Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
Geoffrey Cox Excerpts(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Burghart
Once again, my hon. Friend is quite right, because if the remedial order goes through both Houses and the Supreme Court has not opined, from the next day civil cases will reopen and military veterans will be involved in such actions.
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and Tavistock) (Con)
It seems to me that the Secretary of State is adopting a highly technical and extremely unmeritorious argument. He says that because the declaration of incompatibility is not the subject of the intervention of the veterans, that gives him the opportunity—entirely technically and devoid of any moral merit whatsoever—to bring in this remedial order, but he knows perfectly well that the substance of the argument on which the remedial order is based is very much in point in the deliberations of the Supreme Court, so what the Court will do, if it decides against him, is to remove the entire basis for the remedial order that he is bringing in. However, because technically he can bring it in, he has decided to do so. That is not like the Secretary of State.
Alex Burghart
I am delighted to have the support, on a matter of pure legal substance, of my right hon. Friend—
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
Geoffrey Cox Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Hilary Benn
As I have indicated, I reject the suggestion that the Government are in any way engaging in lawfare against veterans, in the same way that I reject any suggestion that there are such things as politically motivated or vexatious prosecutions. [Interruption.] I hear “Oh, come on” from the Opposition Front Bench; I have heard that from Opposition Members in previous debates on these questions. There will no doubt be a number of amendments and suggestions made when we come to detailed consideration of the Bill, and we will consider them at that time.
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and Tavistock) (Con)
I wonder whether the Secretary of State can assist me with this problem. The Supreme Court is at the moment seized of the issue as to the lawfulness of the declaration of incompatibility. The fact that the Government have withdrawn their appeal does not prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on it. Let us suppose that the Supreme Court rules that the declaration of incompatibility is void. The legal position is that the declaration of incompatibility would then be void, and therefore the basis on which the Secretary of State is proceeding with the order would be removed. Surely it would be prudent to wait to see if the Supreme Court rules on it. Otherwise, we will be proceeding with an unlawful order. I ask in the spirit of genuine curiosity and inquiry, not political partisanship. It would bring the entire process into disrepute if he is in fact acting on an unlawful basis.
Hilary Benn
Once again, I do not accept that the Government are acting on an unlawful basis. Given the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s distinguished legal credentials and experience, I say to him that I note he encourages me to speculate on a potential outcome—[Interruption.] Well, he does. The Government have to deal with the position as we find it. I have already set out to the House why the Government are absolutely clear in our view that, because the appeal was withdrawn, we are able to make use of section 10 of the Human Rights Act in order to remove conditional immunity.