Detainees

Debate between Stephen Timms and David Lidington

Thursday 18th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[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.

Detainee Mistreatment: Judge-led Inquiry

Debate between Stephen Timms and David Lidington

Monday 15th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[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.

Leaving the EU: Customs

Debate between Stephen Timms and David Lidington

Wednesday 16th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I am not giving way at the moment.

The second principle is that officials must be able to give frank advice to Ministers in confidence. That includes memorandums and other papers provided to Cabinet Committees by some of the most senior officials in the civil service. There are Labour Members present who have themselves served in government; they know that those in the professional civil service used every ounce of their professional skill to help them, as Labour Ministers, deliver the objectives of the elected Governments in which they served. I have to ask: what would those Members say to those officials about a motion that might result in the making public of the advice of professional civil servants—people who of course can never answer back themselves—which they had thought was being given to Ministers in confidence?

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept, though, that his argument is fatally undermined by the fact that members of the Cabinet are discussing these matters in public, in the newspapers?

[Mr Lidington]

I am deeply old-fashioned in my views, and I believe it is an enormous privilege to serve in a Cabinet. I also believe that discussions should be frank and unconstrained within the Cabinet, and that Cabinet Ministers should agree on a collective Government policy and be prepared to defend that policy in public afterwards.

Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland: Border Arrangements

Debate between Stephen Timms and David Lidington

Wednesday 28th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

Not only is that true, but trade between Ireland and Great Britain is more important than trade from south to north—between Ireland and Northern Ireland. That reinforces the point that it is in the mutual interests of all parties to agree on an ambitious economic partnership for the future.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Can the Minister confirm that cameras count as infrastructure? Can he point us to an example anywhere in the world of an international border with no customs union and no border infrastructure? Can he provide one example, from anywhere?

[Mr Lidington]

The language of the joint report is very clear that associated physical infrastructure is ruled out.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Stephen Timms and David Lidington

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 11th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I give way to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke).

[Mr Lidington]

I want to come on to that point later, but I first give way to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms).

[Stephen Timms]

I invite the Secretary of State to respond to the criticism of his party colleague, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who is surely absolutely right to describe this as an “appalling monstrosity” of a Bill, which the House, frankly, should throw out.

[Mr Lidington]

That is a not a verdict with which I agree. Some of the criticisms of the Bill have been exaggerated up to and beyond the point of hyperbole, and I will seek to explain why.

In concluding my comments about why the Bill is needed, I want to stress that the time available to us under the terms of article 50 is limited. We must assume that in March 2019 this country will leave the European Union. That will be the deadline, and therefore by that date we need not only to have primary legislation enacted, but to have established the new regulatory bodies. We will need to have given effect to the secondary legislation that is proposed under the defined powers laid out in the Bill.

Several right hon. and hon. Members have said, “Yes, certain rights may be being preserved, but what about the general underlying principles of EU law?” As I said earlier, when we leave, the treaties will cease to apply to this country, but under the Bill, the general principles of European law, as recognised by the Court of Justice before exit day, or as embodied in extant European legislation, will be retained in United Kingdom law for the purposes of interpreting retained EU law. Existing sources of rights and domestic rights of action will continue to operate in United Kingdom law undisturbed by the Bill. That includes rights such as the right to equal treatment and non-discrimination. Similarly, notwithstanding our exit from the EU, individuals will continue to be able to challenge secondary legislation and administrative action under our domestic law by way of well-established grounds of judicial review.

To take two important issues that have been raised, all the rights and remedies available under the working time directive or the Equality Act 2010 will remain in force, but they will be enforced through the United Kingdom courts—ultimately, our Supreme Court—rather than through the European courts.