Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Michael Ellis

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 18th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Lady, particularly given the context she gave to this debate, which is important and worth reflecting on for a second or two. She reminds us that this is in fact the third Bill in this area in this Parliament. Indeed, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), pointed out towards the end of his remarks, we now have another innovation: people are to be offered a cash payment to take the opportunity of going to Rwanda.

What do three Bills and a still evolving political situation and portfolio of arrangements tell us? They tell us that this Government have no strategic purpose in how they are tackling this problem, and that has become apparent from a number of the interventions today.

We have spoken an awful lot about the rule of law. To be honest, this Bill and this debate are not about the rule of law; they are an entirely political exercise. I am pretty certain that the Government will win the votes tonight, that they will face down their lordships, and that they will get their way. I would be astonished if any of the legislation makes any significant difference at the end of the day, because this is not about the law or even about a meaningful approach to the problem of boats in the channel; it is all about politics in the run-up to the election.

One of the most telling interventions came from the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) and his point about permanence, which was absolutely on point. It is not without significance that nobody has chosen to pick it up, because I do not think there is an answer—or, at least, no good answer. On the question of permanence, let us not ignore the context of where Rwanda is and where Rwanda has been politically and in relation to its neighbours. In January, the US State Department was saying to Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo that they had to walk back from the brink in the conflict between them. If either or both of them choose not to, where will that leave the safety and stability of Rwanda as a destination for us to send people? The determination, as the shadow Minister said, to legislate to say that somehow or another the sky can be green and the grass can be blue takes no account of those real challenges that are coming down the track.

The Government should look at the authors of the amendments that they will knock back today. One is Lord Hope of Craighead. I remember when he was first appointed as Lord President in Scotland, and I have watched his progression through to being head of the Supreme Court. This is not a man given to making grand political gestures. This is no wide-eyed radical. When he comes up with an amendment to say that the purposes of the Bill should be done in accordance with domestic and international law, that makes perfect sense.

It is not to be forgotten that the roots of this legislation are to be found in a Supreme Court judgment. That caused enormous frustration in Government circles, and we do not forget that, but obeying the law is not an optional extra for any Government. Even if what we are trying to do here is to circumvent the scrutiny of the courts, to resist an amendment that says that decision-makers should treat Rwanda as safe

“unless presented with credible evidence to the contrary”

simply defies any sense of logic.

The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) made extensive reference to the Home Office guidance on human rights in Rwanda. Her point was good, but it is a nonsense, surely, that in the Home Office, people are beavering away, working out the human rights position in Rwanda, while in another office in the same building, people are drafting clauses saying that the people who will then make the decisions should not allowed to take any account of it. That makes no sense.

If we were serious about finding a solution to the problem and breaking the business model of the people traffickers, the Government would be taking in the Opposition, the Scottish nationalists, ourselves and all parties to try to find a common way forward. In fact, they are doing the opposite. They are seeking to manage the issue politically in such a way as to increase division and not to build consensus. In the time remaining to them in government, they will be able to win votes like this, but they will not do anything to stop the traffic. Ultimately, they will have to be replaced by those who will.

[Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

I rise to reject and oppose all 10 of the Lords amendments. In the other place last week, peer after peer spoke of this Bill as an outrageous affront to the law or “international law”. With great respect, there seemed to be a collective amnesia that it is Parliament that is sovereign and that Parliament secured sovereign authority over generations from what had previously been an absolute monarchy. It probably stems from the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Parliament for centuries now has had sovereign authority to pass any law whatever.

No law that Parliament passes can be “outside the law”. In our system, it is Parliament that is supreme. Despite the misnomer of the court that Tony Blair invented, it is Parliament that is supreme, not lawyers or judges. That is unlike the United States, for example, where judges can strike down a law passed by Congress as unconstitutional. In fact, the UK legislature could do the opposite of that, and strike the Supreme Court down out of existence, if such were Parliament’s will. That is, after all, what Tony Blair himself did when he abolished the 150-year-old principle of the Law Lords and the House of Lords as our highest court and created the Supreme Court just a few years ago. Many think that was an act of constitutional vandalism, and I happen to agree, but whether or not one does, it is axiomatic that what Blair did, one of his successors can at least in theory undo. That is the nature of our system.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) said earlier, Parliament derives its authority from the people, and that is why parliamentary sovereignty is so important. It is not an aggrandisement. The law is a living, fluid concept. People change and people’s views change, which is why it is right that the people’s elected representatives in Parliament can have sovereignty over decisions that are made. Two hundred years ago, drawing graffiti on Westminster Bridge was an offence punishable by death; now people can block ambulances on Westminster Bridge and receive no more than a small fine. The law has changed in 200 years, and it is imperative that we bear in mind that it is a fluid concept. It has to keep up with the wishes and will of the people.

Functioning of Government

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Michael Ellis

Thursday 7th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. He is right, of course, that a general election is not constitutionally necessary; the Prime Minister was before the Liaison Committee yesterday and said as much. We will await events, but I cannot pre-empt the Prime Minister’s statement.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I am delighted to hear the Minister speaking positively about the role of the civil service. That contrasts rather well with the way the Government in recent years have done nothing but traduce and undermine its position. I must say that the Prime Minister cannot remain as a caretaker. That is just putting the bull in charge of the china shop. This is not all about Ministers and politicians; it is about our constituents and the public services on which they depend and which, for months now, this Government have been unable to deliver properly for them. That is why they all need to go.

[Michael Ellis]

The substantive matter that the right hon. Gentleman mentions is not a matter for me, but I will say that Ministers on this Bench and in this House will serve the Crown and this country, as they always have.

Standards in Public Life

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Michael Ellis

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

I have already adumbrated that there was an exercise within the Foreign Office at the time. The reality of the matter is that there was a process that was undertaken.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

In response to Sue Gray’s interim report, the Prime Minister announced that he would set up an office of the Prime Minister to address what she had identified as “fragmented and complicated” leadership structures that, in turn,

“led to the blurring of lines of accountability.”

Given the variety of conflicting accounts that we have heard in the past few days, how does the Minister think that has worked out?

[Michael Ellis]

If the right hon. Gentleman is asking me about machinery-of-Government processes and changes, that is not within my area of responsibility, but he knows what has been said about that. There is work going on all the time to look at machinery of Government and no doubt that will continue.

Adviser on Ministerial Interests

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Michael Ellis

Tuesday 21st June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right about the code. I think it is annex A, and it may even be 1(c), although I may be wrong. The foreword is a topical document and how and by whom Lord Geidt is replaced are being worked through in detail.

The Government have only very recently made a number of significant changes to the remit of the independent adviser and to the ministerial code, and those changes were made in response to recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, as the former Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), mentioned only a few moments ago. They represented the most substantial strengthening of the independent adviser’s role and office during the lifetime of that post. The role has been strengthened and increased substantially. I will not run through all the details of those changes again. In the light of last week’s events, it strikes us as reasonable to not rush in, but pause and reflect on how to do it properly.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

If the changes that the Government recently brought forward are so significant and substantial, why do they feel it is necessary to have a pause for reflection again now, so soon?

[Michael Ellis]

Those are two different things, as the right hon. Member knows. We are talking about strengthening the role of the independent adviser, on which we had time to reflect and which we then did.

In no way do I suggest that the Government do not regard the role with the utmost importance; we do. In no way do I suggest that something of this importance will be left unaddressed; it will not. All I suggest is that we take a period of time to assess how best to perform that function. I appreciate that the motion allows a limited period of time, as it does not take effect until the independent adviser role has been unfilled for two months, but that timing presents two issues.

First, two months, with a deadline of 14 August, is simply an unduly short period to recruit for a role of such significance and sensitivity. Secondly, the motion allows for no time to think about how the role is delivered. By proposing the creation of a sort of shadow adviser on Ministers’ interests, the motion simply demands the same model again without consideration of any alternative options. It also unwisely, if I may say so, innovates to expand the remit of an existing Committee without considering the impact that that will have on the operation of the ministerial code. As I said, the Government think that the time is right to reflect on this matter more carefully.

[Mr Carmichael]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Ellis]

In a moment; I will just make some progress.

Let me move on to the detail of the motion, which is constitutionally rather important. It is predicated on a misplaced worry about the Government’s intentions, and that anxiety has created a jumble of misguided ideas. First, the creation of the new specialist adviser position stands directly at odds with the principle of separation of powers and the necessary distinction between Members and Ministers of the Crown. It would be an extraordinary shift of power from the Executive to the legislature, which would upset the long-established balance in that aspect of the United Kingdom’s constitution. It would be a reckless change that has not been thought through.

Her Majesty’s Government would not dream of appointing advisers to this House—that is for the House to do, and Mr Speaker would rightly protect the legislature’s independence—but the Opposition want the legislature to interfere with the independence of the Executive by appointing one of its own advisers. Effectively, that is a recipe for gridlock and confusion.

It is a fundamental constitutional principle that the Prime Minister of the day, as head of Her Majesty’s Government and the sovereign’s principal adviser, has sole responsibility for the overall organisation of the Executive and for recommending the appointment of Ministers. The Prime Minister, not Parliament, advises Her Majesty on the appointment of her Ministers. In turn, the Government of the day are accountable to the Commons and must command its confidence. That is our system. The ultimate responsibility for decisions on matters of ministerial conduct is therefore, quite properly, the Prime Minister’s alone, who draws his authority from the elected House of Commons. As an elected politician, those are matters for which he or she is accountable to Parliament and, ultimately, the electorate.

Flowing from those arrangements, the ministerial code is the Prime Minister’s document. It belongs to the Prime Minister and sets out the standards of behaviour that he expects from his Ministers. Likewise, the appointment of others to advise on the ministerial code is a matter for the Prime Minister. It would be similar to me appointing an adviser to the Leader of the Opposition, which would, of course, be absolute nonsense and would not be accepted by the Opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

I think the hon. Lady misunderstands the position, which I have made perfectly clear and will repeat. This is about getting the process henceforth right—a process that will have the confidence of this House, the Prime Minister, Ministers and everyone else. It is right to consider these things carefully and take time to reflect on them before taking a decision on how best to fulfil the Prime Minister’s commitment. It is the Prime Minister who has made a commitment to ensuring rigorous oversight and close scrutiny of ministerial interests. As I have said, we are looking at the best way to carry out this function, given some of the issues raised recently and set out in our plans. But I could not be clearer when I have given the single-word answer “yes” on the Prime Minister’s intention to appoint a new ethics adviser. We will announce how that will be done and who is to do it in due course. We will make sure it is done properly to ensure that Parliament and the public have confidence.

In the meantime, the Labour party, when its rail strike is in progress, has chosen today of all days to discuss this matter. I suppose half its Members are on the picket lines at the moment, blocking hard-working people from going about their daily business. They debate this matter for the umpteenth time and the umpteenth hour—so much so that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) says that she sees more of me than of her friends. The feeling is mutual, although I think she has far more friends than me, except on the Government Benches, where I have a lot more friends, of course, because the Prime Minister wins elections. He does not talk about personalities; he talks about policies. On policies, this party and this Government win.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way eventually. I am sure that we all share his aspiration to have a process in future that commands public confidence, but he has not yet mentioned what it was about the previous system that did not command public confidence. What was it?

[Michael Ellis]

I will leave that to the right hon. Gentleman’s already active imagination, but I would say that not everything is a conspiracy. He should bear in mind the responsibility that he and his party have for ensuring that this country’s railway system is working correctly and is not subject to industrial action. Why not support the people of this country in doing that? The red herring that he focuses on is symptomatic of where we are with this debate.

I have made it clear that Labour’s motion seeks to confuse the constitutional position of this country; it confuses the powers of the Executive with those of the legislature. We propose to move on and appoint an ethics adviser, as I have said. We will ensure that an announcement is made as to how it will be done and who will do it in due course, but I emphasise that it must be done properly. In the meantime, I respectfully caution the Opposition to get their Members off the picket lines and to support the people of this country, which is what this Conservative Government will continue to do.

Question put.

Standards in Public Life

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Michael Ellis

Tuesday 7th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

I respectfully disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister enhances the role of his office. [Interruption.] The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The Conservative party had, proportionately, the largest electoral victory since 1979—it speaks for itself. The Prime Minister has secured the electoral support of the largest number of people in this country for many years.

The ministerial code makes it clear that the Prime Minister will normally agree to an investigation, and that, in the unlikely scenario that the Prime Minister does not agree to an investigation, the independent adviser can then request that the reasons for not doing so are published. There is, therefore, a check on the Prime Minister’s power to refuse consent for an investigation. The reasons would have to be published and they would have to be clear. Those are important improvements in independence and transparency.

Lord Geidt is clear that this is a “workable scheme”. The Government are also clear that this is a scheme that upholds the constitutional position. I would add that Lord Evans, in writing to Lord True in response to the Government policy statement, stated that the new process for initiating investigations

“represents an improvement in the process for regulating the Code, which we welcome.”

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The Minister seeks to justify the Government’s position by tying it back to the principle of parliamentary privilege, as if that is somehow an absolute and inviolable principle. But it is a principle that we in recent years have watered down in relation to the creation of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and now the Independent Complaints and Grievance Service. This is not any more the trump card that it used to be. If this House is to be subject to independent investigation as Members, why should the Prime Minister and his Ministers be treated differently?

[Michael Ellis]

There is the Executive, the judiciary and the legislature, and there are different arrangements for the three branches. One would not expect anything contrary to that.

Let me touch on the relationship. The Government greatly value the work of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, but as the careful balancing of the powers around the initiation of investigation demonstrates, we consider it right that the Government assess recommendations on their individual merits. This work takes time and involves testing the strengths and weakness of proposals and options to develop a workable response. This is as true for the recommendations made in relation to the ministerial code as it is for the other areas covered in the extensive report issued by the CSPL just over six months ago. We have said that the Government are carefully considering those and other recommendations, and that is precisely the work that is taking place. The report was extensive, and the work to consider it is as extensive. I assure the House that the Government will respond to the Committee’s other recommendations in due course. The Government are happy to update the House via an appropriate statement when doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

With the leave of the House and yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to close this debate.

Today has been a useful debate in which valuable points were raised about the importance of high standards in public life—something that, as I have set out, the Government take seriously. The recently published statement on standards in public life set out reforms that provide a measured approach to make certain that the highest standards are maintained, while ensuring democratic accountability of elected representatives to the British people via the ballot box.

As I set out in my opening remarks, the Government will not be able to support this motion. I have heard Opposition Members repeatedly say the same thing. They have said, “We need a break from the Prime Minister”, “We need to change the Prime Minister”, and “We need to change the leadership of this country.” I respectfully suggest that the way to do that is by winning a general election. I have been in this Chamber for many hours over months now, and the Opposition parties have hardly said anything about policies. That is because if they talk about policies, they lose, so they talk about personalities.

Labour’s proposal is for an unelected, all-powerful overlord to choose who a Prime Minister’s Ministers should be. In theory, therefore, if a Labour Prime Minister—if ever there is a Labour Prime Minister in the future—were to say that they had lost faith in their Minister for the Cabinet Office, that would be one thing; but if they were to say that they had faith in their Minister for the Cabinet Office, but the new overlord were to say that he or she did not, under Labour’s plan that person would get to choose who that Minister was. With the greatest respect, I do not think that would make sense.

Looking at the constitutional framework of this country, as the policy statement published by the Government sets out, the constitutional status and framework are a key consideration when we look to make changes such as this. To explain the Government’s position here, the Prime Minister’s role as head of the Executive means that he has sole responsibility for the organisation of Her Majesty’s Government. That includes the recommendation of the appointment of, the dismissal of and the acceptance of any resignation by any of his Ministers. Ministers hold office for as long as they hold the confidence of the Prime Minister.

I gave examples earlier where Labour Prime Ministers retained confidence in a Minister who had been in breach of a ministerial code. The same applies both ways round. The Prime Minister, then, is accountable to both Parliament and the general public for the use of his powers as head of the Executive. As the ministerial code sets out, all Ministers, including the Prime Minister, are in the same way accountable to Parliament and the public for their actions and conduct.

Parliament has an established scrutiny role to play through mechanisms such as Select Committees, oral and written questions and statements. In addition to those arrangements, in our parliamentary democracy the conduct of the Government is ultimately judged by the electorate at the ballot box. I have to say this clearly: the ministerial code is the Prime Minister’s document. It sets out his guidance to all Ministers, including him, on how they should act and arrange their affairs in order to uphold the principles and standards of conduct set out in the code. The management of the Executive is wholly separate from the legislature.

[Mr Carmichael]

I was struck by the Minister’s reference there to an unelected, all-powerful, unaccountable individual; it reminded me that Dominic Cummings was the subject of correspondence in July and September last year between the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments and the Cabinet Office, with regard to his activities post leaving Downing Street. ACOBA has never had a response to that correspondence. When will it get one?

[Michael Ellis]

I am afraid I do not know the answer to that question, but I will certainly look into the matter for the right hon. Gentleman.

In line with the Prime Minister’s constitutional role as head of the Government, the Prime Minister is responsible for matters relating to the Executive. That point has been raised by several Opposition Members concerning the justiciability of the ministerial code. The ministerial code and its application are a matter for the Executive, and the Government do not consider that it would be appropriate to legislate for the ministerial code or for the office of the independent adviser. As soon as one legislates in that way, one opens the matter up to judicial review and judicial intervention.

Codifying aspects of the constitution in that way would inevitably constrain our ability as a country to flex and evolve our constitution over time. It would also increase the risk, which as a former Attorney General and Solicitor General is one of my principal concerns, of the judiciary’s being drawn into political matters that are not suitable for judicial review. They would be reviewing the fact that a Prime Minister has said, “I have confidence in X”, and a judge would, by necessity, be being asked to say that the Prime Minister should have confidence in X or they should not have confidence in X—the judge would be substituting his or her view for that of the Prime Minister. We want to protect the judiciary from being politicised in that way, which is another key flaw in Labour’s proposals.

Downing Street Christmas Parties Investigation

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Michael Ellis

Thursday 9th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

I do not have that answer. What I will say, as I have already said, is that, if required, the investigation will establish whether individual disciplinary action is warranted. That will be one of the principal focuses of the investigation. It will be ongoing and it will be in the public domain as soon as it is ready.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

In which case, can we get an assurance that the Cabinet Secretary was not involved in giving the assurances to the Prime Minister? If that is not able to be given, then it is quite inappropriate for him to be in charge of the investigation. The question of legal advice also arises because the Prime Minister asserted that no rules were broken. Will the advice on which that assertion was made be given to the inquiry when it is held? On the question of the possibility of the investigation being passed on to the police, will people interviewed by the inquiry be interviewed under caution? The Minister, as a former Law Officer, will know that there is a risk of contamination of evidence that has been obtained in an internal inquiry unfairly, which would then prejudice prosecutions in the future.

[Michael Ellis]

The right hon. Gentleman is jumping ahead with his last point. Of course, whether or not there will be any police investigation is dependent on whether the investigation by the Cabinet Secretary uncovers any suggestion of criminality, which is then referred to them. If that then happens, that is entirely a matter for the police and not, of course, for the Government. I know the Cabinet Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman makes a suggestion about that. I have confidence in the integrity of the Cabinet Secretary. I also know the Prime Minister and I have confidence in the integrity of the Prime Minister. I have known the Prime Minister for many years. The Prime Minister is a man of honour and integrity, and he presented to this House his position yesterday. What I would say to the right hon. Gentleman is that he should wait and see what the investigation uncovers.

Northern Ireland Protocol: EU Negotiations

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Michael Ellis

Thursday 18th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)(Urgent Question)]

To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the Northern Ireland protocol and negotiations with the European Union.

[The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

Let me begin by reaffirming the Government’s commitment to keeping both Houses of Parliament updated on the UK-EU relationship. We remain committed to doing just that. My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Frost gave the House of Lords an update on EU relations last Wednesday, 10 November, in the form of an oral statement. Unfortunately, as this honourable House was in recess at the time, it could not be repeated here on the same day. The timing of that update was unavoidable, led by external international business. However, I recognise the importance of keeping both Houses duly informed.

[Mr Carmichael]

I think that that answer was more remarkable for what it did not say than for what it did, but I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question. It is a shame that it was necessary, and that the Government have not seen fit to offer the House a statement. At the very least, we would have liked to hear some commitment from the Government today that there would be no triggering of article 16 this side of Christmas. The disruption that that would cause would be catastrophic, but still we hear nothing from them. I hope that the Minister will address that point when he replies to my supplementary question.

Listening to the Minister today, and to his colleagues on the airwaves in recent weeks, one could almost believe that the terms of our agreement with the European Union and the Northern Ireland protocol were nothing to do with them: “it was a big boy that done it and ran away”. It is almost as if those matters were negotiated by someone else, and were voted through the House in the teeth of Conservative opposition. However, we know that the truth is very different.

Article 16 does not exist as a “get out of jail free card” for the Government when they do not like the deal that they have done. It is a mechanism that allows for the taking of unilateral “safeguard” measures if either the EU or the UK concludes that the deal is leading to serious practical problems or causing diversion of trade. To invoke it in the way of which Ministers speak would be seen as an act of bad faith on the part of the UK Government.

What people and businesses in Northern Ireland want and need is pragmatic solutions to be reached and implemented in good faith, not more posturing. Businesses in Northern Ireland are crying out for a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement which would remove at a stroke the vast majority of the disruption for people on either side of the Irish sea, and that is where the Government should be devoting their energy. Will the Minister please update the House on the negotiation of that and other agreements under the protocol? In respect of the question of the role of the European Court of Justice in supervising this agreement, can the Minister explain why the Government now identify that as a problem when it was clearly within the protocol when it was negotiated and signed?

The problems of which the Government now complain are all of their own making. They chose to take us out of the customs union and to put a border down the Irish sea. It was a remarkable choice for a supposedly Unionist party to make, but they made it, and we now have to live with it. This is the time for posturing to stop and for mature government to start. A recent Queens University survey found that 52% of people in Northern Ireland support the protocol; I am sure the Minister will agree that that is a significant figure. Will he now get on and make it work?

[Michael Ellis]

With regard to the latest on the UK-EU relationship, my noble Friend Lord Frost and Vice-President Šefčovič met in London on 12 November to consider the state of play in discussions relating to the Northern Ireland protocol. Lord Frost noted that there remain significant gaps to be bridged between the UK and EU positions. He noted that it remained the United Kingdom’s preference to find a consensual way forward, but I must say that article 16 safeguards were and are a legitimate part of the protocol’s provisions.

The noble Lord Frost also underlined the need to address the full range of issues that the United Kingdom had identified in the course of discussions if a comprehensive and durable solution was to be found that supported the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That is in the best interests of Northern Ireland. In that context, although talks had so far been conducted in a constructive spirit, Lord Frost underlined that, to make progress, it was important to bring “new energy and impetus” to discussions. Accordingly, intensified talks are taking place this week between teams in Brussels on all issues, giving particular attention to medicines and customs issues.

This week, Lord Frost has also been in Belfast, talking to political, business and civil society leaders and will meet with Vice-President Šefčovič at the end of the week to consider progress. I will continue to keep Parliament informed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alistair Carmichael and Michael Ellis

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

T6. People in fishing communities will have been interested to hear the Paymaster General assert earlier that we are taking back control of our territorial waters. May I invite him to clarify that? When he says territorial waters, does he mean water up to the 6-mile, 12-mile or 200-mile limit?

[The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

I think the right hon. Gentleman knows full well what is meant by British territorial waters, and I invite him to accept that it is this Government who do everything they need to do, and they will continue to protect our territorial waters.