Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill (Business of the House)

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and John Bercow

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

I shall abide by your request, Mr Speaker, and make just two brief comments on the points that have been raised.

First, Members needs to take it into account that the House is presented with emergency legislation in two sets of circumstances. The first is when a Government seek to extend their powers in some area. In such circumstances, the House has every reason to be very sceptical and concerned that it is being done through the medium of emergency legislation. There would have to be really exceptional circumstances to justify new powers of a kind that had not been used before.

We are told today—the House must make a judgment about this—that this is a different kind of emergency legislation, which has been seen in the past. Following a legal judgment, something that was thought to be lawful has potentially ceased to be lawful. The legislation is therefore necessary in order to continue with the status quo. That is, of course, a very different matter.

The second point that I want to make, very briefly, is about the concern over why the legislation was not prepared two or three months ago. It is obvious that there are two reasons. First, there are regulations that were made under the European directive. There is now uncertainty over whether those regulations might be successfully challenged. We therefore need clarification right away. Secondly, it is desirable to have all-party support if possible, particularly because it is emergency legislation. That takes time in the real world, particularly given that the Opposition have, quite reasonably, asked for additional announcements to be made in this area that are not specific to the legislation, but are relevant to it. Those factors point to why this process is not as unreasonable as it might otherwise sound.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) has just offered a tutorial in succinctness. I hope that he had a significant number of attentive students.

Syria

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and John Bercow

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A great many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, but I remind the House that the business to follow, on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, is also of intense interest to right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, and it is my duty, as best I can, to protect time for debate on it. I therefore issue my usual appeal to Members to offer the House single, short, supplementary questions, without preamble, and to the Foreign Secretary, as ever, to provide us with his pithy replies.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

I soberly disagree with the shadow Foreign Secretary in his opposition to military support for the Syrian National Coalition. What incentive does President Assad have to use a forthcoming conference to seek a political solution, when he continues to receive weapons of all descriptions from Russia and Iran? I know that my right hon. Friend has slowly and reluctantly come to the view that military support may be necessary. I strongly commend that conclusion and urge him to do what he can—in the cautious manner I know he will adopt—to ensure that the civilian communities in Syria are protected from the merciless onslaught from the present Syrian Government.

European Council

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and John Bercow

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A very large number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I am keen to accommodate them, but I remind the House that we have a very heavily subscribed debate to take place afterwards. Therefore, brevity from Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike is of the essence.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

I agree with the Prime Minister’s view on the debate this afternoon. However, has he had drawn to his attention the terms of the third option in the motion, which is to

“re-negotiate…membership in order to create a new relationship based on trade and co-operation”?

Is that not purely the situation of Norway and Switzerland, is that not incompatible with membership of the European Union, and should not anyone who is interested in renegotiation that will enable us to stay within the Union oppose this motion?

NATO Summit

Debate between Malcolm Rifkind and John Bercow

Monday 22nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Understandably, there is much interest, but there is also pressure on time, so economy, both in questions and answers, is vital if we are to make some progress.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

While we can warmly welcome the NATO-Russia agreement to co-operate on ballistic missile defence, is it not disappointing that NATO and Russia have not yet decided to begin talks on the multilateral disarmament of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe? Does the Prime Minister recollect that it was the previous Conservative Government who abolished British tactical nuclear weapons on the grounds that they had become militarily useless? Is it not now time for NATO and Russia to look at that at the European level?