European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

David Lidington Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir David Lidington (Aylesbury) (Con)]

The Bill and the agreement that it seeks to implement represent a compromise. It is a compromise that I believe is acceptable, but I will not conceal the fact that I and many other Government Members will find elements of it difficult and uncomfortable. My decision to support the Government tonight rests above all on what I and the great majority of Members on both sides of the House pledged to the electorate in 2016—that we would, however we campaigned and however we voted, respect the decision that they took in the referendum.

When I look through the Bill, I see that much of it is familiar territory. That is hardly a surprise as much— indeed, most—of it ratifies precisely the same negotiated text as that negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). Of course, one significant change has been in relation to Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, said in an intervention earlier, there are advantages to what is in the deal. The guarantee of an open border on the island of Ireland is not only vital to allow trade and, indeed, normal economic life for people living in the border counties to continue, but is essential in my judgment for the maintenance of peace and security in the border areas. It is also important for the maintenance of the Union. When I look at the demographics of Northern Ireland as someone who passionately wants to see the Union continue and grow stronger, I conclude that for that to happen the Union will need to command the support—or at the very least the acquiescence—of a large number of people who identify as Irish or who are non-aligned in their affiliation.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Is the creation of a hard border in the Irish sea maintaining the Union?

[Sir David Lidington]

I shall come on to that point, but I want to say a few sentences about the consent mechanism. I understand the disquiet that has been expressed by those on the Unionist Benches about the design of the mechanism. It is nevertheless worth noting that that mechanism gives to Stormont a power that is unique in Europe. No other regional Parliament or Assembly anywhere else in Europe has the power, unilaterally, to decide to end the application of a set of European Union rules and regulations to its territory.

Having said that, I do want to recognise the fact that elements of the new package as regards Northern Ireland have aroused genuine disquiet and anger in Unionist communities across Northern Ireland. There is a perception that they have been treated unequally and that their place in the United Kingdom has been made less secure. I ask my right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench urgently to seek ways to address those concerns and to assert the Government’s continued commitment to the Union.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First of all, Unionists are greatly dismayed at what has happened in relation to the withdrawal agreement, but does the right hon. Gentleman also recognise the issues for businesses, including in the agrifood sector, in my constituency? The cost implications for Lakeland Dairies, which has two factories in Northern Ireland and two factories in southern Ireland, will be enormous. The Government have not given that full consideration. There will be an impact on Unionist opinion and on business.

[Sir David Lidington]

I recognise the concerns expressed by business, although I also note that the view expressed by business representative organisations in Northern Ireland has generally been that Parliament should go ahead with this deal and enact the legislation, but then address the concerns that the hon. Gentleman rightly identifies that they raised. I therefore ask my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench to also act swiftly to minimise the impact that additional inspections and red tape required by the new policy will impose on Northern Ireland businesses. That might include financial support, particularly to small and medium-sized enterprises to enable them to buy and operate new systems; efforts to simplify or dedramatise checks and form-filling required; and for the Government to give urgent priority to such measures as seeking a veterinary agreement with the European Union and other such arrangements that would enable the risks to Northern Ireland business to be minimised.

[James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sir David Lidington]

If my right hon. Friend will forgive me, time is limited.

I believe that this House also needs to take account of the shift we are seeing in attitudes among other Governments in the European Union. Sometimes I think that colleagues in this House are a little guilty of wishful thinking. Frankly, those Governments are no longer hanging on, hoping somehow that the United Kingdom will change its mind. They are impatient. They are increasingly exasperated with all political parties and at the ability of the UK political system to take a decision on this matter. As far as the EU Governments are concerned, they want this brought to an orderly conclusion as soon as possible in a way that does as little harm as possible to the interests of the EU27. That interest includes the future constructive and close relationship that they—like, I believe, most in the House—wish to see between this country and the continuing European Union.

There are strategic challenges that face our country and every other European democracy. We debate them when we are spared time from debating Brexit: climate change, terrorism, serious and organised crime, and the mass movement of people. As European democracies, we are having to confront those challenges in the context of a shifting balance of world power, with a Russia that is aggressive and actively seeking to divide democratic European states, a China that is assertive and offering economic opportunity but championing a model for government and society at odds with that embedded in our own democratic and liberal values, and a United States whose unquestioning support for European security and a rules-based international order can no longer be taken for granted. I believe that because of the referendum result we have to leave, and we need to get on with the task of trying to build a different but close and enduring partnership with our European neighbours and allies and to work together to meet the challenges that confront us all as fellow democracies on a shared continent. Passing this Bill will enable us to take one step closer towards starting on that task.

Brexit Readiness: Operation Yellowhammer

David Lidington Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Because Border Force will have considerable new powers to intercept people smugglers, human traffickers and those dealing in organised crime.

[Sir David Lidington (Aylesbury) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I call Sir David Roy Lidington KCB CBE.

[Sir David Lidington]

While completely supporting the need to engage in rigorous contingency planning, as my right hon. Friend is doing, can I ask him also to confirm that in Northern Ireland, in the absence of an Executive, the civil service there lacks the necessary powers to take the mitigating measures that he is rightly putting in place for England, and will he say what plans the Government have to introduce the necessary steps, including legislation, to ensure that guidance and direction are available in Northern Ireland?

[Michael Gove]

I will take a little longer than I would ordinarily want to because I first want to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his knighthood and to thank him for his years of Government service. He was an outstanding Minister in a number of offices. For my part, I particularly recognise that as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster he did so much to prepare us for EU exit and to advance negotiations with the EU.

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point about Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland civil service and the Police Service of Northern Ireland have done an enormous amount to prepare for the contingencies of no-deal exit. We should all be grateful to them for the work they do. He is right, however, that in the absence of a functioning Executive, they lack ministerial direction. It is important that we do everything we can to restore a functioning Executive. If no Executive is in place, we will have to consider in the House and in discussions with our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland what steps might be required to ensure that we can give appropriate support to the Northern Ireland civil service.

Points of Order

David Lidington Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call my very loyal and brilliant next-door neighbour of over 20 years in constituency terms, Mr David Lidington.

[Mr David Lidington (Aylesbury) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. May I—as an elector in the Buckingham constituency, not least—offer an expression of thanks to you for your work as a constituency Member of Parliament over the past 22 years? Talking to neighbours and acquaintances in all parts of the Buckingham constituency over the years that you have represented it, I have been struck by the fact that men and women of very different political persuasions, and indeed those of no particular party affiliation, are united in their appreciation of the fact that you have never allowed your considerable duties as Speaker of the House to detract from your responsibility to represent their interests in Buckingham and to respond to the concerns that they raise with you. Colleagues in all parts of the House will speak about your record as Speaker, but those of us in Buckinghamshire will know how you have continued to speak on and champion local interests and local issues.

I know, too, that you will be missed among the somewhat eclectic team of hon. and right hon. Members representing the county of Buckinghamshire. It is perhaps a good measure of the fact that in this place, despite frequent clashes and disagreements, we can still manage to get on. Those Buckinghamshire parliamentary meetings bring together not just you and me but my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) and both my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) in a spirit of harmony, at least on county matters.

I thank you for what you have done for us locally and, if I may say so as a former Leader of the House, for what you have done to communicate more to people, particularly to schoolchildren and students around the country, about how this place works and the constitutional significance of Parliament in defending the liberties and debating the interests of the next generation.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I want to observe—others will bear testimony to this, in the light of what he has just said— that the right hon. Gentleman was, frankly, an outstanding Leader of the House of Commons. He is one of the most co-operative and collaborative colleagues whom one could hope to meet. He gets things done, he is extremely personable, and I think it is fair to say that he works based on periodic political difference but continuing personal amiability. If others of us were able to model ourselves on the way in which he has gone about his work over the last 27 years as a Member of Parliament, we would probably be doing better. I thank him for what he has said.

Defending Democracy Programme

David Lidington Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2019 Written Statements

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr David Lidington)]

The UK has worked tirelessly to build our democratic system and values. In recent years, events across the world have demonstrated that sustaining and defending a flourishing democracy is increasingly important.

Therefore, the Cabinet Office is co-ordinating work and expertise across Government under a new defending democracy programme, which has been set up to:

protect and secure UK democratic processes, systems and institutions from interference, including from cyber, personnel and physical threats;

strengthen the integrity of UK elections;

encourage respect for open, fair and safe democratic participation; and

promote fact-based and open discourse, including online.

The Government have already started to roll out measures as part of this. On 5 May 2019 we announced a range of measures to crack down on intimidation, malign influence, interference and disinformation.

Following the Committee on Standards in Public Life report, the Government have published the Online Harms White Paper, committed to a new electoral offence, and will legislate to clarifying “undue influence” which includes acts or threats of violence to manipulate someone’s vote. The Government recognise that rising levels of intimidation in public life can stop talented people, particularly women and those from minority backgrounds, standing for public office. That is why we are taking action to confront it.

As part of the programme, we have also announced a plan for a consultation on electoral integrity, which will seek to address concerns around strengthening provisions which prevent UK democracy from foreign interference. This is something we would certainly invite parliamentarians and others to engage with as it goes forward and will publish in due course.

Though this is a Government programme, we want to work with people from a broad range of perspectives to inform our work. That is why we are inviting the views of parliamentarians, political parties, third party organisations, academics, regulators and others on the programme and its outcomes. At the same time, we will continue to consider all the recommendations already made to the Government.

By taking a broad and inclusive approach, this programme can build a consensus on the way forward to continue to defend our democracy in the future.

[HCWS1772]

Cabinet Office

David Lidington Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2019 Ministerial Corrections

[Diana Johnson]

The Minister is absolutely right, but with one victim dying every 96 hours and compensation still not being paid, I wrote to the Prime Minister, along with seven Opposition party leaders, to ask for compensation to be paid now. The Prime Minister has refused. I then wrote to the two Conservative party leadership candidates on 21 June, because they are making huge spending commitments, but I have not had the courtesy of a response. Perhaps the Minister could help me with that.

[Mr Lidington]

I am happy to try to prompt a response to the hon. Lady’s letter. She will know that the Department of Health and Social Care has announced a major uplift in the financial support available to beneficiaries of the infected blood scheme in England, and talks are now going on with the devolved Governments about trying to get a UK-wide agreement. Questions of legal liability fall therefore to compensation and are expressly a matter for the independent inquiry.

[Official Report, 10 July 2019, Vol. 663, c. 302.]

Letter of correction from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office.

An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson).

The correct response should have been:

[Mr Lidington]

I am happy to try to prompt a response to the hon. Lady’s letter. She will know that the Department of Health and Social Care has announced a major uplift in the financial support available to beneficiaries of the infected blood scheme in England, and talks are now going on with the devolved Governments about trying to get a UK-wide agreement. Any award of compensation will depend on a determination of legal liability, to which the inquiry’s determinations and recommendations may be relevant.

Conflict, Stability and Security Fund Allocations 2019-20

David Lidington Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2019 Written Statements

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr David Lidington)]

My right hon. Friend Lord Young of Cookham made the following written ministerial statement:

I wish to update the House on the progress of the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund (CSSF) for the financial year 2018-19, as well as to announce the initial regional and thematic allocations for this financial year 2019-20.

The CSSF is a cross-Government fund which uses both official development assistance (ODA) and non-ODA resources to deliver against both national security and UK Aid objectives, through security, defence, peacekeeping, peace-building and stability activity. In 2018-19, the CSSF spent £1,256.8 million against a cross-Government allocation of £1,258.8 million (99.84%). A further breakdown of spend against regional and thematic allocation, by Department and by discretionary and non-discretionary spend is included in the CSSF’s annual report for 2018-19, published today.

The report includes examples of successful programmes and results as well as ways in which the CSSF has made improvements. A copy of this document is attached and has been published on www.gov.uk.

Senior Civil Service and Senior Military Pay Awards

David Lidington Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2019 Written Statements

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr David Lidington)]

I am today announcing the Government’s decision on pay for the senior civil service and senior military.

The Government received the Senior Salaries Review Body’s (SSRB) report on 2019 pay for the senior civil service, senior military and police and crime commissioners on 7 June 2019. This will be presented to Parliament and published on gov.uk.

Thanks to the Government’s balanced approach to public finances, getting debt falling as a share of our economy, while investing in our vital services and keeping taxes low, we are able to continue our flexible approach to pay policy, allowing us to attract and retain the best people for our civil service and senior military.

We consider all pay awards in light of wider pressures on public spending. Public sector pay needs to be fair both for public sector workers and the taxpayer. Around a quarter of all public spending is spent on pay and we need to ensure that our public services remain affordable for the future.

It is also vital that our world class public services continue modernising to meet rising demand for the incredible services they provide, which improve our lives and keep us safe.

The Government value the independent expertise and insight of the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) and take on board the valuable advice, principles outlined, and constructive challenge to the Government’s recommendations outlined in the report. The Government will follow the SSRB’s recommendations, subject to a small number of differences which are set out below.

Within the current context there remains a need to take into account workforce requirements and affordability when making decisions on senior pay, as well as fairness in the approach for senior and junior grades.

Senior Civil Servants

SSRB recommendations set a 2.2% pay award with money allocated in the following priority order:

0.9% targeted at pay progression and anomalies

0.2% set aside for minima increases

1% increase for all SCS not benefiting from the minima increases, and those benefiting by less than 1% from the minima increases should be “topped up” to a 1% increase (estimated cost of 0.9% of the pay bill)

0.2% set aside to implement any specialist pay proposals.

The SSRB also recommended reductions to the maxima and commented on priority work to be undertaken for the 2020-21 pay award.

The Government accept the SSRB’s recommendations in full with the following exceptions:

The overall figure should be limited to an average 2% increase in line with the figure contained in the delegated pay remit guidance. The reduction of 0.2% will be taken from the money set aside for specialist pay which we will not be implementing this pay year.

The Government accepts the recommendation to decrease the maxima for all pay bands, but to delay implementation of this to next year whilst further work is undertaken on capability-based pay progression to ensure the levels set are robust and there is a clear and positive narrative for reduction.

In addition to the above action for this year’s pay award, the Government commit to:

Developing and evaluate a credible robust capability based pay progression system

continuing to review the SCS performance management system as a priority; and

keeping under review the impact of the interaction between civil service pensions and the current tax rules on recruitment and retention.

The Government will continue to engage closely with the SSRB to help develop our proposals further and invites the review body to contribute towards the further review of the senior civil service pay framework including the commitments made above.

Senior Military Officers

The Government has rejected the SSRB’s headline pay award recommendation, and instead will implement a 2% consolidated pay award with effect from 1 April 2019. The Government has accepted the SSRB’s recommendations on senior military salaries to maintain the 10% increase to base pay on promotion from one-star rank and to not change the current pay differentials for senior medical and dental officers.

Attachments can be viewed online at https://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2019-07-22/HCWS1771/

[HCWS1771]

Detainees

David Lidington Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr David Lidington)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s approach to the detention and rendition of detainees overseas. Our policy on this issue remains clear: the Government do not participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture or of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment for any purpose. To do so would not only be wrong and incompatible with the United Kingdom’s commitments under international conventions—such as the United Nations convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, to which this country is a signatory—but it would also be a betrayal of everything that we stand for as a nation, in terms of our promotion of human rights and protection of human dignity.

There is already clear guidance and training for UK personnel dealing with detainees who are held by others. That guidance has been reviewed at the Prime Minister’s request by Sir Adrian Fulford, the independent Investigatory Powers Commissioner, to see how it could be improved further, taking account of the views of the Intelligence and Security Committee and civil society. The Government have accepted Sir Adrian’s proposals in full, as set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in a written ministerial statement earlier today.

We have published new guidance entitled “The principles relating to the detention and interviewing of detainees overseas and the passing and receipt of intelligence relating to detainees”, which will replace the current consolidated guidance at the end of this year. The principles will be extended so that they explicitly cover the National Crime Agency and SO15 Metropolitan Police Service.

I would like to thank Sir Adrian for his work. The principles address many of the points raised by the Intelligence and Security Committee in recommending changes to the consolidated guidance. The new document will now be explicitly engaged when there is a risk of extraordinary rendition, rendition or unlawful killing occurring in the context of detention. It will also apply not only when UK personnel are working with Governments but when non-state actors or groups are involved. The principles introduce a formal error reporting obligation and a formal whistleblowing provision, in line with the commissioner’s statutory responsibilities in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.

These new principles are part of steps taken by successive Governments to understand what happened in the aftermath of the appalling terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 and to put in place improved policies and practice. As the Prime Minister said in a written statement on 28 June last year,

“With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that UK personnel were working within a new and challenging operating environment for which, in some cases, they were not prepared. It took too long to recognise that guidance and training for staff was inadequate, and too long to understand fully and take appropriate action on the risks arising from our engagement with international partners on detainee issues. The Agencies responded to what they thought were isolated allegations and incidents of mistreatment, but the ISC concludes that they should have realised the extent to which others were using unacceptable practices as part of a systematic programme. The Agencies acknowledge that they did not fully understand this quickly enough and they regret not doing so.”—[Official Report, 28 June 2018; Vol. 643, c. 41WS.]

It is important to say, however, that the ISC found no evidence to support allegations that UK personnel directly carried out physical mistreatment of detainees.

Lessons have been learned from these challenging events and from the various independent examinations of detainee issues that have taken place over the past 15 years or so. These have included three separate investigations and reports published by the ISC in 2005, 2007 and 2018; Sir Peter Gibson’s detainee inquiry report, published in 2013; related police investigations; and thorough internal reviews by the security and intelligence agencies of their involvement in detainee cases from 2001 to 2010, which the ISC examined in its most recent report.

The position now is very different from the one confronting UK personnel in the immediate aftermath of 11 September 2001. Better guidance and training is coupled with a world-leading independent oversight regime, underpinned by the Justice and Security Act 2013 and the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. This legislation has given the ISC enhanced powers to oversee the activities of the security and intelligence agencies, alongside the statutory role of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who reports annually on his remit, including the application of detainee policy. The consolidated guidance and new principles make it clear that Ministers must be consulted if there is a serious or real risk of detainee mistreatment occurring at the hands of others, and of course the ministerial code reflects the overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law.

I will turn now to the question whether there should be a further inquiry into detainee mistreatment and rendition issues. As I told the House on Monday, in response to an urgent question from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), since publishing our response to the ISC’s reports on detainee mistreatment and rendition on 22 November 2018, the Government have given serious consideration to the examination of detainee issues and whether any more lessons could be learned and, if so, how. My right hon. and learned Friend, as the then Cabinet Office Minister without Portfolio, told the House on 19 December 2013 that once the ISC had completed its most recent work, the Government would

“take a final view as to whether a further judicial inquiry still remains necessary to add any further information of value to future policy making and the national interest.”—[Official Report, 19 December 2013; Vol. 572, c. 916.]

I undertook to give a definitive answer to that question, and I can confirm today that the Government have decided that it is not necessary to establish a further inquiry. There is no policy reason to do so, given the extensive work already undertaken to improve policies and practices in this area. The Government’s position is also that there is no legal obligation. These matters have been subject to a number of police investigations over the years, including Operations Hinton, Iden and Lydd, and a joint panel was set up by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan Police Service in January 2012 to consider allegations of UK involvement in detainee mistreatment. None of these police investigations has resulted in further action being taken, although some inquiries are continuing.

Parliament and the public can have confidence in the effectiveness of measures taken since 2010 and the new principles announced by the Government today to strengthen the accountability and oversight by Ministers, Parliament and the independent commissioners of the vital work of our security and intelligence agencies. I commend this statement to the House.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the Cabinet Office for advance sight of his statement. I always look forward to my debates with the Minister, even if on one recent occasion I was denied that pleasure, as he greatly enjoyed pointing out at the time. Although on that note I should say that if this time next week he ends up on a slow train to the gulag, along with the Chancellor, to be replaced by some “do or die” no-deal Brexiteer, I can tell him that it is 20° and sunny in Siberia today—so don’t knock it till you’ve tried it.

On a serious note, I genuinely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will continue to be a regular fixture at the Dispatch Box. Unlike the new Prime Minister, he always treats his ministerial responsibilities with the seriousness and diligence they deserve—I believe I speak for the whole House when I say that.

On this occasion, I fear there will be little consensus between me and the right hon. Gentleman. I believe the outgoing Prime Minister has made a fundamental error of judgment not to make good on the commitment of her predecessor, not to honour the promises of the former Justice Secretary and now Father of the House, and not to listen to the recommendations of the Intelligence and Security Committee. They were all absolutely clear that the only way to get to the truth on these issues and to learn lessons for the future was for the Government to commission an independent and judge-led inquiry with the power and authority to examine all the evidence, question every potential witness and come up with conclusions to which the Government would be bound.

If the argument in 2010 or 2012 was that the inquiry could not be held at that time due to ongoing criminal investigations, that argument simply does not hold water today. If the long delay and sorely mistaken judgment were the result of a genuine deliberation within Government about the merits of the public inquiry, I could possibly agree to disagree but at least respect the thought that had gone into the decision. However, I do not believe that that is the case. Even before the ISC report was published, I believe there was a deliberate attitude on the Government’s part to circle the wagons and avoid any judicial scrutiny or public consultation on the past actions of the intelligence services or the future rules by which they operate, even though it is the intelligence services themselves whose reputation and morale is damaged most by failing to deal with this scandal.

On the new guidance published today, we are told that the views of civil society have been taken into account. Right from the outset, however, we know that the Government were determined to resist those views. If we want evidence for that, just look at the letter written to me and the shadow Attorney General in June last year by the man about to become the next Prime Minister, who, titan of competence that he is, left attached to his letter the background note written by his staff explaining the position they were suggesting he take. This is what they said on the subject of public consultation with human rights groups on the guidance given to security service personnel, designed

“to reassure personnel that they are operating in accordance with UK and international law”.

According to the Foreign Office note, they had concluded that

“Public consultation…is likely to generate recommendations that we would not be able to implement without damaging national security.”

My first question to the Minister for the Cabinet Office is whether all the recommendations from civil society have been incorporated in the new guidance. Can I ask him specifically whether one of the most important recommendations they made has been adopted? Has there been an express prohibition on Ministers giving the green light to the torture of overseas detainees? If not, why not?

I could talk at further length today about the historical allegations in relation to torture and rendition dating back two decades and about the operation of secret courts, all of which I believe justify the independent judge-led inquiry for which we, the ISC and the Father of the House have called, but in the time that I have I want to make a simple point. If the Government are so confident that all the lessons of the past have been learned, that all the abuses of the past cannot be repeated and that the new laws and procedures, which were, sadly, not strong enough before, are now in place, then what exactly do they have to fear by allowing a judge to look at this issue to examine all the evidence, interview all the witnesses and look at the new procedures and rules, so that he or she can tell the Government whether they are right?

[Mr Lidington]

May I first genuinely thank the right hon. Lady for her kind words at the start of her remarks? I think it is fair to say that when we have tilted lances at each other we have done so in the spirit of mutual respect, even if it has sometimes been no holds barred in terms of the professional combat in which we have been engaged.

If I can seek to respond to the questions the right hon. Lady posed to me, the Government did listen to the ISC; indeed Sir Adrian’s revisions—incorporated in the new principles, which the Government have accepted today—reflect in many detailed aspects the precise recommendations of the Committee in its two reports of 2018.

Without going into detail about internal matters and procedures within Government, I can assure the House that there was very genuine and very detailed deliberation within Government about the right way forward. While the decision on matters relating to security intelligence always rests with the Prime Minister ultimately, the House would, I am sure, have expected that other senior Ministers with an interest in these matters would be consulted and would have given their advice to the Prime Minister, and that happened.

The right hon. Lady asked me about the views of civil society. I never made any claim in my statement that the Government’s response or the proposals by Sir Adrian reflected in full the views of civil society. What I can say is that Sir Adrian, in the course of his review, took great care to consult civil society; he convened meetings where representatives of civil society could make their representations to him and put forward their ideas. The Government have accepted Sir Adrian’s recommendations in full, without qualification. If Sir Adrian, in his recommendations, chose not to reflect everything that particular civil society organisations wished to see, that was a judgment by Sir Adrian, and it was right for the Government to rely on the independent commissioner to be the prime source of advice to us on these matters.

The right hon. Lady asked, in particular, about the idea of an express prohibition on Ministers. As she will have seen, in his report Sir Adrian did say that he looked at whether extra duties should be imposed on Ministers, and he considered that that was not part of what he should be proposing. However, as I said in my statement to the House, it is already the position that Ministers are bound by the law and by the ministerial code. The ministerial code requires Ministers to comply with the law in all their actions as Ministers, and we include in the definition of compliance with the law compliance with the United Kingdom’s international treaty obligations. Those duties on Ministers are very clear already, and that is reinforced by the fact that the civil service code, which operates on the basis of comparable principles, is grounded in statute, so it is straightforwardly a breach of that statute for civil servants to act in any way, professionally, that would breach the law.

I would just say to the right hon. Lady that the Government were as open as we could possibly be during the various inquiries and investigations that have taken place. For example, the Intelligence and Security Committee had access to the Government material that was presented to the Gibson inquiry and to the agency chiefs’ responses to the 27 themes and issues identified by Sir Peter Gibson in his preliminary report, and the Committee was provided with the Intelligence Services Commissioner’s views on the current compliance with those aspects of the consolidated guidance that he is responsible for monitoring. We therefore tried to be as open as possible, within the limits of what it is possible to discuss openly, about the issues we are debating today.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I welcome much of what my right hon. Friend has said, and the Intelligence and Security Committee greatly welcomes what he said about the consolidated guidance. It has said since 2010 that the title “guidance” is itself misleading. It is not guidance, but a framework which sets the boundaries, and we are pleased that the Government have now openly acknowledged that. We are also pleased that the principles reflect the important changes that we recommended, including specific reference to extraordinary rendition alongside torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, the application of the principles to joint units and non-state actors, and regular review—which is of the utmost importance, because it had not been taking place regularly in the past. We are also pleased that the agencies must follow the spirit of the principles, not just the letter. All those are, in our view, major steps forward. I greatly welcome them and thank the Government for their positive response.

The second issue concerns the inquiry into what happened during the period which has given rise to the disquiet expressed in the House and elsewhere. When the ISC was asked to carry out an inquiry, we were assured that we would have access to all the evidence that we needed in order to complete it, and thus to provide the necessary public assurance to bring closure to this matter. However, as my right hon. Friend well knows, we were unfortunately denied access to certain individuals who would have given oral evidence before us, and we therefore concluded that we must bring our inquiry to an end and publish the material that we had. A judge-led inquiry would undoubtedly have presented another opportunity for that full transparency.

Leaving aside policy or legal reasons, the one point that I would make to my right hon. Friend is that even when problems have been remedied, there is sometimes a good policy reason for bringing about closure. The simple question that I pose to him is whether the decision that has been taken will enable that closure to take place.

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful for my right hon. and learned Friend’s welcome for Sir Adrian’s report and the new principles that the Government have accepted. I was expecting him to express disappointment about our decision with regard to a judge-led inquiry.

I do not want to spend too much time going over old ground, but, as I said in response to the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), the ISC was given access to all the material that the Government supplied to the Gibson inquiry and in relation to other matters. I understand that the Committee took more than 50 hours of oral evidence, reviewed 40,000 original documents, and devoted more than 30,000 staff hours to its inquiry.

The one point of difference concerned the Committee’s request to take evidence from junior officials. The Government attempted to find a compromise that would enable some of them to appear, but we were unable to reach agreement on that. It is a long-established principle that junior staff are not required personally to answer to parliamentary Committees. That is recognised in the Government’s memorandum of understanding with the ISC, which permits the Committee to take oral evidence from Ministers, agency heads and senior officials. A number of those whom the Committee wished to interview had been junior officials at the time of the events in which the Committee was interested.

Let me now respond to my right hon. and learned Friend’s direct question. One of my concerns about the judge-led inquiry is that it would give rise to expectations about closure, but would not be able to deliver them. By definition, the sort of material that we are talking about could not be discussed openly without risk of harm to the national interest. Apart from the fact that we see neither a legal nor a policy reason for resuming a judge-led inquiry, I fear that the offer of closure would eventually be seen as a grave disappointment by those who are arguing for a such an inquiry because of the necessity for secrecy.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement and agree with others that much of it is to be welcomed. However, like others I regret the decision not to hold an independent judge-led inquiry. The arguments that the Gibson and ISC investigations obviate the need for an independent judge-led inquiry do not hold water, because, as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) said, the ISC’s investigation took place under such severe Government restrictions that, as the Committee itself states, it was left unable to conduct an authoritative inquiry or produce a credible report. As a result, the ISC chose to classify its report and its conclusions as provisional and warned that it must not be taken as a comprehensive account. Does the Minister not see that the only way to take the work of the ISC forward and properly address what went wrong is to establish an inquiry with the necessary powers to follow the leads that the ISC could not? Obviously, some aspects of that inquiry could not be held in public, although others could, and the right model for this is an independent judge-led inquiry with the full powers of such a judge-led inquiry in relation to the production of evidence and the attendance of witnesses, along with the independent ability to assess all the evidence and make a determination as to what cannot be published for national security reasons. Does the Minister not see that such an inquiry would not be required to start from scratch? It could take the ISC findings as a base, and they could provide a clear road map for a future investigation. A judge-led inquiry could focus on answering the unanswered questions, reviewing the unexplored cases and examining the evidence the ISC was not able to see. With such considerations in mind, can the Minister not see that there is unfinished business here, and does he think that the incoming Administration might reconsider this decision, having regard to the points I have made?

[Mr Lidington]

I cannot speculate about what an incoming Administration might or might not do. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for her welcome for the principles, but I disagree with her on this point: I do not see that a revived judge-led inquiry would add anything to the actions that have already been taken. The Government and the agencies have accepted that things were done wrong, for various reasons, between 2001 and 2010. As a result of internal investigations, the ISC’s reports and the commissioner’s recommendations, significant improvements have been made to the internal training of staff in the agencies. There is much greater clarity and rigour in the guidance that officers are given, and the accountability of officers to Ministers in cases where there might be a risk of torture or inhuman treatment has been highlighted in the guidance and the training.

In the light of those changes, it is our view that no new policy decision would arise out of a further judge-led inquiry, nor do we believe that there is a legal obligation on the Government to hold such an inquiry. The police have had access to all the material they wish to access about individual cases, and, as I have said, they have concluded a number of investigations without need for further process, while a few investigations are continuing. So I think all necessary steps have been taken.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I will resist the temptation to reply to the failure to provide a judge-led inquiry in four words; those words being, “See you in court,” because it is quite plain that this decision will face a judicial review and that will take even more time and give less closure.

My right hon. Friend asked us to accept that the Government have solved the problems, and ironically he cites as evidence of that a number of ISC reports from some years ago that are now understood to have got the answer wrong because they were misinformed. The current ISC report—much better, much higher quality—was of course limited, as we heard from its Chairman, by the restriction on witnesses.

So the Government are asking us to allow them to mark their own homework. If we want a real coruscating comment on that, we need only look back at the Binyam Mohamed case and the remarks of Judge Neuberger on the Government’s and agencies’ handling of it throughout. The Government should simply not be allowed to mark their own homework.

On the point that the Government have solved the problems, I am afraid that that is plainly and demonstrably not true. That is illustrated most clearly in the point raised by the shadow Foreign Secretary that there is no prohibition on Ministers approving torture. My right hon. Friend the Minister says that they are required to obey the law, but they were required to do so in 2002 when the law was precisely the same in terms of international convention, so that does not apply either. We have evidence from one month ago, Mr Speaker, when you allowed an urgent question in this Chamber to the Ministry of Defence, which had produced internal policy documents that explicitly conceived of Ministers approving co-operation with states that had used torture to acquire information. So, plainly, the Government have not learned their lesson yet. There are a number of reasons for having an inquiry—legal, reputational, operational, closure and the simple one of keeping the promise we gave—and I am afraid that the Government will eventually be forced into that position.

[Mr Lidington]

My right hon. Friend has been pursuing these issues for quite a long time now. He has always been absolutely consistent in the position he has taken, and I respect that position even though the Government disagree with his views.

Going back to the question about witnesses at the ISC, the offer was always there for agency chiefs, senior officials and Ministers to speak on behalf of officers who were or had been junior at the time of the events complained of. That is the way in which the Government respond to every Select Committee of Parliament, with the seniors in a Department or agency taking responsibility for the decisions made by junior staff.

In respect of what my right hon. Friend said about the Ministry of Defence, he will find when he looks at the principles that they apply expressly to members of our armed forces. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has issued a written ministerial statement today in which she says that the Ministry of Defence accepts the principles in full and has already begun work to update its internal guidance accordingly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement and note that a lot of the recommendations of our ISC report have been adopted, although I have to say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) on the Front Bench that a judge-led inquiry was not one of them. The important thing is the five-year review. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that when it happens, it is made fully public?

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful to the right hon Gentleman for his welcome, and I will ensure that we seek to be as public as possible about the five-year review. The five years should be regarded as a maximum period. Frankly, if evidence comes to light at any stage that amendments are needed, I would expect the Government and the agencies to act accordingly and make the amendments sooner.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the Father of the House, cannot be here today, for reasons he has explained, but were he here, I am sure he would say what I am going to say, which is that this is a breach of the undertaking that was given to the country and to Parliament by the Cabinet, of which the Father of the House and I were members. Both of us were also members of the National Security Council. I am mindful of the serious damage that this has done to our international reputation, and it is a great pity that my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Government have reached the conclusions that they have today.

[Mr Lidington]

I respect my right hon. Friend’s position, but I disagree with it, for the reasons that I have set out. We address harm to our national reputation by clearly being seen to admit when things have gone wrong in the past and taking resolute action to put them right, and I think that the measures that have been put in place over the last few years are evidence that we have done so.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

As a member of the ISC, I welcome the recommendations the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has accepted, but could he establish the principle that it is for the ISC, not the Government, to determine whom it sees?

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the principles. The memorandum of understanding between the Government and the ISC does make it clear that the ISC is entitled to take evidence from Ministers, senior officials and agency chiefs. That is in line with the relationship between the Government and every departmental Select Committee, and I am not persuaded that there is a need to change that.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend understand that he would have had an easier ride today if the Government had been more flexible on whom we, as a Committee, could see?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I understand the argument that my right hon. Friend is making, but I repeat the point that it is a long-established principle, reflected in the memorandum of understanding with the ISC, that it is senior officials, agency chiefs and Ministers who are accountable to the Committee, rather than junior officials.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

The Government accepted all the major recommendations of the ISC and that will lead to real change, but there is one that they have not accepted, which is on emergency authorisations. The Committee recommended these should not be used where there is a serious risk of torture, and if they were, that they should be escalated to the appropriate level of authorisation. Why has that not been taken on board?

[Mr Lidington]

If the right hon. Lady looks again at the principles that have been published today, she will see that, where there is a real risk of torture, there is a requirement that that must be escalated to Ministers, even if that carries an increased risk of, for example, a terrorist attack succeeding. I am happy to write to the right hon. Lady to set out the detail, but that is my very clear understanding.

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

I, for one, welcome the improved guidance and the more robust oversight of the work of our security and intelligence agencies. May I ask the Minister: is it the case that the UK is one of the very few countries in the world publicly to set out its approach on the detention, treatment and interviewing of detainees overseas?

[Mr Lidington]

It is, and I think we can take some pride in the fact that the arrangements that have been put in place in recent years are seen as an example elsewhere in the world.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The Government are wrong to reject a judge-led inquiry, which was the only way to find out if the lessons have been learned. Given the Minister’s statement, will he commit to two measures: first, legislation to provide redress for victims of extraordinary rendition; and, secondly, an immediate review of guidance should it become clear that UK personnel are still at risk of breaking the law?

[Mr Lidington]

It is very clearly our view that if an officer in any of the agencies or someone in the armed services is complying with the principles, they should not be at legal risk. I will take advice on the final question the right hon. Gentleman put to me and write to him. Clearly, issues to do with legislation will have to be a matter for the incoming Administration.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern at the apparent lack of appropriate ministerial oversight in the early years of this century? What has been done to ensure that the intelligence agencies are properly accountable to Ministers?

[Mr Lidington]

It is clear that things did go wrong—and seriously wrong—in the aftermath of 9/11. What has happened since then is that we have given enhanced powers to the Intelligence and Security Committee, and we have established the independent commissioner on a statutory basis so that he is seen to be completely independent of the Government.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

Would it not be a source of reassurance for the Government to have an independent inquiry that would ensure the new principles are watertight and give the British public absolute confidence in our overseas engagements?

[Mr Lidington]

The problem with what the hon. Lady suggests is that, because so much of the information and documentation would have to remain secret for good security reasons, that could not provide such reassurance. It is the independence of the commissioner and the Committee that is the best and most compelling assurance we can give people.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

If matters are escalated to Ministers, will they be prohibited from authorising action that carries a real risk of torture?

[Mr Lidington]

I cannot see any circumstance in which a Minister of the United Kingdom would authorise action that was contrary to the law.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Is it not in everybody’s interests to get to the bottom of what went wrong here? Given that the Intelligence and Security Committee said that it could not produce a credible report, we surely do still need that judge-led inquiry.

[Mr Lidington]

No. Any judge-led inquiry would have to conduct many, if not most, of its proceedings in secret, so it could not provide the kind of assurance that the right hon. Gentleman seeks.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act: Common Frameworks

David Lidington Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2019 Written Statements

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr David Lidington)]

I am today laying before Parliament a report, “The European Union (Withdrawal) Act and Common Frameworks—26 March 2019 to 25 June 2019” as required by paragraph 4 of schedule 3 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

The report is available on gov.uk and details the progress made in discussions between the UK Government and devolved Administrations regarding common frameworks in the fourth reporting period covered under the legislation, and sets out that no “freezing” regulations have been brought forward under section 12 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act.

The publication of the report reflects the Government’s continued commitment to transparency.

The attachment can be viewed online at http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2019-07-17/HCWS1732/

[HCWS1732]

Detainee Mistreatment: Judge-led Inquiry

David Lidington Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister if she will make good on her Government’s commitment, made over a year ago, to bring to the House within 60 days their view on reinstating the judge-led inquiry into detainee mistreatment and rendition that the former Government promised in 2012.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr David Lidington)]

As my right hon. and learned Friend indicates, this issue has a lengthy history. It was in July 2010 that Prime Minister Cameron announced Sir Peter Gibson’s inquiry into allegations that the United Kingdom had been implicated in the improper treatment of detainees held by other countries in the aftermath of 9/11.

In December 2013, the Government published Sir Peter’s preparatory work and asked the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament to follow up on the themes and issues which that work had identified, to take further evidence and to make a report. At the same time, the Government said that they would:

“take a final view as to whether a further judicial inquiry still remains necessary to add any further information of value to future policy making and the national interest.”—[Official Report, 19 December 2013; Vol. 572, c. 916.]

In June last year, the Intelligence and Security Committee, its work having been interrupted by two general elections and the task of reconstituting the Committee after those elections, published two reports: “Detainee Mistreatment and Rendition: 2001-2010” and “Detainee Mistreatment and Rendition: Current Issues”.

In response to an urgent question from my right hon. and learned Friend on 2 July last year, the Minister for Europe and the Americas, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), said that, in responding to the ISC reports, the Government would:

“give careful consideration to the calls for another judge-led inquiry and will update the House”.—[Official Report, 2 July 2018; Vol. 644, c. 26.]

The Government responded formally to the ISC on 22 November last year, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in a written statement, said:

“The Government continue to give serious consideration to the examination of detainee issues and whether any more lessons can be learned and, if so, how.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2018; Vol. 644, c. 31WS]

That serious consideration has included the question of a further judge-led inquiry.

As the House will understand, this has been complex work, which has involved some of the most sensitive security issues. I confirm to the House today that the Government will make a definitive statement setting out their decision about a judge-led inquiry later this week and, at the same time, we will announce to the House our response to Sir Adrian Fulford’s recommendations on the consolidated guidance.

[Mr Speaker]

I trust that that will be an oral statement to the House.

[Mr Lidington]

I will make sure that your comment to that effect is faithfully reported to my colleagues in Cabinet, Mr Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

You have asked the most penetrating question, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for finally producing some indication of when we might get a decision and for saying that the Government have reached conclusions. I will not repeat his precis of events, which goes back to the most firm undertakings in 2010 and 2012 that there would be a judge-led inquiry. The preliminary inquiry by Sir Peter Gibson set out the questions that the inquiry had to answer. It was postponed only because of the police inquiry into the further revelations of rendition to Colonel Gaddafi in Libya. After that, the resumption of the inquiry was postponed while the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee examined matters. When the ISC finally discovered the extent of British intelligence services’ complicity in cases of torture and their involvement in hijacking and the unlawful rendition of people for interrogation, mainly in America, the Committee’s investigations were stopped and it made a report saying what it would have liked to examine if it had been allowed to interview witnesses.

For years and years, this has been put into the long grass in the hope that it would eventually go away, so I hope that that comes to an end this week. We need to know how there was such a terrible breakdown in responsibility and communications that produced the misdeeds that took place in the time after 9/11, so that we can avoid the culture of the intelligence services and their relationships with Ministers ever slipping back into the same thing again. I hope that we will not just be told, “It is too late. Everything is all right now; there is no need to do anything,” because if it is all right now—as I trust it is—we have to reduce the risks that in future, we as a country will ever get involved in torture and rendition again.

If this decision comes out in the last days of this Session, on the eve of the summer recess and in the middle of the appointment of a new Prime Minister in an attempt to bury it away in the pages of Hansard and to escape any further challenge until the autumn comes around, it will be the most blatant further attempt to get out of the most solemn undertakings that were given by me when I was Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor on behalf of the then Prime Minister. That Prime Minister gave these undertakings himself, in a Government in which the present Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and many of their colleagues were serving. We had cleared that line and should honour it, and the whole House should demand a proper, full statement later this week. If there is one success that the delay may have achieved, it is, I regret to say, that for serious personal reasons—not because I am going on holiday—I may miss the final denouement and the statement later this week, because I may be absent from the House. However, I hope that the House will hold the Government fully to account if they try to slip out of their commitments and obligations in the end.

[Mr Lidington]

I can reassure my right hon. and learned Friend that, far from there being any attempt on behalf of the Government to slip things out under the radar as the summer recess approaches, the Prime Minister has been very clear that she regards it as her responsibility to ensure that the decision is taken and announced to Parliament before she leaves office. It would be understandable if a new Prime Minister on taking office wanted to look again at or acquaint himself with the material that was coming to the present Prime Minister. This decision and its timing are actually designed to ensure that we do not slip anything out under the radar.

I would just say to my right hon and learned Friend that the Government are very clear that officials in our agencies have not been involved in torture and that this Government and previous Governments have been resolute in opposing torture. We are talking about the extent to which it is alleged that there was knowledge of or to some extent complicity in the treatment of detainees held by the authorities in other countries.

In my right hon and learned Friend’s time, a number of significant changes were made, both in internal Government practice and in the law, that I believe have put us in a much better position since his time in office. I agree strongly with him about the need for us when we debate these matters to look forward as well as backwards. That is exactly why I believe it is right that we acquaint the House with Sir Adrian Fulford’s recommendations on the consolidated guidance at the same time as we respond to the obligation to take the decision on a judge-led inquiry and announce it.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I thank the Father of the House for securing it and for being so diligent on this issue. He has spoken with typical lucidity on this matter, and I agree with everything he has said, particularly about the unfortunate long grassing.

There is no need for me to repeat what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has already said concerning the constraints that were placed on a nevertheless damning report from the Intelligence and Security Committee. He rightly says that the only way to lift those constraints is to authorise a judge-led inquiry where all the witnesses can be called and all the evidence examined so that finally we can get to the full truth about the historical allegations of torture and rendition that took place under a Labour Government and about the operation of secret courts established by the current Government under the Justice and Security Act 2013.

The inquiry would be for the benefit of all future Governments, whichever party is in charge, as it would enable us all to truly learn the lessons from what has happened and to put in place new procedures and any necessary changes to the consolidated guidance so that we can absolutely guarantee that these abuses will never happen again. The reason it is so urgent is that in fewer than 10 days we will have a new Government in charge led by a Prime Minister who has proven by his actions not just as Foreign Secretary but also on the debate stage last week that he cannot be trusted to stand up to Donald Trump—a President who, let us not forget, has publicly said that he believes that water boarding and other forms of torture are effective and that we have to “fight fire with fire”. If we have a new Prime Minister who is willing to throw our ambassadors under the bus, we must have new procedures in place to stop that Prime Minister allowing our Government once again to be in danger of becoming complicit in torture and rendition by the United States or any other country to whom he kowtows.

I am glad to hear that there will be a further statement, and hopefully that statement will include a decision by the Prime Minister, but will the Minister tell the Prime Minister to establish the inquiry that we were promised seven years ago in the next week and to provide at least one fitting legacy from her time in office and one necessary protection for the country from the recklessness of her successor?

[Mr Lidington]

Obviously I will not pre-empt the content of the Government’s statement later this week, but I think it is clear from the way in which the right hon. Lady has posed her questions that it is acknowledged on both sides of the House that this is an extremely important as well as an extremely sensitive decision. What I will say to her is that the protections against involvement in the use of torture apply to this and any future Government in the United Kingdom, not least by virtue of Ministers’ obligations to obey the law. That includes our international legal obligations, including those set out both in the United Nations convention against torture and the European convention on human rights.

In recent years we have seen not only a much stronger and, for the first time, a statutory role for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner—who now reports annually on his work, including the application of detainee policy—but enhanced powers for the Intelligence and Security Committee, notably the power that enables it, in law, to require rather than just request information from the security and intelligence agencies.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I hear what my right hon. Friend says about obeying international law, but it is clear from the Prime Minister’s apology to the Libyan victims alone that the British Government, at very best, came perilously close to breaching article 3 of the European convention on human rights, which forbids torture but also its facilitation or complicity in it. Moreover, without an independent judge-led inquiry, the Government may now be in breach of article 13, which, as well as encapsulating centuries of established common law, provides for the right to “an effective remedy”.

I do not know what is making the Government take so long to decide whether to pursue a judge-led inquiry. It may be pressure from the agencies, although I doubt that now, or it may be pressure from allies who were complicit or involved in this. Whatever it is, I hope that what I shall say next will help my right hon. Friend in his argument with them. If he does not announce an independent judge-led inquiry in his statement later this week, or next week, I will certainly seek advice on whether we have broken either of those articles, and, if need be, use the proper judicial mechanisms to ensure that the Government are put back within the bounds of the law.

[Mr Lidington]

As I said earlier, it is the duty of every Minister, in line with the Ministerial Code, to comply with our international as well as our domestic legal obligations. In the case of officials, those obligations are statutory, because the civil service code is itself incorporated in statute. I hope that when my right hon. Friend sees the detail of what will be announced later this week, he will be able to feel reassured by it.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I commend the Father of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), for bringing this matter to the Floor of the House, and for securing what seems to be something of a concession in relation to an announcement later this week. However, it is still very unclear why there has been such a lengthy delay since the undertaking given more than a year ago that the decision would be brought to the House “within 60 days”. Can the Minister elucidate?

Before the publication of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on these matters last year, the United States Government were given the chance to review the report and to request redactions. Will the Minister tell us what discussions have taken place with the Trump Administration about a potential inquiry, and will he reassure us that the Government’s delayed response is not a consequence of pressure from the United States?

[Mr Lidington]

This has taken time because the Government have felt, I think rightly, that an issue of such importance and sensitivity requires very careful and meticulous consideration. The Government’s decisions are made on the basis of the United Kingdom’s national interest, and nothing else.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

Not withstanding my right hon. Friend’s mellifluous and reassuring tones, it is pretty reprehensible that the Father of the House has had to raise this matter yet again. Not only were he and I members of the Cabinet that promised the House this inquiry nearly 10 years ago, but it is day 378 since the 60-day promise made by the Government and reinforced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office in answer to a written question from me. The damage that this has done to the UK’s precious international reputation is not well understood. This is not about hauling individuals before the courts; it is about transparency, openness, leadership and lessons learned.

The right investigation would have been by the Intelligence and Security Committee; a senior group of Privy Counsellors would have been best placed to handle this, and it would have been cheaper, but we are asking for this inquiry, the Government having hobbled the ISC’s inquiry. We are thrown back on a judge-led inquiry, but it must be a judge who is not part of the securitocracy.

[Mr Lidington]

Looking at international practice, I think we in this country can point to a system that requires high standard, and that is remarkably transparent, given the extremely secret nature of some of the personnel and operations that are relevant here. We now have a statutory role for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, and we have his annual reports, including on detainee policy. We have enhanced powers for Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee, and the Prime Minister no longer has the power to appoint its Chair. The framework established by the Justice and Security Act 2013 and the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 measures up against the best standards in the world.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

The Intelligence and Security Committee, on which I sit, finished its investigation on rendition, but the Government refused it access to certain individuals, so it could not interview them on the matter. If there were to be a judge-led inquiry, would the Government allow all individuals to give evidence to the judge?

[Mr Lidington]

I will not speculate on the content of the decision later this week, but I take on board the challenge that the right hon. Gentleman has posed.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I note my right hon. Friend’s answer to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) about high standards for the United Kingdom, but if the United Kingdom’s reputation for having the highest standards in this area is to be sustained, surely it is important, in this case and in others in which our security services come into contact with potential violations of fundamental aspects of international law, that there is proper accountability, driven by the Ministers who are meant to oversee it.

[Mr Lidington]

I agree with the final point that my hon. Friend makes, but I ask him to take account of the fact that we are dealing with the work of security and intelligence agencies—work on which the safety, and indeed the lives, of our citizens often depends—and that information about how operations are carried out can be of great value to our adversaries.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)]

It must surely be the objective of all civilised countries to ensure that such events as rendition and the mistreatment of detainees never occur across the world. If we are to achieve that, should we not stand on the highest possible moral ground?

[Mr Lidington]

We should certainly act on the highest possible moral grounds. I believe that we have a statutory framework in which we can take considerable pride, and that marks a significant improvement on the practices that the Intelligence and Security Committee previously criticised.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

As a member of the Committee, I think it is worth putting on record our extraordinary respect for the young men and women who serve in our intelligence services and who make impossible decisions, often at a moment’s notice. I think that an inquiry would show the extraordinary times in which they lived and how life has changed since many of the cases in question came before us. For example, there was no consolidated guidance in the earliest stages of the period we were looking at. I believe that the Government made a fundamental mistake in not allowing us to see the witnesses we wanted to see, because we would actually have been able to show something that assisted the Government—namely, that we live in a completely different regulatory regime. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister made the point about the changing powers and the extension of the consolidated guidance. Will he tell us whether the examination of the consolidated guidance will be announced soon, or whether we will have to wait a long time for it?

[Mr Lidington]

First, I thank my right hon. Friend for the just tribute that he paid to the men and women working in our security and intelligence agencies. I can give him what I hope is a reassuring answer to his question. Yes, we will be publishing Sir Adrian Fulford’s conclusions and recommendations in full later this week.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Does the Minister accept that any UK involvement in extraordinary rendition is a stain on our reputation as a country that claims to uphold the rule of law and defend human rights? Does he agree that the best way to deal with this is for him to announce this week that there will be an independent judge-led inquiry, and also to announce the appointment of the new Investigatory Powers Commissioner?

[Mr Lidington]

I cannot promise the right hon. Gentleman an answer on that final point this week, but I believe that Sir Adrian’s recommendations will give him considerable reassurance.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

May I seek an assurance from my right hon. Friend that the scope of any inquiry will include reports of extraordinary rendition through UK territories such as the British Indian Ocean Territory?

[Mr Lidington]

As I have said in response to earlier questions, I cannot pre-empt what will be in the Government’s statement later this week. However, I take note of my hon. Friend’s question.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

When a Minister of the Crown stands at the Dispatch Box and says that something will be brought to the Chamber within 60 days, how should we understand such a commitment? Given the utter failure to deliver on this occasion, surely the House is entitled to a fuller explanation than the one the Minister has given so far, which is that this is terribly difficult?

[Mr Lidington]

It is not just a matter of something being difficult; it is a matter of Ministers having to consider the best course of action when we are talking about the work of security and intelligence agencies, which, by definition, has to be done in secret and whose disclosure could do considerable harm to our national interests.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (IGC)]

Governments all over the world are challenging international law and the rules-based international order, and we have a President in the United States who clearly does not support those laws, so is it not time for our Government to accept that the promises they made at the Dispatch Box should be carried out? The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the Father of the House, is one of the most experienced figures in these matters, and he has been persistent in trying to get the clarity we need on these issues. When the Government make what I hope will be an oral statement on this, should they not bring the matter to a conclusion rather than forcing us to come back to it again under a new Prime Minister?

[Mr Lidington]

It will not be in my power to decide whether the House wishes to return to these issues, but I can promise the hon. Gentleman that this will be a definitive statement.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the Government on their work on human rights, but does the Minister share my concern that failure to protect human rights by complicity by mistreating detainees diminishes the UK’s capacity to be a champion for human rights abroad?

[Mr Lidington]

It is important that we demonstrate through our actions, not just our words, our commitment to human rights. Moreover, when one has the privilege of speaking to officers in the intelligence agencies about these matters, they make it clear that they want to uphold human rights. The intelligence agencies have to operate within the statutory remit that Parliament has given them. Anything that they do that breaches their lawful purpose and objective is something that they should not do.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Although the Gibson and ISC inquiries were curtailed or restricted, nevertheless they revealed hundreds of cases in which the UK was complicit or benefited from torture or mistreatment. Does that not mean that there is more of a case to set up such an inquiry than there was nine years ago, when the then Prime Minister said that there should be a judge-led inquiry

“fully independent of Parliament, party and Government”—[Official Report, 6 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 181]?

The only thing that has changed in those nine years is that it would be difficult now to reach the truth because of the effluxion of time. Will the Minister at least say that there will be an inquiry, even if we hear the details later this week?

[Mr Lidington]

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman in his assertion that little has changed. There have been important statutory changes in the Justice and Security Act 2013 and the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. There have been important changes in the powers of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and in the statutory basis of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, and in the practice that Ministers must be consulted whenever an intelligence officer involved in a planned operation believes that a detainee is at risk of mistreatment by a foreign state. That obligation applies even when consulting a Minister might be thought to lead to a risk of a terrorist act succeeding. The rules are much stricter than they once were.

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

Given that Britain’s reputation is at stake in relation to human rights when we talk to the world about our values, an oral statement should be made in the House so that we can make a judgment on what sort of inquiry should take place and so that we can question the relevant Minister, even if that is the Prime Minister herself.

[Mr Lidington]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. What we are discussing as, in fairness, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) acknowledged, are historical allegations, particularly concerning the period from 2001 to 2010, and the immediate aftermath of the appalling 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States. The statutory and administrative basis on which our affairs are now organised give us much greater assurance in the House that decisions are made appropriately and that our agencies adhere to the highest possible standards of conduct.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister made it clear that he thought that the change in the legislative, statutory and administrative frameworks were sufficient to assuage concerns that the House might have, but how can the House assess that unless it is thoroughly tested in this inquiry? That is the only way truly to understand whether it is effective or not.

[Mr Lidington]

The tests would be threefold. First, there will be an annual report from the Investigatory Powers Commissioner on how Government and the agencies use the powers with which they have been entrusted. Secondly, there are the reports from the Intelligence and Security Committee, and the confidence that the House should have that that Committee now has much greater autonomy and power than was once the case. Thirdly, Sir Adrian Fulford, the commissioner, was asked by the Government to review, reflect on and recommend changes to the consolidated guidance, and that is what we will put before the House later this week.