Relations with China: Xi Jinping Presidency

Debate between Edward Leigh and Alistair Carmichael

Thursday 16th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. I have to move the wind-ups at 2.28 pm, and I think Mr Carmichael wishes to speak. Is that correct?

[Mr Carmichael]

In a few more minutes.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Does Mr Duncan Smith wish to speak?

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Alistair Carmichael

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 27th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I think that is powerful evidence. This is about common sense; it is about proportionality and being reasonable. We cannot use law or statute to provide a sort of envelope around every action that the security services do. In the real world that does not work. It may be counterproductive, dangerous, and could put our own people at danger.

Finally, perhaps the Minister can comment on the fact that Lords amendment 5 would require all criminal conduct authorisation to be notified to the judicial commissioners, as set out in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. Again, that sounds reasonable, but it also provides the judicial commissioners with the power to cancel an authorisation if they determine that it should not have been granted. That would require the covert activity to cease immediately. Such authorisations would only need to be notified to the judicial commissioners within seven days of them being granted. That means that they might cancel an authorisation, and insist that the activities carried out under it cease immediately, in the middle of the very acts in question. As I understand it—I may be wrong—the amendment would therefore undermine the very ability of our security services to recruit covert human intelligence sources. I mention that point because am not sure that it has already been raised in this debate. Let us be reasonable and proportionate, and let us leave the Bill as it is.

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

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and I confess that I am slightly frustrated sitting here in my sitting room in Orkney. I suspect that if I were with you on the green Benches, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would have joined the right hon. Members for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) in engaging in the debate as it went along. Such is the nature of the times in which we find ourselves.

The thesis that the right hon. Member for Gainsborough offers the House tonight proceeds on the basis that it is necessary to empower those who engage in protecting us through the work of the security services, by offering them unlimited power and leaving everything up to their discretion. The thesis that I offer in rebuttal to that—this is very much in line with what the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden said—is that we best serve the people who put themselves in the way of danger by laying down the limits with which we authorise their activity. It seems to me that to leave everything to their discretion means that we abdicate our duties as parliamentarians, and subcontract them to those who do not have the authority that we have, and who as a consequence are left exposed.

May I add my name to the long list of those who send good wishes to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire)? He is a Minister who brings an incredible amount of diligence, care and thoughtfulness to his work in the House, and it was a matter of significant regret and sadness when I heard that he found himself again unwell. No Member of the House would not concur in sending him the very best of wishes.

I thank their lordships in the other place for the manner in which they have further scrutinised the Bill. They did so in a typically thoughtful and reasoned manner, and I invite the Solicitor General to consider the nature of those who have sent us these amendments. They include Lord Anderson of Ipswich, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, Lord Paddick and Baroness Hamwee, a former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, a former Lord Chief Justice, a former senior police officer, and a distinguished legal practitioner of many decades and experience. This is not some cabal of over-zealous radicals and anarchists. These are people, men and women, who have significant experience in the realities—the practicalities—of those matters before the House. I suggest gently to the Solicitor General that their views require rather more substantial and considered rebuttal than we have heard from those on the Treasury Bench today.

I will canter through the different amendments that come to our House tonight from their lordships. On Lords amendment 1, inserting the word “reasonably” would effectively turn a subjective test into an objective test. This comes back to the point that I made at the start. It is for the benefit and protection of those who are required to engage covert human intelligence sources and send them out into the field that there should be some objective measures that they know their conduct and judgments can be measured against.

Lords amendment 2 introduces a number of limitations —Canadian-style, essentially. I thought that the objections that we heard from those on the Treasury Bench in relation to this were somewhat synthetic. In terms of our standing in the world community and as important protectors of the concept of the rule of law, I suggest again to the Minister that this is something that really requires a bit more care for our reputation on the world stage.

Lords amendment 3 is different from all the others, because all the others relate to the practice and conduct of people who are the sources, whereas this relates to those who are victims. It is entirely right that protections should be put in the Bill for those who are victims—innocent victims, in particular—of this sort of criminality. Again, I ask the Minister to reconsider the position on what is a very modest protection, but an important one none the less for those who will find themselves in that position.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) made a powerful and impassioned case on Lords amendment 4. It is a well-accepted principle throughout the criminal and civil law of this country that we treat children differently. I again suggest that the Government need to be a bit more circumspect in relation to that.

I thought that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) dealt very effectively and eloquently with Lords amendment 5. In the event that conduct is deemed to have been unlawful, even retrospectively, surely that is the point at which it should be stopped. The Government’s case that our intelligence services can serve the national interest by continuing with conduct that has been considered by a judicial authority to be unlawful undermines the force of their arguments.

I want to remind the House of the genesis of this legislation. As the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden and the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) touched on, the third direction by the former Prime Minister was being tested in the investigatory powers tribunal. The Government had what I think would be best described as a narrow squeak there, and it was then, as a measure of some panic, that they decided to bring in this legislation in anticipation of the fact, or in fear, that their position would be overturned in the Appeal Court. I think that that was a not unreasonable view to be taken by the Government in all the circumstances. It is worth noting, in relation to the effectiveness of the Human Rights Act as a protection in this area of law, that not only is the Human Rights Act itself under review by the Government, but that the reliance on the Human Rights Act in Parliament stands in very stark contrast to the repudiation of it being applicable in their pleadings in the tribunal. I do not think the Government can have it both ways. The bringing of the Bill is in itself is a good and worthy ideal, but these are matters that should be regulated by Parliament. We realise that this is not done for any sort of Damascene conversion, but that it is, in fact, a panic measure.

The thinking behind the Bill seems to be that the Government accept that there has to be change inasmuch as the regulation of this activity has to be put on to a statutory footing. At the same time, however, they want to do it in such a way that nothing actually changes. It is done on a fairly crude world view, if I may say that. Somehow or other, law enforcement is always about good guys doing good things, pursuing bad guys who have done bad things. Those of us who have worked in the criminal courts and elsewhere know that is often a bit more nuanced than that. The sort of world view that brings this legislation is one which very quickly brings us to the point where the end can be seen always to justify the means. The bottom line is that those who are involved in these difficult areas of judgment very often do get them wrong.

I offer not a directly applicable example here, but one that I think should give the House cause to pause: the operation under the Blair Governments of extraordinary rendition and the cases of Boudchar and Belhaj. Jack Straw, as Foreign Secretary, and Mark Allen were essentially responsible for the rendition of Belhaj and Boudchar to Libya—incredibly, to say it now—and they did so in contravention of every stated Government policy. Ultimately, those cases were required to be settled with non-disclosure agreements and substantial amounts of public money paid in compensation.

Those cases illustrate the fact that there is a need for us as Parliament to put limits on what can be done by those who we charge to operate in this field. It should not be prescriptive, but it should be something that is there to which they can have reference, so that we can have security of knowledge that the work they do on our behalf is done properly. That is what these amendments are about. That is why this Bill has gone so badly wrong. The amendments from the other place seek to improve the Bill and my party will this evening vote in support of maintaining them.

Reduction of Plastic Waste in the Marine Environment

Debate between Edward Leigh and Alistair Carmichael

Wednesday 2nd May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

We come to a debate about Government policy on reducing plastic waste in the marine environment. Everyone can see that quite a large number of Members wish to speak. I ask colleagues to bear that in mind when they make their speeches. I may have to impose a time limit. I call Mr Alistair Carmichael to move the motion.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government policy on reducing plastic waste in the marine environment.

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. Another week, another debate on plastics in the marine environment. I welcome the Minister back to her now familiar position. I consider myself fortunate to have obtained this debate, and I am delighted to see such a healthy turnout of Members from all parts of the House.

This issue has become quite fashionable of late. It has certainly come to public attention since the BBC screened its “Blue Planet” series last year. But what people now understand is something that I as an islander, and others who live in coastal communities, have known for some years—that the amount of plastic in our marine environment has been growing exponentially for years and is now a massive danger to us all. People just have to walk along any beach to see that. The part of the world I represent is famed for its clean environment, but the number of coffee cups, food containers, fishing nets and ropes that we find even on our otherwise very attractive beaches provides evidence of that. That is actually the easy stuff, because we can remove it with beach clean-ups, but it does not remain on the beach; it is taken back out to sea and reduced until it eventually becomes much more difficult to remove from the marine environment.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Alistair Carmichael

Monday 6th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

I seek to build consensus today. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman is not minded to do so. I say to him simply this: if he speaks to his colleagues in the Comhairle, he will find they have enthusiasm for this matter. They pressed me and others in government very hard in the previous Parliament to proceed on this. It would be to his benefit and to the benefit of his constituents if he were minded to give his support.

Amendments 27 to 29 have their genesis, as do many others, in briefings provided by the Law Society of Scotland. They relate to the administration of tribunals in Scotland. This was some of the most difficult and challenging work for both the Smith commission and the Government. The analysis of the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee in the Scottish Parliament and the Law Society of Scotland is that what remains in the Bill is imperfect, because it does not give full effect to paragraphs 63 and 64 of the Smith commission report. Paragraph 63 states:

“All powers over the management and operation of all reserved tribunals (which includes administrative, judicial and legislative powers) will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament other than the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and the Proscribed Organisations Appeals Commission.”

Paragraph 64 states:

“Despite paragraph 63, the laws providing for the underlying reserved substantive rights and duties will continue to remain reserved (although they may be applied by the newly devolved tribunals).”

In implementing paragraph 63, there must be scope for the continued reservation of the substantive law and that may take forms that will require some limitation on the functions transfer. However, it is the assessment of the Law Society of Scotland that the limitations on transfer should only be such as are objectively necessary and that they must not be unduly restrictive of the principle in paragraph 63.

It seems to be a notion of some novelty in Whitehall that tribunals can be running independently and applying legislation that goes across the whole of the United Kingdom. I could never share that analysis of novelty, having practised in sheriff courts and watched over many years the practice in the High Court and the Court of Session do exactly that. I never quite understood —perhaps the Secretary of State will be able to explain it tonight—why this is so difficult.

Amendment 30 is another Law Society of Scotland amendment. It deals with the regulation of estate agents in Scotland under the Estate Agents Act 1979. I remind the House that much estate agency in Scotland is done by firms of solicitors acting as estate agents. They do it very effectively within the context of Scottish land law practice and conveyancing which, being Roman in origin, is fundamentally different from the law applicable in other parts of the United Kingdom.

I would suggest in support of the Law Society’s amendment that devolving the regulation of estate agents makes perfect sense. It is another aspect of our business and commercial life, as well as our personal and private life, that is managed completely differently in the Scottish context and in Scottish law. It is an anomaly that we should take this opportunity to address.

Amendments 31 and 32 deal with gaming machines in licensed betting premises. They seek to remove the limitation

“for which the maximum charge for use is more than £10”.

Paragraph 74 of the Smith commission agreement stated:

“The Scottish Parliament will have the power to prevent the proliferation of Fixed-Odds Betting Terminals.”

It is the analysis of both the Law Society and, again, the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee that the Bill does not achieve that end. Removing the maximum charge would most effectively achieve the objectives set out in the Smith commission.

Likewise, the effect of new clause 26 would be to devolve the functions of the Health and Safety Executive. Health and safety enforcement in Scotland is already practically devolved. Control over occupational health issues—many of which are practically unique in profile to Scotland, such as those in offshore oil and gas and in agriculture—should now be formally devolved to Scotland. That would be a recognition of the practice that has developed since devolution and the creation of the Scottish Parliament in 1999. It is merely a recognition in law of something that is already widely practised.

Finally, new clause 27 is fairly technical and, again, was drafted by the Law Society of Scotland. It would give effect to the particular models of business incorporation that we have in Scots law and is a recognition that that, too, should be under the control of the Scottish Parliament.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I rise to speak to my new clause 66, on health and medicines, which reads:

“In Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the 1998 Act, leave out “Head J (Health and Medicine)”.

In the helpful Member’s explanatory statement, which the Clerks helped me with, I say:

“The Amendment would remove health and medicine, including abortion, xenotransplantation, embryology, surrogacy, genetics, medical supplies, poisons and welfare foods from the list of matters reserved to the UK Parliament, allowing the Scottish Parliament to make separate provision in these matters for Scotland.”

I put forward the new clause hesitantly. I just want to probe the Government for an explanation of why the Scottish Parliament is not going to be allowed, under our Scotland Bill, to debate or decide these matters.

These matters are, of course, of vital interest to any nation. I well recall that whereas our debates on, say, social security, when we are discussing spending extra billions of pounds, are sometimes extremely poorly attended and attract very little interest, as soon as we get into what I would call these “Moral Maze” issues, where people have strong personal views and there are often free votes, our Parliament really comes into its own. That is what makes a Parliament. It is part of being a Parliament, and what we are trying to create in the Scottish Parliament is, in its essence, a real Parliament. Scotland may be a small nation, but it is a proud nation and it has its own individual point of view, which I would have thought was best determined by the Scottish people, through their Parliament.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Alistair Carmichael

Monday 15th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

I will take support anywhere I can find it, but I am not entirely sure that the hon. Gentleman’s remarks are germane to the matter that is before the Committee.

Amendment 89, which was tabled by the Scottish National Party, will facilitate a debate on the concept of full fiscal autonomy. I shall listen with interest to the hon. Member for Moray and others in their exposition of that, and I shall reserve my remarks on it until the end of this string of amendments, when I know I will be able to catch your eye, Mr Hoyle.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

New clause 3, which stands in my name, would deliver full fiscal autonomy, real home rule and a Scottish Parliament in control of everything save defence and foreign affairs. I am only a Back Bencher and I do not have the assistance of Government officials, so if the new clause is defective in technical detail, I apologise. If it were voted for tonight, however, it would establish a clear principle and a way forward.

The contention is clear: the new clause would deliver full fiscal autonomy. The Scottish Parliament would have full freedom to raise all taxes as it liked. It would not be restricted to fiddling around with bands; it would control all thresholds and all VAT dividends, and it would have full freedom to spend that money as it liked. That is what real Parliaments do, and that is why they are responsible.

The Scottish Parliament is constructed in a manner that is inherently conducive to the culture of grievance, and that would still be true even if the Smith commission proposals were adopted. The Scottish Parliament will raise only 50% of what it spends. Worse, under the 30-year-old, discredited Barnett formula, which even its conceiver condemned towards the end of his life, Scotland’s block grant will be based not on needs but on English levels of spending. No matter which tartan is chosen to clad the Scottish purse, the purse strings will still be controlled by England. That, I believe, has to change.

Following reports by the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Institute for Fiscal Studies, it has been said that Scotland faces a £7 billion black hole. Presumably, however, the SNP wanted independence in the next year. We cannot have an independent Parliament that does not have full fiscal autonomy, so let us have a real, informed debate about the figures.

Scottish Representation in the Union

Debate between Edward Leigh and Alistair Carmichael

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that Alex Salmond was here for many years and often sought to do exactly that. However, in terms of achievement, there was not a great deal to show for his time here. I therefore caution my hon. Friend about pre-judging the outcome of the election on 7 May and what the consequences of that outcome might be.

My party has always been clear that any parliamentary vote involving English or English and Welsh MPs should be held only on the basis of a proportionate vote share from the previous election. Devolution to the constituent nations of our United Kingdom has always taken place on that basis, and for good reason. It would be wholly unjust effectively to devolve power to England or England and Wales in a way that distorted democratic opinion and passed unfair advantage to any party.

The logical and lasting solution to this conundrum, in the view of my party, is the creation of a federal United Kingdom, in which England as a whole or in its constituent parts devolves powers from Westminster and, by extension, answers the West Lothian question. I accept, however, that we may be some way from that solution.

The options can and should be considered by a constitutional convention, as the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath indicated. The convention should be empowered to look at all the anomalies and difficulties that we face. In that way, we can forge a consensus and build lasting solutions that strengthen the bonds of our United Kingdom, rather than threaten to break them.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

It is important in this debate that we learn more about the Liberal plans for the proportional representation of MPs. It seems, with respect, that they could end in a really bonkers situation. What would happen if the Green party got 5% of the votes but only one MP? Would the Green party lady walk through the Lobby representing 20 other colleagues? What would happen if the Labour party got 38% of the popular vote but 43% of MPs? How would it be worked out in practice?

[Mr Carmichael]

Those matters would, of course, have to be considered by the House before it countenanced a change to Standing Orders of the sort that I have outlined. The example about the Greens would have to be taken into account and it might determine the size of any such Committee. I say to my hon. Friend gently that this House has tackled many bigger conundrums and challenges than that, and we have shown ourselves to be equal to the task. Although his point is legitimate and thoughtful, I do not see it as a barrier to a change of the sort that my party favours.

It might be helpful to add a little context to the question of Scotland’s representation in the Union, so I will briefly remind the House of the recent constitutional events that brought us here. On 18 September, the people in Scotland voted to secure Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom and to keep the advantages of the UK pound, UK pensions, UK armed forces, and a strong UK voice in the world. They voted for the strength and security that the United Kingdom provides through our single domestic market, our social union, and our ability to pool and share risks. However, people in Scotland were also clear that they wanted change. They wanted a strengthened, more accountable Scottish Parliament, with more decisions that affect Scotland being made in Scotland. The United Kingdom Government made a commitment to delivering the vow made by the three party leaders—in respect of which the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath made such a decisive intervention—and to delivering further powers to the Scottish Parliament early after the next general election. Despite the ambitious time scale, all deadlines in the vow have been met.

Immediately following the independence referendum, the Prime Minister established the Smith commission as an independent body to convene cross-party talks on further powers for the Scottish Parliament. The heads of agreement were published before St Andrew’s day, in line with our commitment, and were welcomed by the UK Government. The next stage of our commitment was to publish draft legislation, setting out what the agreement would look like in law in advance of Burns night. Two weeks ago, ahead of schedule, the Government published the draft clauses with an accompanying Command Paper.

Smith Commission

Debate between Edward Leigh and Alistair Carmichael

Thursday 27th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

That sounds an enticing prospect. Subject to diary commitments—my own diary gets fairly full around Burns night—I would be more than happy to accommodate the hon. Lady’s request if at all possible. She raised the matter of abortion, the terms of the report in relation to which she will have seen. There is a clear statement that it is considered by the commissioners to be an anomalous reservation, and I can understand why they take that view. However, we have always dealt with abortion differently—we have always made it the subject of a free vote in this House, for example—and the commission reached a sensible compromise by recognising the current anomaly, but saying that a new process will have to be devised to deal with that. I hope that process can involve parliamentarians and civic groups beyond the two Parliaments, which might in some way build a measure of consensus.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Unfortunately, there appear to be a number of lacunae, inconsistencies and unanswered questions in the report. If we rush this process, we are in danger of throwing petrol on the embers of English resentment and Scottish separatism. I pose one question out of many: paragraph 95(5)(a) states:

“The Scottish Government’s borrowing powers should be agreed by the Scottish and UK Governments”.

Does this mean that their borrowing will be underwritten by the UK Parliament?

[Mr Carmichael]

No. Obviously, if the Scottish Government were to borrow, they would have the liability under the borrowing powers. On the hon. Gentleman’s earlier observations about what he perceives as lacunae, the resulting measure, when introduced as legislation in the Queen’s Speech following the election, will still be subject to the full scrutiny of this House and the other place, whoever is standing at the Dispatch Box at the time. I am confident of the abilities of this House and the other place, and that what we will have at the end of the day will work.