Article 50

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Owen Paterson

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

There are two things that we will be doing over the next 24 months, as a Government. One is putting in place our plan for Britain, which is about ensuring that we see a United Kingdom where the economy works for everyone, where we have a much fairer society and where success is based on merit, not privilege. That is what is driving this Government, and that is what we will be putting into place domestically. For the unity of the UK, the most important element in the negotiations with Europe is to get the best possible deal in terms of co-operation on security, but also on the free trade arrangements that will bring prosperity to our economy.

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

May I thank my right hon. Friend for and congratulate her on resolutely sticking to her promise to the British people to trigger article 50 before the end of March? There will be celebrations all around the country, nowhere more so than in our remote coastal communities, where the health and wealth of our fishing grounds has been trashed by the common fisheries policy. To re-establish fully our national control of the full exclusive economic zone, we will have to abrogate our membership of the 1964 London convention on fisheries, which requires two years’ notice. Does my right hon. Friend intend to trigger that soon?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that my right hon. Friend has always had a particular interest in the impact of the common fisheries policy, and he has looked at that issue very carefully. We are looking very carefully at the London fisheries convention and at what action needs to be taken. He is right that this would require two years, but we of course expect to conclude the deal with the European Union within two years and there will then, as I have indicated, be an implementation period beyond that particular time. We hope to be able to say something about the London fisheries convention soon.

European Council 2016

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Owen Paterson

Monday 19th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The Chancellor reflected the comments I made when I spoke to the CBI, recognising the desire for business to have some certainty beyond that point of leaving the European Union. That is one of the reasons why we have already announced that we are going to bring EU law into domestic law in the UK at that point, so that people can have some certainty about the point of movement from membership of the European Union to being outside it.

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

At the end of November, Ilse Aigner, the Christian Social Union economy Minister of Bavaria, gave a clear warning to her coalition partners in Berlin that uncertainty could damage the Bavarian economy, as the UK is one of its most important trading partners. Does the Prime Minister appreciate that there will be significant forces in Europe supporting her timetable to trigger article 50 at the end of March in order to bring to a conclusion the arrangements for free trade that exist between us and Bavaria?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend raises an important point, specifically about Bavaria, but the overall point is a very simple one. This is not just about what is in the interests of the United Kingdom; it is also about what is in the interests of the remaining 27 members of the European Union. As we negotiate that deal, I expect us to negotiate one that will be right for the UK but that will retain a strong European Union, with which we will be trading and working together on matters of mutual interest.

Paris Terrorist Attacks

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Owen Paterson

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I have considerable sympathy with the point the hon. Lady makes. I often use the term Daesh. As it happens, I have not done so this afternoon. She is absolutely right that this group is not Islamic and is not a state. We should not give the impression that either of those is the case.

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, which will be widely welcomed in France for her offer of support and co-operation, and for her insistence that normal life should go on, with particular reference to the football international. She will know that there are numerous attempts to attack the British public. We should be deeply grateful to the security services here.

Will she reflect on the proposals in the draft Investigatory Powers Bill to involve the judiciary in the executive decision of issuing warrants? That decision should be in the hands of Secretaries of State, who bear a heavy responsibility and are responsible to this House. The judiciary should, by all means, be involved after the event, perhaps days or a week later, but will she consider the idea that it must be a responsible, democratically elected Secretary of State who makes such difficult decisions, and that speed is vital?

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend is right that there are cases in which speed is absolutely essential, which is why the draft Bill provides for emergency or urgent situations when timeliness is required. In those circumstances it will be possible for the Secretary of State to sign a warrant that will come into effect immediately before the judicial authority has considered it. He asks me to look again at the double lock that we have put in place. I agree that it is important to have public accountability for a decision taken by the Secretary of State, but I also know that people are concerned to ensure that there is a second element of judicial authority. Indeed, some people want there to be only judicial authority, but I do not think that would be right. I think that the way we are going, with the accountability of the Secretary of State and the independence of the judiciary, is right.

Draft Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Owen Paterson

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

On the hon. and learned Lady’s point about an open door, I have already spoke to Michael Matheson about the Bill, and my officials have been, and will continue to be, in touch with Scottish Government officials. I am well aware that it impinges on matters devolved to the Scottish Government—the operation of Police Scotland and the signature of warrantry relating to law enforcement powers—and we will work with them. There is a question about whether a legislative consent motion is necessary, but officials are working through that and considering whether it would be appropriate.

I recognise that the Scottish Government have raised the timing of warrantry. We have every confidence that the process will not add greater bureaucracy, but will add the necessary independent judicial authorisation. In emergency warrant cases, the Secretary of State will be able to authorise a warrant immediately, but that will be followed by a speedy review by the judge to ensure there is still authorisation.

The hon. and learned Lady asked if David Anderson’s recommendations, particularly about the Bill’s being comprehensive, had been met. I genuinely believe that this is a clearer and more comprehensible and comprehensive Bill, although given its length, some Members might wonder how I can say that. It is an important Bill that will set out much more clearly the different powers available to the authorities. She asked about necessity and proportionality. Of course, warrants will still be judged on whether they are necessary and proportionate—that will still be the test applied by the Secretary of State to any warrants signed. On the issue of liberty versus security, some people think it is a zero-sum game—that if we increase one, we reduce the other—but I am clear that we cannot enjoy our liberty until we have our security.

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

Our success in preventing numerous attacks on the public, to which the Home Secretary rightly paid tribute, is down not just to the professionalism and skill of our security services, but to the rapid decision-making process for warrants. As she and I know acutely, this is a very serious responsibility, but I strongly believe that these decisions should be made by an elected Member of the House, accountable to the House and Committees such as the ISC. I am concerned that involving a decision maker from the judiciary, who might not have particular skills in this area, will bring delay and complication. As Secretary of State, I was often approached at short notice and at difficult times of the day—early morning, for example—for a decision, and in making such decisions, I was fully aware that I would be held to account later. Will she explain further how this system will work? How many hours after an early-morning decision by a Secretary of State will there be scrutiny by the judge? Will the Secretary of State be able to discuss the areas of concern, and will the intelligence services, which prepare the material—I always found it to be punctilious, correct and professionally drafted—have an opportunity to return with a further application with further detail, if the Secretary of State has understood the judge’s grounds for throwing out an application?