving the people of this country a choice, which is no laughing matter. That choice is important because the future of our arrangements with our neighbours require legitimacy and consent. It is some 40 years since that consent was last sought. Much has changed since, and it is fair and reasonable for people to be given that choice again.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this important Bill to the House. Does he agree that for my Harlow constituents and people across the country, this referendum Bill is all about trust? If we get this Bill through, the country will know that we mean business on the European Union and on an in/out referendum, just as people knew we meant business when we cut the EU budget, got out of the EU bail-out mechanism and vetoed an EU treaty?

[Robert Neill]

It is about trust—trust in this House and trust in our democratic institutions. It is also, I suggest, a time to put up or shut up. If there are people here who do not believe that the British people should be given that choice, now is the time for them to say so and to vote against the Bill.

[James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend’s excellent Bill and look forward to its smooth passage through the House. Does he agree that it is not just about the trust we should show in the British people by letting them decide, but about restoring trust in this place? For too long, politicians of whatever colour have come here and talked about Europe, and refused to let Britain decide. This party and my hon. Friend’s Bill will do that: it is the right thing. I wish him every success. I hope we can make progress and get it through this time, having not been able to do so last time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

I am immensely grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments and for the kindness and generosity he has shown to me. It is no accident that my Bill exactly replicates the Bill he took through this House in the last Session, which was frustrated elsewhere. I am doing that deliberately so that we can return to the issue and make sure that others here and elsewhere put up or shut up, which is how trust comes about.

Trust is critical. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) and I have a further link to the EU. Both our constituencies were, at different times, represented by Harold Macmillan, the late Earl of Stockton, the person who, of course, initiated our negotiation with the European Union’s predecessor body. He described that negotiation as a

“purely economic and trading negotiation and not a political and foreign policy negotiation”.

The change to that provides yet another important reason why the British people need a fresh say.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I am puzzled by the hon. Gentleman’s assertion that this debate is not about our future relationship with the European Union. It seems to me that it certainly is. Does he accept what John Cridland said recently—that it is the settled view of British businesses that the EU

“remains fundamental to our economic future. Our membership supports jobs, drives growth and boosts our international competitiveness.”

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that that is the settled view of British businesses on this point?

[Robert Neill]

No, I do not accept that proposition. What the issue is about is giving people a choice, 40 years on.

[Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that those who do not wish to give the British public the vote they rightly deserve do not deserve to be honoured by the British public?

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have no doubt that if there were those—either present today, or not present today—who were tempted, having not put up or shut up at today’s Second Reading, to use various Westminster village procedural games and devices to frustrate the giving of a say to the British people—[Interruption]—they would incur the opprobrium of their voters, and would do great damage—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I want to hear the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot hear him for those who are either shouting him down or cheering him on. Whichever it be, I want to hear the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

I did, I must confess, find a leaflet that was issued by the leader of the Liberal Democrats before the last election. It is headed “It’s time for a real referendum on Europe”, and it begins:

“It's been over thirty years since the British people last had a vote on Britain's membership of the European Union.”

It is a bit out of date, but it is a Liberal Democrat leaflet, so we should make all due allowance for that. It ends:

“But whether you agree with Europe or not, it is vital that you and the British people have a say in a real EU referendum.”

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Robert Neill]

I will give way in a moment, but let me make this point first. I actually agree with that last proposition. It is time that the British people had a say, and—I say this in response to the point made by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms)—my Bill is about giving the British people the mechanism that will enable them to have that say. It is not about the detail of what should or should not be in a negotiation; it is about providing a mechanism whereby the British people are guaranteed, in primary legislation, an opportunity to have their say.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend give way, on that point?

[Robert Neill]

Out of courtesy, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[John Hemming]

Although, as my hon. Friend will recognise, I did back the earlier Bill—[Interruption]—I must admit that I have not been present on every single occasion, and my hon. Friend should not necessarily read into my colleagues’ absence the nature of their views.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that the 1688 Bill of Rights, our fundamental constitutional law, was established by popular consent and not by being imposed on people, a substantial change to that, which is implied by the use of regulation rather than directive, is something that also requires popular consent?

[Robert Neill]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I would be the first to recognise his consistency on his point, and I am delighted to see him here.

At the end of the day—

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Robert Neill]

I will give way shortly, but I want to develop my point a little first, at least to the extent of being able to finish a sentence.

At the end of the day, government requires the consent of the people. That is the fundamental point that the hon. Gentleman has made. When there has been a step change in our relationship with the European Union, as there has been since those days of Harold Macmillan, it is right and proper to give the British people the chance to reflect and think again.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his Bill, and am proud to be a sponsor of it. He has mentioned Harold Macmillan. Harold Macmillan, of course, negotiated our membership of something called the European Economic Community, and that is what people voted on at the time. They thought that it was a trading arrangement, but it has morphed into the European Union, which has become a vehicle to create a United States of Europe, and that is what the people of Britain do not want.

[Robert Neill]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I voted in that 1975 referendum. I would like to say that I lied about my age in order to vote, but I did not. I had just started out as a young lawyer, and had just been elected a young councillor in Havering. I was at the beginning of my working life. Virtually the whole of some people’s working lives—virtually a whole generation—has gone by without anyone’s having had a say. The nature of the EU has indeed changed from that economic community—that

“purely economic and trading negotiation and not a political and foreign policy negotiation”,

as the late Lord Stockton described it—into an entirely different animal, altogether more complex and demanding in its relations with both this country and the rest of the world. That is why it is right for us to have the chance to engage in a sensible renegotiation and put the new offer that is available to the British people, so that they can decide.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman does not accept the point made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), but does he not accept that the last thing business needs at this time is a prolonged period of uncertainty? Will he explain how his proposal will help to support and create jobs in the areas such as the north-east, and, indeed, throughout the United Kingdom?

[Robert Neill]

The greatest threat to British business would be the return to government of the hon. Lady’s party. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] My constituency contains many business people and many people who work in the City. I would not always take the voices of the big battalions as being representative of the people who are running the firms out there in the country and the people who are on the trading floors of the City of London—the people who are bringing the wealth into this country. That is what really matters.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his Bill. His entire argument is predicated on putting trust in the great British people, and this party is willing to do that. Is it not telling that the Labour party could probably have turned up in a taxi this morning, given that so few of its members are present? Is it not obvious that they do not trust the British people to decide?

[Robert Neill]

It has been observed by wiser people than I that it is sometimes best not to try to fathom the unfathomable workings of providence, and the same applies to the mind of the Labour party.

It is precisely because of that step change that has taken place in our relationship with the European Union, which affects all aspects of our economic and social life, that the renewal of consent is required. My Bill has exactly the same format as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South: it proposes that the British people should be given a simple and straightforward choice in the form of an entirely comprehensible question. The one exception, which was accepted by my hon. Friend, is that my Bill includes the people of Gibraltar, because of Gibraltar’s particular status as an overseas territory which, effectively, is physically within the current European Union.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Robert Neill]

I will give way to my fellow West Ham supporter first, in a spirit of fraternal generosity.

[Mike Gapes]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I look forward to both of us celebrating victory over Burnley tomorrow.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the question that would be put to the people. Will he explain why both this and last year’s Bill rejected the wording that was originally proposed by the Conservative party, and the wording that was agreed to and supported by the Electoral Commission, in favour of a different wording?

[Robert Neill]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right on all matters concerning football, and—with respect—absolutely wrong about pretty much everything else. [Laughter.]

This is a straightforward and comprehensible question: should Britain be a member of the European Union? I noted what was said by the Electoral Commission. I had great respect for the commission when I was the local government Minister—it was kind enough then to give me some very useful advice, which I do not think I took, on the exact working of the council tax referendum—and it has a legitimate point of view, but the House passed the wording of my hon. Friend’s Bill overwhelmingly during the last Session. The wording is very clear, and, indeed, is remarkably similar to the wording of the Scottish referendum, which was very successful in terms of being clear and comprehensible and attracting a record turnout. I would suggest that the argument for that type of wording, and for a straight yes/no decision, has been strengthened rather than weakened by the events that have taken place since the last Session.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Robert Neill]

I would not forget my hon. and learned Friend.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I strongly support my hon. Friend’s Bill. It is a straightforward, simple measure which involves a simple question. Is it not the demand of the people that there should be a referendum on this issue? If this place denies people their say, we shall be seen as remote and isolated. We shall be a class apart, and that is not what this place should be. We must listen to the people.

[Robert Neill]

Like my hon. and learned Friend, I was first elected to Parliament after a career at the bar—the legal bar—and a career in local government, at the coalface of dealing with people’s everyday problems, and one of the things that struck me was that the risk we all have to avoid is precisely becoming part of that village mentality. It is never something we seek to do when we arrive, but, almost institutionally, that can happen. If we believe in representative democracy—as I trust everybody in this Chamber does—then one of the great challenges is to make sure there is a reality in the discussions we have here and the way we approach our decisions and a trust in the people who send us here. We do not sit here possessed of some greater wisdom—to use the French, some trahison des clercs—that enables us to ignore the views of our voters, who make the wealth that pays for us and for all Government spending. My hon. and learned Friend is entirely right in that. Legitimacy requires connection, and sometimes a bit of humility on the part of elected representatives to say, “This is an issue so fundamental that it is a matter for the British people.”

We have given referendums in a number of cases, and they are now an established fact of our constitutional scene. My constituents have had a vote on whether they should have a Mayor of London and whether there should be a different form of voting system for electing this House—I am glad to say they came to the right decision on that—and it would be pretty bizarre if they were not able to have a vote on what powers should reside in this House as opposed to residing elsewhere. I suggest this is the most obvious case for a referendum one could imagine.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the majority of Labour voters in the country want a referendum?

[Robert Neill]

The hon. Lady, whom I have known for many years as a fellow London MP, is infinitely better in touch with her voters than the leadership of her party. I have to say—and I do not mean any discourtesy here—that I am rather glad she is not part of the leadership of her party, because she would be a much greater threat to us than the current leadership is. She is absolutely right. What I find, representing a London constituency, is that people often forget that Londoners, who are part of a cosmopolitan, diverse and open city, none the less believe it is time for us to look again at our relationship with our European neighbours. The hon. Lady is absolutely right; her analysis is spot-on.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree—he said this earlier—that many people say, “I might have voted for the EC, but I would not vote for this”? I think that people are entitled to say that they would like to have a vote again, because they may well have changed their opinions. They may not, but we should at least offer them the choice because what is now on the table is a very different animal.

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When I voted previously, I had campaigned to stay in what was then the European Community. I think that many people who voted for membership then would say that the world is very different now, the consequences are very different, and the pressures that have been placed on British business and a raft of our institutions are entirely different, and it is fair and legitimate to ask again. The greatest danger to our long-term relationship with the EU and to long-term business investment would be if we were in a construct that did not preserve our fundamental interests—the fundamental interests of our businesses and, for example, of London as the great world financial pole—and that did not preserve our right to develop our trade links with developing markets in China, India and Brazil, areas where, interestingly, the EU has singularly failed, as yet, to establish proper free-trading agreements. If we did not have a situation recognising the particular circumstances of the UK—rather than pretending all is happy and well in the garden—that would damage long-term legitimacy and would damage business investment and confidence over the long term.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Robert Neill]

I will take a couple more interventions, but I will not be able to accommodate everybody wishing to intervene. I give way to the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex).

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman spoke about the way he voted in the previous referendum. Judging from what he has just said to the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), is he now saying he would vote against the UK being a member of the EU were this referendum to happen?

[Robert Neill]

The hon. Gentleman was not listening to what I said. This is not about the outcome of the negotiations. The point I am making has been well echoed on the Conservative Benches: because the nature of the organisation and our relationship with it has changed, it is right that we look afresh and the British people have the opportunity to vote on that. That is why the Prime Minister is absolutely right to say—

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Robert Neill]

I am not going to take a vast number of further interventions, because if I do we will have a long, disjointed conversation, and other Members may wish to get in and make their own speeches.

I just wanted to make this point. If we do not recognise the reality of change on the ground, we lose credibility and we do not do any good. I am prepared to trust the Prime Minister to do his level best for the United Kingdom in the renegotiation. That is the place at which we address the details of what may have changed and what we need to take our relationship forward, but ultimately it is not, and should not be, the Prime Minister’s decision, my decision, or the House’s decision; it should ultimately be the decision of the British people.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has spoken about how people may have changed their minds since the last referendum, but does he agree that there are literally tens of millions of Britons like myself who were too young to vote in 1975 and who have never been able to cast their vote on this issue?

[Robert Neill]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of my advanced age; he has worn much better than I have in any event. He is entirely right: there is a whole raft of people out there, who may have raised families and who have to live with the consequences of where we currently are, and who have never had a say. That is ludicrous. I was talking to some of my step-nieces and nephews. They have got kids of their own now. They never had a chance to have a say. That is not sustainable. There are businesses and firms that are up and running now and are major components of the UK economy, yet their founders and the people who lead those companies never had a say. It is time to look afresh.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is correctly reminding everyone that only the Conservatives are willing and able to deliver a referendum. May I bring him back to the central issue of choice? What does it say about the leadership of the Labour and Liberal parties that they are unwilling to trust the British electorate on this point of seminal importance?

[Robert Neill]

A lesson I have learned, not just from my time in this House but also from my professional and earlier political life, is that if we treat people with contempt, they will treat us with contempt, and that is the risk that the Opposition run with their attitude. That is why the playing of Westminster games brings this House into disrepute.

As this is a straightforward Bill which has been rehearsed before and debated by this House before, let me just say that I believe we need to restate that we do have faith in the British people and that we should give them, entrenched in law, a piece of primary legislation that says, “In 2017 there will be a referendum.”

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Robert Neill]

I am sorry, but I am not going to take any more interventions.

That is also why we should say to those who do not have the courage to stand up and say no today, “Don’t seek to frustrate this by devious procedural means, and instead see if you have the courage to go to the British electorate and say, ‘If by mishap or some fluke of mathematical calculation we come into government, we will take away from you this choice that this House has given you,’” because that is the logical position the Labour party has put itself in.

That is why it is important that this House passes this Bill today and sets in law the opportunity for the British people to have that choice, and that is why I commend the Bill to the House.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

Well, I want to defend the view set out by the leader of the hon. Lady’s party. On 5 January 2010 in Hammersmith, shortly before he became Prime Minister and when he was leading the efforts of her and her hon. and right hon. Friends to be elected in the general election. He said:

“Do I want an in/out referendum? No, I don’t, because I don’t think we should leave”.

I think he was absolutely right.

[Robert Neill]

I have not intervened before because I have made my speech and I do not want to take up time, but may I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that the reason why everything has changed is that his Government welched upon signing up to the Lisbon treaty without having a referendum, and from that point on the bets were off and trust was destroyed? That is why we need the referendum now.

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman may have missed the date of the comment I have just read out. It was 5 January 2010, when he and his hon. and right hon. Friends were campaigning for election. The leader of the Conservative party, at an event that was called “Cameron Direct”, which was an opportunity for voters to find out exactly what sort of person was seeking to be elected Prime Minister and to understand what made him tick, said:

“Do I want an in/out referendum? No, I don’t, because I don’t think we should leave.”

That was in January 2010, long after the debate about the Lisbon treaty, and I happen to agree with the view set out then by the current leader of the Conservative party, and one of the things we should be discussing in this debate is why the leader of the Conservative party has changed his position so dramatically.

The Scottish referendum has been referred to several times in this debate, and that is appropriate because there are some telling lessons for us to learn from it. That also illustrates how dramatically the Conservative party has changed in recent years. It was called the Conservative and Unionist party; I do not know if it is still called that, but that certainly was its name in the past, and it was a defender of the Union. It was absolutely clear in the Scottish referendum debate, however, that the only influence of the Conservative party was on the side of the yes campaign. I spent some time canvassing in Glasgow and a voter said to me, “Who wants to be part of a country where the next Prime Minister might be Boris Johnson?” One can understand that view. The Conservative party is no longer, in effect, a defender of the Union. Only my party is a national party; it is the only party that is able to stand successfully for election in every part of the United Kingdom. The Conservative party is no longer the defender of the Union.

Equally, the Conservative party is no longer the defender of the views of British business, and I personally regret that that is the case. The views of British businesses are extremely important in this debate, and we ignore them at our peril. When the Government were elected they said they would eradicate the deficit in this Parliament, but the Prime Minister acknowledged in the Chamber this week that the deficit has only been reduced by one third. We have seen the fall in markets around the world this week. The Chancellor himself has warned about the prospects for the recovery over the coming months. The chief economist of the Bank of England this morning has been pointing out that people in the UK on moderate incomes are continuing to see their incomes fall in real terms. The average wage is down over £1,600 per year in real terms since 2010. Surely that should be the central preoccupation for the Government elected next year. We should not have two years of paralysis, which is what would happen if we were to go down the road envisaged in the Bill. Surely the economic interest of the country should be the focus of our attention, and we need businesses to be successful in order for the deficit to be eradicated. This Government have fallen so far short of the goal they set out for doing that.

The views of British businesses are clear. In response to an intervention from me the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) was unwilling to accept that the view set out by the director-general of the CBI was the view of British businesses. If I heard him correctly, he said that we should be cautious about listening to the big battalions.

[Robert Neill]

Correct.

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman has confirmed that that is his view and I imagine it is the view of most Government Members in the Chamber today. They feel that we should not be listening to the views of the CBI, but I believe we should. Its director general has said that the EU

“remains fundamental to our economic future”.

He continued:

“Our membership supports jobs, drives growth and boosts our international competitiveness.”

That should be a central concern for this House and for the Government elected next May.

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Ashford for a number of the points he made, and he drew attention also to the views of the Engineering Employers Federation. Its chief executive said just last month that

“manufacturers remain overwhelmingly of the view that our economic wellbeing is inextricably linked to the EU and we must stay in membership.”

In a poll of its members, it found that 85% of member companies indicated that they would like to stay in, rising to 90% of those with more than 250 employees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

If every single Opposition Member who spoke about the awfulness of this Bill does not reinforce that with their vote today, the public can conclude that they are prepared to let the unelected House at the other end of this Building do their dirty work for them. I have heard from them today nothing good about this small Bill, which simply reinforces the public’s ability to make up their own mind when they have heard all the arguments, whether from business or politicians. Therefore, if those Opposition Members who desperately oppose this Bill do not vote today, they will show the hypocrisy of the Opposition, who prefer to let the other end do their dirty work for them.

[Robert Neill]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Question put accordingly: That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 0.

Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) on initiating the debate. I am very happy to be one of its sponsors. We have heard thoughtful contributions from all hon. Members who have taken part. I will not repeat the important points that have been made, but it is worth restating the universality of the freedom of conscience and belief. It is important that Britain, as a significant player in many international institutions, stands up consistently and vocally for that freedom. We should not be tempted, in the context of foreign or other policy, to put such action into the category of things that are too difficult to do, or too inconvenient when balancing other interests. It is a fundamental part of our commitment as a democracy.

[Rehman Chishti]

My hon. Friend has mentioned our international obligations. In that connection, may I draw attention to the persecution of the Baha’is in Iran? The international community is currently attempting to bring Iran into the fold in the context of the nuclear issue, but does my hon. Friend agree that we should also stress that human rights must be a key priority for the country if it is to become part of that community?

[Robert Neill]

There is no doubt that we must move very carefully, and must ensure that Iran is genuinely complying with all the international obligations with which an accepted state should comply. Although—as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis)—there has been an occasional act of generosity towards Christian and other faith communities in Iran, it remains a matter of concern that since the election of President Rohani many Christians have been arrested, and more than 50 remain in prison. I think that the new regime is very much on probation, and that Britain, together with our allies, must be vigilant in ensuring that not too easy a ride is given to those who may wish to push it back in a reactionary direction.

Iran is indeed an important factor, but I want to say a little about two other issues which, although well known, are worth referring to again. What is happening in Syria is a horror story by any account. It is a horror story for all Syrians, regardless of their faith and regardless of where they find themselves in that country. There is particular concern about what is increasingly being shown to be the targeted persecution of the Christian community in Syria. The Christians are not alone: Alawites and Shi’a and Sunni Muslims have also been targeted in some cases. However, there is a real fear that the Christian community—which, after all, is one of the oldest communities in the middle east: we all remember the Damascene conversion, which is one of the roots of Christianity and dates back to its very earliest days—is under unacceptable and very frightening pressure.

The Christian charity Open Doors has been doing valuable work in screening many international media sources to find examples of persecutions of Christians. Its global researches have established that some 2,123 Christians have been killed because of their faith, and that 1,213 of them have been killed in Syria. We have also seen the systemic targeting of Christian churches, 83 in Syria and 492 in Egypt. Mass graves were discovered in the ancient Christian town of Sadad, which had been overrun by rebel extremists.

[Stephen Pound]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is as informative as he is generous. Does he agree that one of the most extraordinary aspects of his speech so far is the fact that it has featured no examples of the mass conversions from Christianity that occurred in the Ottoman empire? Should we not be remembering, in our thoughts and in our prayers, the Christians who keep their faith even in the most horrendous circumstances? Is that not truly the most remarkable fact that has emerged from this afternoon’s debate?

[Robert Neill]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Those of us who are not afraid to regard ourselves and publicly label ourselves as Christians should consider that to be an important and integral part of the faith that binds him and me, and many others in the Chamber, to the Christians who are suffering outside. That strength is the great value that Christianity brings not only to this country, but to the world as a whole. As we know, there have been examples of mass conversion elsewhere in the world. Reference has been made to Nigeria, and heaven knows what has befallen some of the young girls who were abducted recently in the north of that country.

It is important that the western powers, in seeking to bring peace to Syria and to deal with a vile regime in the form of the Assads, do not allow that regime to be replaced by one of the many others that are dominated by foreign jihadis who are determined to destroy a vulnerable community in one of its ancient heartlands.

Although we of course welcome the opportunity for democracy that the Arab spring has brought, we must accept that there is a real concern that it has also brought something of a winter of persecution for Christians throughout the wider middle east. Open Doors and Christian Solidarity Worldwide have done a lot of work in this area. They have discovered, for example, that some 200,000 Christians are thought to have fled Egypt—a country where I have personal connections and which I have visited—since the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak. He was not perfect, but I am afraid that the situation for Christians has deteriorated greatly since then. At the end of March, a Christian woman, Mary Sameh George, was beaten, stabbed and shot to death in Cairo, apparently because in her car—a car she used to deliver food and medicine to the elderly—there was a crucifix. As Bishop Kyrillos of the Coptic Church has said, when such things occur, there is no sense that even the present regime has a full commitment to tackling those issues. It is very important that Britain and our western allies use every available means of pressure to ensure that, if the new regimes in Egypt and elsewhere want to be accepted in the world community, religiously motivated sectarianism is bore down on wherever it comes from.

We have sought to do our bit. Many parliamentarians from this place and the other place are part of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe, where we have the opportunity to debate these issues at length. However, we need that consistent approach from Her Majesty’s Government. Support for religious minorities is not tradeable against any other interest in the conduct of foreign policy.

The examples overseas are important, but I want to finish by saying a word or two about the situation at home. I am not afraid to define my political activity as influenced in part by my faith, as is that of many others, and we should not therefore allow a degree, which we sometimes see, of surprisingly illiberal secularism to drown out the mention of faith in our public space. I was genuinely saddened that the Prime Minister—indeed, it could have been the leader of any other major political party—was criticised for having raised the importance of faith in the public debate. That letter from a number of no doubt eminent intellectuals was the most illiberal exposition of liberalism that I have seen in many a long day, and we ought to say that clearly.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

On the miscasting of those who have a motivating faith in so much of what they do, does the hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that this Government have removed the barrier to access to DFID match-funding schemes for faith-related groups such as Christian Aid, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development and Trócaire? Those organisations are not proselytising when they are working in the developing world; they are supporting people of all faiths and of none in key development, motivated by their faith but not pushing it on anyone or threatening anyone.

[Robert Neill]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Like doubtless virtually every other hon. Member, I have seen constituency examples of the work done by faith-based charities from a range of faiths. I am thinking of the work of the Alawi community, for example, which has been mentioned, and of the work of an evangelical church—not my tradition within the Church—in St. Paul’s Cray, in my community. It is doing great work to change lives, deal with drug addiction and improve access to education. My constituent Shekhor Tarat, who is a trustee of a Hindu temple, is doing valuable work for the vulnerable members of a small community in east London. All those faiths are important, and it is critical that we recognise the integral part they play in our civic society.

This debate is timely, and it is time to stand up for the importance of faith and tolerance within these universal values. It is important that we recognise that we must always be vigilant about that, not only abroad but—albeit, happily, in a less stark context—at home.

Ukraine, Syria and Iran

Robert Neill Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes, there have been reports of that on and off for a long time, as the hon. Gentleman will know, particularly in early 2013, when large numbers of Hezbollah fighters were clearly in Syria. Indeed, quite a large number of them were killed. It is important for us to help stabilise neighbouring countries so that they are less likely to be drawn into the conflict. We are doing that in a big way in Lebanon, where we are assisting with education and humanitarian aid and helping the Lebanese army with its border observation posts. However, the only answer to the risks he spells out is a political solution to end the crisis, and that is our top priority.

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

My right hon. Friend has recognised the importance of economic stability to the long-term structural stability of Ukraine. Does he agree that long-term economic stability also requires transparency and national and international trust in Ukraine’s legal systems and systems of public administration, which it currently lacks, as does Russia? Will Britain see what more it can do, in addition to economic aid, to assist in enhancing Ukraine’s legal systems, both directly and through our membership of the Council of Europe?

[Mr Hague]

I will make that important point to the authorities in Ukraine when I visit. Britain has a lot to offer when it comes to well-functioning legal systems that create confidence in the rule of law and in property rights, which encourages investment. I can assure my hon. Friend that I will be making that point.

Persecution of Christians

Robert Neill Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

I would not want to separate it out and just talk about it in the context of freedom of religion. We should discuss it generally in the context of human rights abuses. We have taken steps in countries where we think that there is corruption—

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kerry McCarthy]

May I just finish answering the question?

In several countries we would give aid directly to agencies working in the field, rather than putting it into the Government’s coffers, because of concerns about corruption and a lack of democracy. That might be a way forward when we have concerns about a country’s human rights record, particularly if there are recognised and well-established agencies, such as UN agencies, working in those countries that we can trust to deliver aid without discrimination and without supporting any measures that persecute people. As I have said, I think that we should look at a country’s record in the round. It comes down to whether we trust its Government to spend aid money in the way we expect them to.

[Robert Neill]

I do not think that we disagree with anything the hon. Lady has said, but why does she seem so reluctant to phrase her contribution in terms of religion and the particular persecution suffered by Christians? We are all in favour of human rights for everybody, but there is a particular and pressing concern about Christian communities around the world. Will she not be more specific in her response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) on ensuring that aid reflects discrimination against Christian and other religious bodies?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am sorry, but I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that we should start carving up human rights by saying that some abuses are worse than others. That would be entirely wrong, because there are countries in which people of other faiths are being persecuted and killed, and we see persecution when we look at violence against women and attacks on LGBT communities. I accept that the persecution of Christians is a growing problem and that it is horrific in many countries, but I just do not think that we should divide it up. I think that we should look at whether a country respects human rights.

This year saw the launch of the Commonwealth charter, which was trumpeted as the first time that all Commonwealth countries had signed up to a statement of shared values. I attended the Commonwealth parliamentary conference in Johannesburg this year. There was a lot of controversy, because it became apparent that not all the countries represented shared the same values, particularly when it came to LGBT rights.

I will return to the issue of religious freedom. The Maldives has signed up to the Commonwealth charter and so is deemed to share the Commonwealth values of respect for human rights, but its constitution states that a person is not allowed to be anything other than Muslim, as we have heard, and no Christian gatherings or buildings are allowed. Citizens have to be Muslim, and that is enforced by pressure from families, society and the state.

Bangladesh is another Commonwealth country. The Bangladesh Minority Council has lobbied and met me to highlight the treatment of Christians, Buddhists and, in particular, Hindus, who now comprise just 7% of the population. In Pakistan, as we have heard, Hindus, Christians, Sikhs and Ahmadis are at serious risk of violence and intimidation. Members will know the case of the Christian girl arrested last year for allegedly burning pages of the Koran, which brought to public attention the impact of the blasphemy laws in that country. We have also heard about another Commonwealth country, Nigeria, where horrific acts of violence against Christians are being carried out. We have to question what we can do within the Commonwealth. If we say that the Commonwealth is a club of shared values, what can we do when members of that club do not seem to be putting those principles into practice? It is really important to take that question forward.

The hon. Member for Strangford rightly highlighted the plight of Christians in Syria. Of course, that is not the only country from which Christians are being forced to flee. Open Doors has warned that Christians are on the verge of extinction in Iraq, where their population has fallen from 1.2 million in the early 1990s to just 333,000 today. In Iran, Christians have had to flee their homes or the country, Muslims who have renounced Islam face the death penalty and Christians are being sentenced to 80 lashes for drinking communion wine. The special rapporteur on human rights in Iran reported that more than 300 Christians have been arrested since 2010, including Saeed Abedini, who was sentenced to eight years imprisonment for this work with the house churches. Other faiths, not least the Baha’i, also face persecution in Iran.

On Burma, we know about the religious tensions in Rakhine state, where the Rohingya Muslims’ faith is a factor, as well as their ethnicity, but Christians in Burma have suffered persecution too. The Chin Christians have been targeted for their ethnicity and their faith. A report by the Chin Human Rights Organisation documented cases of forced labour, more than 40 separate incidents of torture, and 24 official complaints from Chin Christians of human rights violations, including rape and extra-judicial killing, where no action was taken against the perpetrators.

As we heard earlier, Open Doors ranked Saudi Arabia second on its world watch list, with only North Korea ahead of it. Conversion to a religion other than Islam is punishable by death, and Christian worshippers risk imprisonment, lashing, deportation and torture. It is important to note that last month saw the elections, mostly uncontested, to the Human Rights Council, of which Saudi Arabia and the Maldives, as well as China, are now members. I echo the comments I made about the Commonwealth club. If these countries are to be members of the Human Rights Council, they need to be demonstrating in their own countries that they are putting respect for human rights into practice.

--- Later in debate ---

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

May I, too, warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and his party on securing this debate? I could not agree more with the sentiments that have been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) and the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds).

I say gently to the Front Benchers on both sides of the Chamber that, however good their intentions, we should not be afraid, in the Parliament of a country that still has an established Christian Church, to phrase a debate in terms of religion or Christianity. Christianity can benefit everyone in any society. It gives us in this country a shared moral compass that binds us together. It offers the same to believer and non-believer, Christian and non-Christian alike, not just in this country but elsewhere. We should therefore not be at all afraid to speak up about the persecution that Christians face.

May I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to the work of organisations such as Open Doors, which provided me with valuable material for a recent debate on this subject in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and Christian Solidarity Worldwide, which came to my constituency surgery recently to highlight these matters? Canon Andrew White has rightly been mentioned. I also commend to the Government the work of the former Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, in whose former diocese my constituency lies. If Ministers have not met or spoken to Dr Nazir-Ali, I hope that they will do so, because he has shed light on the persecution in his native country of Pakistan and elsewhere.

It is worth restating that while any persecution of any faith is wrong, the pressure on Christians is particular and acute. We must face the fact that in some parts of the world, that persecution comes from a religious/political ideology. I regret to say that some, although not all, elements of the Islamic world demonstrate that problem. In some cases, the persecution comes from states—China and other states have been mentioned—that are aggressively secular. It is right for us to say that it is not good enough for a nation’s constitution to say that people have freedom of religion as long as it is through a state-approved Church. It is not acceptable for one part of a constitution to say that freedom of religion is guaranteed but another part to undermine that by saying that a particular form of Islamic jurisprudence trumps all others, as in Egypt.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Robert Neill]

I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me for not giving way; time is short, and I want to make progress so that others can get in.

I hope that the Government will use the leverage that they have. That is why I do not have any problem at all with our developing trade links with China—I hope that we can use the leverage that comes with that developing relationship to remind people that, as other Members have said, membership of the club of modern economies should bring with it respect for religious freedom, and for Christians in particular.

One particular concern is the situation of Christians in the Arab world. They face discrimination in almost every country of the Arab world, with perhaps the only notable exception being Lebanon. The latest Open Doors list of the 50 worst countries in which to be a Christian includes every Arab world country. It is legitimate, as a matter of policy, for us to seek to use our leverage to change that situation.

I have friends and contacts in Egypt, and Members have referred to the situation of the Coptic Church there, which has been established for centuries, almost millennia. That situation has got worse because of political and religious persecution over the past few months. Again, I hope that the Government will use the leverage that we can have with Egypt to ensure that the new draft constitution not only reflects a genuine right to religious freedom for all, particularly the Coptic community, but entrenches it in practice. For example, it should remove discriminatory provisions regarding the building of Christian churches, which evoke laws that go back to the Ottoman era and have been a problem in Egypt. We have a chance to work with the interim Government in Egypt to achieve a genuinely better constitution for all religious minorities, but the reality is that the largest and most pressured religious minority in Egypt is the Christian minority. We should not be afraid to say that.

Like other Members, I hope that we can consider what more support we can give beleaguered Christian communities in Iraq and Syria, which are some of the oldest in the Christian world, through the Geneva II process. It would be a tragedy if the Arab spring, which we all welcomed, turned into a winter of oppression and discontent for Christians. That is not in the interests of the Muslim majority in those countries any more than it is of Christians.

We should not be afraid of doing religion in this House occasionally. I hope that if we can have this debate, it means that we have got to a happier place, and I hope that the Government will reflect on that when they take on board what has been said today. Governments are entitled to do religion sometimes, because religion can be for the good of all of society.