Northern Ireland Protocol Bill
Monday 27th June 2022
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022-23 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 295 / Noes: 221 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I must inform the House that the reasoned amendments have not been selected. Before I ask the Foreign Secretary to move Second Reading, I reiterate how important it is for Members who wish to speak in the debate to be here at the beginning to hear all the opening speeches, to stay in the Chamber for the vast majority of the debate and certainly for the winding-up speeches, and to be there in good time. It is very discourteous not to follow those rules, especially on an important debate such as this.
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
We are taking this action to uphold the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which has brought peace and political stability to Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland protocol is undermining the function of the agreement and of power sharing. It has created fractures between east and west, diverted trade and meant that people in Northern Ireland are treated differently from people in Great Britain. It has weakened their economic rights. That has created a sense that parity of esteem between different parts of the community, an essential part of the agreement, has been damaged.
The Bill will address those political challenges and fix the practical problems the protocol has created. It avoids a hard border and protects the integrity of the UK and the European Union single market. It is necessary because the growing issues in Northern Ireland, including on tax and customs, are baked into the protocol itself. Our preference remains a negotiated solution, and the Bill contains a provision that allows for negotiated agreement, but the EU has ruled out up-front making changes to the text of the protocol.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on her very patient and good diplomacy. Will she confirm that this very moderate measure is completely legal and essential to the peace and good will of Northern Ireland?
Elizabeth Truss
I can absolutely confirm that this Bill is both necessary and legal, and the Government have published a legal statement setting that out.
Elizabeth Truss
I will make a bit more progress and then allow some further interventions.
We continue to raise the issues of concern with our European partners, but we simply cannot allow this situation to drift. Northern Ireland has been without a devolved Government since February due specifically to the protocol, at a time of major global economic challenges. Therefore, it is the duty of this Government to act now to enable a plan for restored local government to begin. It is both legal and necessary.
This Bill fixes the specific problems that have been caused in Northern Ireland while maintaining those parts of the protocol that are working. It fixes problems in four areas: customs and sanitary and phytosanitary; a dual regulatory model; subsidy control and VAT; and governance. On customs and SPS, the Bill creates a green and red lane system. All those trading into Northern Ireland will be part of a trusted trader scheme. Goods destined for Northern Ireland will not face customs bureaucracy. Goods for the Republic of Ireland and the EU will go through four EU-style border procedures. All data from both the green and red lanes will be shared with the EU in real time as the goods depart from Great Britain. This means that the EU will have this data before the goods arrive in Northern Ireland, ensuring that the EU single market is protected.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for bringing this forward and for her comprehensive understanding of the position of many people in Northern Ireland. As someone who has had businesses contacting me for those who have openly stated that they are from a nationalist tradition and yet feel afraid to voice complaints to their own MP for fear of reprisals, I speak with confidence in assuring the Secretary of State that Northern Ireland as a whole needs this Bill not simply for cultural identity, which is imperative, but for financial viability for small businesses due to the effects of the EU’s vindictive approach to block VAT and state aid. This Bill really is long overdue.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Interventions should be fairly brief because we have a lot of people wanting to speak in this debate.
Elizabeth Truss
I was talking about the data that we are sharing with the EU. I am pleased to say that we already have this system in place. We are giving demonstrations to businesses and the EU to show how it works, and I am happy to make those demonstrations available to Members of Parliament as well. Any trader violating the lanes will face penalties and would face ejection from the scheme.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I have an immense amount of sympathy with what the Foreign Secretary is saying, and it does seem to me as though the EU is not being particularly constructive in trying to get the solution that we all want to see. But many of us are extremely concerned that the Bill brazenly breaks a solemn international treaty, trashes our international reputation, threatens a trade war at a time when our economy is flat, and puts us at odds with our most important ally. Can she say anything to reassure me in my anxieties on these points?
Elizabeth Truss
As I said at the outset, our preference is for a negotiated solution, and we have sought that for 18 months, but as recently as last weekend the EU has refused to change the text of the protocol. That is why there is strong legal justification, as set out in our legal statement, for us taking this action. Our priority, as the United Kingdom Government, has to be political stability within our own country. While we put this Bill through Parliament, we will continue to seek a negotiated solution with the EU, and there are provisions in the Bill to deliver that. I would strongly encourage my right hon. Friend to raise this with the EU directly and to encourage a negotiated solution, because there is a solution to be achieved. We have laid it out very clearly with our red and green proposal, but we do need the EU to agree to change the text of the protocol. That is the fundamental issue that needs to be addressed.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. The Government’s legal position prays in aid the international law doctrine of necessity, but the International Law Commission says that where a state has itself contributed to the situation of necessity, that doctrine cannot be prayed in aid. Given that the Prime Minister signed the withdrawal agreement, including the protocol, in the knowledge that it would give rise to precisely the difficulties of which the Government now complain—we debated it on the Floor of the House—does the Secretary of State not see that there is a pretty big hole in the legal advice she has been given?
Elizabeth Truss
We set out the case extremely clearly in the legal advice, and the doctrine of necessity has been used by other Governments in the past where there is a severe issue and the other party is unwilling to renegotiate that treaty. That is the position we are in with the Northern Ireland protocol. What I would ask the hon. and learned Lady and other Members on the Opposition Benches is this: given that the EU refuses to reopen the Northern Ireland protocol, and issues around customs and tax are specifically baked in, what is their solution for dealing with the real issues in Northern Ireland? We have looked at all the alternative solutions, and the only effective solution is this Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, in the absence of the EU being willing to negotiate a new protocol.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
My right hon. Friend could also point out that the protocol itself contains provisions for it to be changed, and the EU refuses to contemplate using those provisions. May I also point out that at the time we signed the protocol, we did not know the shape of the trade and co-operation agreement, and it was reasonable to expect the EU to give mutual recognition of products and standards, including SPS standards, as it has with New Zealand, for example? The EU refuses to give us those provisions. The problems in the protocol would be much less if the EU had given us a better trade deal.
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the protocol is not set in stone. That is why for the past 18 months this Government have sought to achieve negotiated changes to the protocol. In the absence of the EU being willing to change the text, the only way to resolve this matter is for us to legislate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Elizabeth Truss
I am going to make more progress, and then I will take more interventions.
We fully understand and respect the legitimate concerns of the EU that the single market should be protected. Our solution does just that. The Bill will also establish a dual regulatory regime so that businesses can choose between meeting UK and EU standards. That removes the barriers to goods made to UK standards being sold in Northern Ireland and it cuts the processes that drive up cost for business. It prevents unnecessary divergence between two parts of the UK internal market. Anybody who trades into the EU single market will still have to do so according to EU standards.
The Bill will also ensure that the Government can set UK-wide policies on subsidy control and VAT, overcoming constraints that have meant Northern Ireland has not benefited from the same support as the rest of the UK. For example, at present people in Northern Ireland are not able to benefit from the VAT cuts on solar panels that the Chancellor announced in the spring statement.
These are essential functions of any 21st-century state, but they are especially important in Northern Ireland, where the UK Government play an outsized role in the local economy. We will maintain the arrangements in the protocol on VAT, which support trade on the island of Ireland while ensuring that Northern Ireland can still benefit from the freedoms and flexibility available in Great Britain.
Caroline Lucas
Does the Secretary of State understand why so many people would accuse this Government of the most rank hypocrisy? First, this is a predictable outcome of the agreement that they negotiated when they did not give a fig for the situation in Northern Ireland, frankly. Secondly, if they were serious about negotiations, they could be using article 16. Thirdly, at the very same time that the Prime Minister is gladhanding G7 leaders in Bavaria and extolling the virtues of a rules-based international system, his own Government at home are riding a horse and coaches through a rules-based system. Does she understand the concerns we have? What kind of reputation will the UK have on the global stage as a result of this proposal?
Elizabeth Truss
As I have made clear, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement should have primacy. The fact is that it has been undermined over the past two years, as we can see from the fact that the institutions of Northern Ireland are not up and running. That is why the Government need to act, and we are doing so in a reasonable and legal way.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I entirely accept my right hon. Friend’s desire to achieve a negotiated settlement if at all possible; I know how much work has gone into that. To return to the legal point, she will know that the application of the doctrine of necessity requires both the legal tests to be met and the evidential base to be there, because it is largely fact-specific to show whether those tests have been met. I know that the Government have been working hard to assemble that evidential base, but can she tell us when it will be available to the House so that we can form a judgment as to whether those legal tests are met and, therefore, proportionality and necessity are met? It would be helpful to have that before we come to a conclusion on the Bill.
Elizabeth Truss
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. There are clearly very severe issues in Northern Ireland, including the fact that its institutions are not up and running, which mean that the UK has to act and cannot allow the situation to drift. I do not think that we have heard what the Opposition’s alternative would be, apart from simply hoping that the EU might suddenly negotiate or come up with a new outcome.
Elizabeth Truss
Perhaps the hon. Lady can give us an idea about her alternative plan.
Karin Smyth
Over the past six years, I have given several alternatives, including as a shadow Minister. The Secretary of State talks about the institutions. Can she give the House the details of the agreement she has secured from the political parties in Northern Ireland that they will return to Stormont on the completion of the Bill—or on the completion of Second Reading, at any point during the Committee stage, or on Third Reading? What in the Bill has secured that? What role is there for anybody in Northern Ireland, given that the powers go to the Minister of the Crown?
Elizabeth Truss
I note that the hon. Lady has not come up with any alternatives to the Bill to move the situation forward. The approach we have taken, with the four areas that I am talking through, is to identify what the practical problems are for the people of Northern Ireland and to come up with solutions that address those problems while protecting the EU single market. It is our expectation that the passage of the Bill will result in the institutions being re-established.
Several hon. Members rose—
Elizabeth Truss
I will make progress on talking through the elements of the Bill, but I will be happy to accept further interventions later.
The Bill will ensure that the Government can set UK-wide policies on subsidy control and VAT, which will overcome the constraints that have meant that Northern Ireland has not benefited from the same support as the rest of the UK, as I mentioned. It will also maintain the arrangements in the protocol on VAT that support trade on the island of Ireland, while ensuring that Northern Ireland can still benefit from the freedoms and flexibilities available in Great Britain.
The Bill will remove the role of the European Court where it is not appropriate, including its role as the final arbiter of disputes. That is in line with normal international dispute-resolution provisions, including in the trade and co-operation agreement. The Bill will also enable courts to seek an opinion from the European Court on legitimate questions of the interpretation of EU law, which will ensure that it can still be applied for the purposes of north-south trade.
The Belfast/Good Friday agreement is based on consent from both communities. All Unionist parties have cited the European Court as a main cause of major democratic deficit. Together with VAT and state aid rules, it causes Unionists to feel less connected and less part of the UK. This is not a hypothetical issue; the European Court has already become one of the most controversial elements of the protocol and threatens to disrupt everyday lives. The EU has brought infraction proceedings against the UK in five areas that cover issues such as parcels and transporting pets. To be absolutely clear, the Bill changes only the parts of the protocol that are causing the problems and undermining the three strands of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I have a very short question, which is simply this. The Foreign Secretary says the Bill is legal, but lots of people disagree with her, including lots of very eminent lawyers both in this country and elsewhere. Which body will arbitrate on the decision as to whether this Bill is legal?
Elizabeth Truss
We have published our Government legal statement, which clearly states the reasons why this Bill is legal and the necessity of pursuing this Bill. I return to my point about the lack of alternatives being proposed by the Opposition. We have exhausted all the other avenues, and this remains the course of action that is actually going to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland and re-establish the institutions.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
There is a lot of talk about international law, but can I take the Foreign Secretary to paragraph 3 of article 2 of the UN charter? It says:
“All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.”
That is incumbent on us and the EU, and the EU needs to engage with us and negotiate so that peace is not threatened.
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is right. It is very clear from the legal advice that one of the issues is that the EU will not change the text of the protocol even though, when the protocol was negotiated, it was very clear that it was not set in stone and should be subject to change because of the very unique situation in Northern Ireland.
We are very clear that there are elements of the protocol that are working and that we do want to maintain. We will maintain the conditions for north-south co-operation and trade, and uphold the common travel area. We will maintain the functioning of the single electricity market, which benefits both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
The Bill provides specific powers to implement technical regulations as part of our solution, and today we launched a consultation with businesses to make sure that the way it is implemented works for the people of business in Northern Ireland. We will continue consulting with businesses and the EU over the coming weeks to make sure that the implementation works.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
One of the fundamental purposes of this long-awaited Bill is to uphold the critical Good Friday agreement, which as the whole House knows completely underpins the maintenance of peace and political stability in Northern Ireland. That being the case, for those who follow this matter closely, including in the United States, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that one of the strongest advocates for action on this has been Lord Trimble, the Nobel laureate, who helped negotiate the Good Friday agreement in the first place?
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We all know how hard-won peace and political stability in Northern Ireland was, and we all know how important it is that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is upheld and is not undermined. That is the discussion I have been having with colleagues in the United States and around the world, and those who have experienced the situation in Northern Ireland fully understand how important it is that we act and that we cannot allow this situation to drift.
I know there are those across the House who want to give negotiation more time. The problem we face is that we have already been negotiating for 18 months. We have a negotiating partner that is refusing to change the text of the protocol. Meanwhile, we have a worsening situation in Northern Ireland. So it is firmly the view of this Government that we need to act. We are pursuing this legislation as all other options have been exhausted.
Our first choice was and remains renegotiating the protocol text with the EU. This is in line with the evolution of other treaties, which happens all the time. For example, both the EU and the UK are currently renegotiating changes to the energy charter treaty. Given the unique nature of Northern Ireland and the unprecedented nature of these arrangements, it was always likely that flexibility would be needed. In fact, that flexibility was explicitly acknowledged in the protocol itself, but despite the fact that we have been pursuing these renegotiations we have not seen the flexibility needed from the EU.
As recently as this weekend, the EU said it will not renegotiate the text of the protocol, and Members across the House will have seen that the EU put forward proposals last year and again a fortnight ago; it is worth pointing out that those proposals will leave the people and businesses of Northern Ireland worse off than the current standstill arrangements. Its proposals would make the situation on the ground worse, adding further to the tensions and stresses; goods going solely to Northern Ireland would still face customs paperwork and sanitary and phytosanitary certificates.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Bill is borne out of necessity: necessity to act in our national interest, to provide a permanent solution to a temporary measure, to preserve the Belfast agreement, and to preserve the constitutional settlement that keeps Northern Ireland as part of the UK? It is a necessity to prevent a democratic deficit and to use international law to safeguard and protect our essential interests while protecting those of the EU.
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We still face a situation in which the EU has refused to change the text of the protocol, and its proposals do not even address many of the issues of concern—over governance, subsidies, manufactured goods and VAT. Without dealing with those very real issues for the people of Northern Ireland we are not going to see the balance of the Belfast Good Friday agreement restored, and we are not going to see the cross-community support we need to get the political institutions back up and running.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Foreign Secretary knows that the three things that need to be resolved are the friction in trade; repairing the harm to our constitutional position within this country; and erasing the democratic deficit at the heart of the protocol. The Foreign Secretary has fairly outlined the myriad steps the Government have taken; if this Bill is required, they can have our support in resolving these issues, but she will also hear a lot of opposition from Members of other parties on this side of the House. In hearing that opposition from colleagues sitting to my right and left, can she identify even one of them who advocated using article 16 or the provisions of the protocol, or have they simply no interest in trying to resolve the issues affecting the people of Northern Ireland today?
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Those who advocate further negotiation with the EU need to persuade the EU to change its negotiating mandate so the text of the protocol can change, because we know that those specific issues, including on the customs bureaucracy and VAT, can only be addressed by addressing the text of the protocol itself.
I want to come on to the specific point the hon. Gentleman made about article 16. Of course we have looked at triggering article 16 to deal with this issue; however, we came to the conclusion that it would not resolve the fundamental issues in the protocol. It is only a temporary measure and it would only treat some of the symptoms without fixing the root cause of the problems, which are baked into the protocol text itself. It could also lead to attrition and litigation with the EU while not delivering sufficient change.
I want to be clear: we do not rule out using article 16 further down the line if the circumstances demand it, but in order to fix the very real problems in Northern Ireland and get the political institutions back up and running, the only solution that is effective and provides a comprehensive and durable solution is this Bill.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I suspect that when the Foreign Secretary was campaigning for Britain to remain in the European Union, she never in a million years thought she would be standing here proposing a Bill of this sort. In light of the comment she just made about article 16, why are the Government not proposing to use the legal method to raise these questions with the European Union through the treaty they signed, rather than claiming necessity? The Foreign Secretary has yet to give me a single example where the British Government have claimed necessity for abrogating a treaty they have negotiated and signed.
Elizabeth Truss
The reason why I am putting the Bill forward is that I am a patriot, and I am a democrat. Our No. 1 priority is protecting peace and political stability in Northern Ireland and protecting the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman has suggested will achieve that end.
Several hon. Members rose—
Elizabeth Truss
I will finish off my remarks.
The only way for us to uphold the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and fix the problems in Northern Ireland is to pass this legislation. We have heard all kinds of complaining from the Opposition side about the solution that the Government are putting forward, but no alternative solution that will deliver.
I want to be clear that this is not my preferred choice, but, in the absence of a negotiated solution, we have no other choice. There is no need for the EU to react negatively. It will be no worse off as a result of the Bill. These issues are very small in the context of the single market, but they are critical for Northern Ireland.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary knows that I have grave concerns about her Bill, but may I ask her coolly to reflect on praying in aid patriotism as a defence of it? Is she seriously impugning the patriotism of colleagues across the House who have concerns about her Bill? I find that a false conflation.
Elizabeth Truss
I was directly responding to the point made by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) about why I campaigned one way in the referendum and am now working to ensure that the Brexit negotiation that we achieved works for the people of Northern Ireland. That is because I believe in the Union of the United Kingdom and in the relationship between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I want to resolve those issues.
All I am pointing out to colleagues across the House is that I have negotiated in good faith with the European Union, but it has refused to change the text of the protocol. I have looked at all the options—including triggering article 16—to see whether they would work to resolve the serious issues in Northern Ireland, and I have come to the genuine conclusion that they will not.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Will the Secretary of State commit that never again will a Government stand at that Dispatch Box and change the Act of Union in a way that is detrimental to this United Kingdom that we all adhere to and all admire? Will she also confirm that more than 300 hours have been spent in negotiations with the EU and that it has resisted any change whatsoever, such is its animosity towards Northern Ireland?
Elizabeth Truss
The very clear reason why we are acting now is that there has been a refusal to change the text of the protocol, which is causing real problems in Northern Ireland. As I have said, these issues are very small in the context of the single market, but they are critical for the people of Northern Ireland, and it is in their interests that we are acting in putting through the Bill.
Once the legislation is enacted, we can draw a line under the issue and unleash the full potential of our relationship with the EU. Fundamentally, we share a belief in democracy, in freedom and in the right of all countries to self-determination. We are natural allies in an increasingly uncertain and geopolitical world.
Elizabeth Truss
I will not give way any more—the House will be pleased to hear that I am almost at the end of my remarks. We want to work with the EU for the betterment of not just Europe but the world, and we want to focus all our efforts on tackling external threats, such as Putin’s Russia. Once this legislation is passed, we will have a solution that helps to restore the balance between the communities, and that upholds the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That is the purpose of the Bill, and I commend it to the House.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Less than three years ago, the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box seeking to persuade the House to support the withdrawal agreement that he negotiated with the European Union. It was, he said,
“a great deal for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 579.]
He urged each of us
“to show the same breadth of vision as our European neighbours”
with whom he had struck the agreement. He reassured us that
“Above all, we and our European friends have preserved the letter and the spirit of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 571.]
His deal, he argued, was
“in perfect conformity with the Good Friday agreement.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 583.]
Today, 18 months after it came into force, the Government are taking a wrecking ball to their own agreement.
Ian Paisley
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the very good proposal, made a few moments ago by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), that we should trigger article 16. Do Her Majesty’s official Opposition agree with that proposal? Does the shadow Secretary of State believe that article 16 should be triggered now?
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The most important thing in all this is peace, and getting power sharing up and running. Will the right hon. Gentleman acquaint the House with the discussions that he has had with the DUP on the solution to the problem, given that the DUP refuses to rejoin power sharing unless the protocol is dealt with? I am sure that he has discussed this with the DUP.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call Ian Paisley on a point of order, but I hope that this is not a way of disrupting the debate.
Ian Paisley
Is it in order for the shadow Secretary of State to indicate that he has had negotiations with the Democratic Unionist party when no such negotiations have taken place, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He knows that he is well able to ask to intervene again on the shadow Secretary of State. It undermines our debates if we come up with endless points of order that interrupt them. It is not a fair thing to do. The hon. Gentleman will try to catch my eye later; I suggest that we try to respect each other in the Chamber.
Mr Lammy
I will not; I will make some progress.
The Government are bringing the Bill to the House because they object to the text that they negotiated, and the choices that they freely made. They are asking each Member of the House to vote for a Bill that flouts international law. That proposition should never be put to hon. Members. The Bill is damaging and counterproductive. The strategy behind it is flawed. The legal justification for it is feeble. The precedent that it sets is dangerous and the timing could hardly be worse. It divides the United Kingdom and the European Union at a time when we should be pulling together against Putin’s war on the continent, and it risks causing new trade barriers during a cost of living crisis.
John Redwood
The protocol makes very clear the primacy of the Good Friday agreement for peace in Northern Ireland and says that the EU will respect our internal market. The EU is doing neither. What is the right hon. Gentleman’s policy to persuade it to do so?
Mr Lammy
Negotiate—just as Labour did to get the Good Friday agreement. We negotiate. We do not break international law and alienate our partners and allies not just in Europe but across the world, and the right hon. Gentleman should know better.
As we debate the Bill, we should ask ourselves some simple questions. First, will it resolve the situation in Northern Ireland? Secondly, is it in the best interests of our great country? Thirdly, is it compatible with our commitment to the rule of law? Let me take each of those in turn.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Will the right hon. Member give way?
Mr Lammy
I will not at the moment.
Let us deal with Northern Ireland first as context. None of us in this House doubts that the situation in Northern Ireland is serious. Opposition Members need no reminder of the importance of the Good Friday agreement, which is one of the proudest achievements of a Labour Government, together with parties and communities across Northern Ireland and the Irish Government in Dublin. It was the result of hard work and compromise, graft and statesmanship, a relentless focus on the goal of peace. It was born six months after Bloody Sunday. For more than half my lifetime, Northern Ireland endured the pain and violence of conflict and division. More than 3,500 people were killed. Thousands more were injured. Cities and communities were riven by intolerance and division. I remember what that conflict brought to my city, from the Baltic Exchange attack to the Docklands bombing. Above the door over there and other doors into this Chamber are plaques to Airey Neave, Ian Gow, Sir Anthony Berry, Robert Bradford and, most recently, to Sir Henry Wilson.
Nearly a quarter of a century has passed since that hopeful Easter in 1998. Since then, we have seen transformational progress. A generation has grown up in a new Northern Ireland, harvesting the fruits of a hard-won peace. That legacy demands that all of us act with the utmost responsibility and sensitivity. We need calm heads at this moment and responsible leadership.
We recognise that the operation of the protocol and the barriers and checks that were inherent in its design have created new tensions that need to be addressed. Unionists feel that their place in the UK is threatened, and we must listen to all concerns on all sides. We all want to see power sharing restored. The UK Government, the European Union and parties across Northern Ireland need to show willing and act in good faith. However, at its most fundamental level, the Bill will not achieve its objectives. The House cannot impose a unilateral solution when progress demands that both sides agree. This is not an act of good faith, nor is it a long-term solution.
Only an agreement that works for all sides and delivers for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland will have durability and provide the political stability that businesses crave and the public deserve. Instead, the Bill will make a resolution more difficult. By breaking their obligations, the Government dissolve the little trust that remains; by taking this aggressive action, we make it harder for those on the other side of the table to compromise. On that basis alone, the Bill should be rejected.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
I recognise the comments that the shadow Secretary of State has made about the Belfast agreement and the need for consensus. He is aware that there is not a consensus in support of the protocol; there never has been one, from day one, in Northern Ireland. I gave time—a lot of time—for the negotiations to progress, but that did not work because the EU fundamentally refuses to change the text of the protocol. If the shadow Secretary of State is serious about getting a solution that works, will he go to the EU and join the Government in making the argument that the EU needs to agree to a negotiation in which it is prepared to change the text of the protocol?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s experience in these matters, and indeed when the protocol was being negotiated in the first place. May I say that I met EU ambassadors in London last week and made that very point? I point him to the speech that I made last week, in which I highlighted exactly what he has just said.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I do not think that anyone in this House can doubt the right hon. Gentleman’s personal commitment to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, after the remarks that he has made. As someone whose father was nearly blown up in the Grand Hotel, I share that passion, but the problem that the right hon. Gentleman has to grapple with is that he wants a negotiation. What if the EU will not negotiate? What would he do then? That is the position that we are in. We cannot elevate the protocol to be more important than the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That is the necessity we face.
Mr Lammy
I accept the sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman makes his remarks. Let me just say that they have said that trust is at an all-time low. The question for this House is whether the Bill maintains or assists trust, given that ultimately this will be an agreement and it will be negotiated.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech. Is he aware of comments by the US trade representative Ambassador Tai, from Speaker Pelosi and indeed from a host of our American allies in Congress? They have been very clear with us that there will be no US-UK trade deal unless there is a durable way forward on the Northern Ireland question. Not only does this reckless approach risk destroying relations with the EU, but it puts a deal with America at risk.
Mr Lammy
My right hon. Friend is exactly right. I have been to Washington on three occasions in the past six months, and I can say that across the political divide, Republicans and Democrats have raised the issue. On my most recent visit, they were aghast; they had not seen the content of the Bill at that stage, but they were aghast at the proposition. Perhaps the Northern Ireland Secretary might tell us what our American friends and allies have said in relation to the Bill now that they have seen the draft.
My second question is whether the Bill is in the best interests of this country. As we stand here today, Britain faces the worst cost of living crisis in decades. Inflation is at more than 9%, bills are rising, energy costs are soaring and supply chains are under pressure. It beggars belief why, at this time, the Government would choose to risk new frictions in our trading relations with the EU. They cannot get away with abdicating responsibility for this reckless conduct. If we choose to break a contract, we cannot plausibly expect the other side to take no action in response. We cannot claim that we did not foresee the consequences. Of course the European Union would respond, just as we would if the situation were reversed. I will wager that the Foreign Secretary would be one of the first people to complain if the boot were on the other foot.
A game of brinkmanship with the European Union will only add to our economic problems, but this is not just about economic concerns, important though they are. We must also see the bigger picture. For four months, the Putin regime has fought a bloody war against Ukraine. As a Parliament, we have been united in our support for Ukraine and our staunch opposition to Russia’s aggression. NATO allies and European partners have stood together. How can this be the right moment to deepen a diplomatic row? How can this be the right time to tell our friends and partners that we cannot be relied on? I cannot help noting that some Conservative Members told us that the situation in Ukraine was too serious—that this was not the right time to change Prime Minister. Apparently, however, it is not serious enough to prevent us from starting a diplomatic fight with some of our closest allies.
Thirdly, is the Bill compatible with international law? [Hon. Members: “ Yes.”] Quite simply, the Bill breaks international law. It provides for a wholesale rewrite of an international treaty in domestic law. One of the most troubling aspects is the dangerous legal distortion that is used to justify it. The doctrine of necessity is not an excuse for states to abandon their obligations. It exists to do precisely the opposite: to constrain the circumstances in which states can legitimately claim that their hand has been forced. It requires this action to be the “only way” possible to resolve the issue, but the Government have not used article 16 and still say that a negotiated solution is possible. It requires a grave and imminent peril, but the Government have chosen a route that will involve months of parliamentary wrangling to fix issues such as unequal VAT rates, which no reasonable person could consider a matter of grave peril. It requires the invoking state not to have contributed to the situation of necessity, but the problems are a direct result of the choices that the Government made when negotiating with the European Union. If they were not, we would not need to change the text of the protocol at all.
Joanna Cherry
The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, particularly on the legal points. He has listed all the problems with the Government’s legal note of advice. Does he, like me, find it interesting that, whenever any of us raise these points, no Conservative Member is capable of answering them?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
If I heard him aright, the right hon. Gentleman indicated earlier that the Government should have used article 16. He said, “They have not yet used article 16”, indicating that they should use it before going down this road. It was, however, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), who I think is the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, who said that triggering article 16 would “prolong and deepen” uncertainty in Northern Ireland and pose another huge risk to stability there. Does this now mean that the Government should have triggered article 16, or that they should not—or maybe that there is a disagreement, or maybe that it will not be decided until after the passage of the Bill?
Mr Lammy
I think that the right hon. Gentleman is putting words in my mouth. Article 16 arises in relation to the defence that the Government suggest: the doctrine of necessity—that is, they have not used it and the point of using it is that, at the very least, it would be legal.
“Pacta sunt servanda”. Agreements must be kept. This is the essence of international law: the solemn promise of states acting in good faith and upholding their commitments to treaties that they have agreed. How would we react if a country we had renegotiated with did the same thing and simply disregarded the commitments we had mutually agreed on? I do not doubt that, if an authoritarian state used necessity to justify its actions in breaking a treaty in the manner the Government are proposing to do through this Bill, the Foreign Secretary and many of us across this House would condemn it.
Since the right hon. Lady became Foreign Secretary, the Foreign Office has issued countless statements and press releases urging others to meet their international obligations. They include Iran under the joint comprehensive plan of action; China under the joint declaration of Hong Kong; and Russia under the Budapest memorandum. In just the last fortnight, the Foreign Office under her leadership has publicly called on Bolivia, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Nicaragua, South Sudan, Eritrea and Ethiopia to meet their international obligations. Hypocrisy is corrosive to our foreign policy and I know that Members from across the House share these concerns.
Chris Bryant
I take this point from my right hon. Friend’s mention of the Budapest accord: when the UK signs a document, it really needs to stand by it. We did not stand by the Budapest accord either. We did not make sure that the text was proper before we brought it to Parliament, and that is one of the reasons we have the problems we have today, is it not?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we use the word “honourable” across this House, it means something. It is about the integrity of this place and about the pre-eminent position that this Parliament and this country find themselves in on matters of international affairs. That is why this is such a sombre moment.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech and these matters deserve thoughtful consideration, but could he take advantage of his time at the Dispatch Box to tell us whether he would change the protocol? If so, how would he change it? How does he think the process of negotiation, which has failed so far, would achieve those changes?
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The shadow Secretary of State has made much of the Government abandoning their obligations, but surely the obligation in the protocol was designed from the EU’s point of view to protect the EU single market. How does this Bill not give that guarantee to the EU, when goods going into the Republic will be checked, when there will be severe penalties on those who try evade those checks and when any firms producing in Northern Ireland will have to comply with EU rules when they are sending goods to the Republic? Surely that safeguards the single market and the obligations will be met.
Mr Lammy
Let me just make some progress, because I have been on my feet for a long time and lots of hon. Members want to contribute to the debate.
Our country’s reputation is a matter beyond party. It is hard won and easily lost. When this Bill was first mooted, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) asked
“what such a move would say about the United Kingdom and its willingness to abide by treaties that it has signed.”—[Official Report, 10 May 2022; Vol. 714, c. 38.]
The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) said in a thoughtful piece on this legislation last week that our country
“benefits greatly from our reputation for keeping our word and upholding the rule of law...We should be very wary indeed of damaging that standing.”
The right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) said,
“I don’t see how…any member of parliament can vote for a breach of international law.”
Lord Anderson and Lord Pannick, who are among the most distinguished lawyers in the country, have called this Bill a “clear breach” of international law that
“shows a lack of commitment to the rule of law and to a rules-based international order that damages the reputation of the UK.”
And Sir Jonathan Jones QC, formerly the most senior lawyer in Government, has described the legal justification for the Bill as “hopeless.” This is, of course, the same distinguished lawyer who resigned last time the Government proposed legislation in violation of their own treaty commitments. On that occasion, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had the temerity to tell the House the truth about the Government’s plan to break international law in a “limited and specific way.”
This Bill breaks the withdrawal agreement in a broad and extensive way while maintaining the pretence that it is somehow compliant. I am not sure what is worse—to be open about breaking the law or to dress up a treaty violation with this flimsy and transparent legal distortion.
Mr Francois
The right hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech. Will he confirm to the House that he has actually read the Northern Ireland protocol? If he has read it, will he remind the House of what article 13.8 says about the ability to amend or even supersede the protocol entirely?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman has, like me, been in this House for many years. This is too serious an issue for any shadow Minister or Minister not to have spent the whole weekend working hard on the Bill, as he knows. He also knows that we all come to this House hopeful of reaching agreement, but very conscious of the lawbreaking that is going forward, so of course I have read it.
Undermining international law runs counter to Britain’s interest, damages Britain’s moral authority and political credibility, and risks emboldening dictators and authoritarian states around the world. It serves the best interests of those who want to weaken the rule of law, and it is unbefitting of this great country.
This Bill not only contravenes international law but affords the Government extraordinary powers and denies proper respect to the role of this House. Fifteen of the 26 clauses confer powers on Ministers. The Hansard Society, not an organisation known for hyperbole, has called the powers given to Ministers “breathtaking.” Professor Catherine Barnard of Cambridge University has called these powers “eye wateringly broad.”
Ministers may use these powers whenever they feel it appropriate. Clause 22 allows them to amend Acts of Parliament, and clause 15 gifts them the power to disapply other parts of the protocol, potentially including the article on democratic consent in Northern Ireland. Ministers could use secondary legislation to change not just primary law but an international treaty. This is a power grab so broad it would make Henry VIII blush.
Clause 19 allows Ministers to implement a new deal with the European Union without primary legislation. Do Conservative Back Benchers really want to give any Foreign Secretary that power? This is brazen Executive overreach. It is an act of disrespect to Parliament and all MPs should reject it.
Karin Smyth
As well as disrespecting Members and Parliament, the Bill is extraordinarily disrespectful to the representatives of people in Northern Ireland who will have no say on these provisions, as the Secretary of State is grabbing all the power.
Mr Lammy
I must make some progress, because I am very conscious that we will run out of time.
As I have outlined, the Bill is damaging and counterproductive, and it is also unnecessary. We want to see checks reduced to an absolute necessary minimum, and there are practical solutions if we work to find them. Let us lower the temperature and focus on what works.
For months, we have been urging the Government to negotiate a veterinary agreement with the European Union that could remove the need for the vast majority of checks across the Irish sea on goods travelling from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. New Zealand has such an agreement. Why cannot we have one? I do not believe that it is beyond the ability of a British Government to negotiate one. That could be the basis of other steps to reduce friction, including improving data sharing. I am not one of those people who believe that only the UK Government need to show flexibility; the EU has been too rigid as well. However, the only way forward is to work hard on negotiation and compromise. I believe that with hard work and determination, with creativity and flexibility, we can overcome those challenges.
This Bill is not the way forward. It will exacerbate the problems it hopes to solve. It will gift Ministers unaccountable powers. It will divide us from our friends and allies in Europe when we should be united. It damages our country’s reputation. It will break international law. The rule of law is not a Labour or a Conservative value; it is our common inheritance. Since Magna Carta in 1215, it is no exaggeration to say that it is one of the greatest contributions that our country has made to the world. No party owns it. No Government should squander it. Britain should be a country that keeps its word. Let us stand for that principle and vote against this Bill tonight.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
As will be very obvious to everyone here, there are many people who want to contribute to this debate. I do not want to put a time limit on immediately. I think one will be necessary, but it would be greatly helpful if Back-Bench colleagues could confine their remarks to a maximum of 10 minutes, and I think they will be quite popular if they manage to say anything in rather less than that. I call Simon Hoare.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ten minutes is the time usually taken to make opening remarks, and popularity is something that I have always shunned.
The shadow Foreign Secretary is right: at the heart of this is trust or the absence of it—or, as she leaves the Chamber, the absence of Truss. Is the protocol perfect? No, it is not. The question, therefore, is not whether but how changes should be made. There are many ways to achieve change, but this Bill is not one of them.
The Office of Speaker’s Counsel has provided a legal opinion to all members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and it raises enormous concerns about this Bill’s legality. The Foreign Secretary and others have tried to conflate—they have fallen into the trap of conflating—the resurrection of devolution and the protocol. Those are two very separate and different workstreams, and we need to decouple them. Treaty making is reserved to this place; devolution is the duty of the politicians of Northern Ireland. We can and should be able to see the resurrection of one and negotiation on the other, but to fall into the trap of conflating them, the result of which is this Bill, is very sad indeed.
This is not a well thought-out Bill, it is not a good Bill and it is not a constitutional Bill. The integrity of the United Kingdom can be changed only via the Good Friday agreement. The protocol and trading arrangements do not interrupt or change the constitutional integrity of the UK, so I do not agree with those who try to position this as a constitutional Bill.
Simon Hoare
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I want to make a few more points.
This Bill represents a failure of statecraft and puts at risk the reputation of the United Kingdom. The arguments in support of it are flimsy at best and irrational at worst. The Bill risks economically harmful retaliation and runs the risk of shredding our reputation as a guardian of international law and the rules-based system. How in the name of heaven can we expect to speak to others with authority when we ourselves shun, at a moment’s notice, our legal obligations? A hard-won reputation so easily played with—
Dr Murrison
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is making a good speech. Of course, the Bill is permissive legislation; meanwhile, negotiations are ongoing. He referred to a failure of statecraft—whose failure?
Simon Hoare
I think it is probably a failure of both sides, but a presumption of, “If I don’t get my own way on everything, I’m going to take my ball off the pitch; I’m going to act unilaterally, off my own bat” is not the way to do it. As a former distinguished Minister at the Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend knows as well as I do that most Northern Ireland outcomes are based on compromise—on give and take, and on finding the place and the path of least resistance.
This has been a failure of statecraft. I do not believe that the Bill passes the international test of necessity. It has to pass all the tests set out in the statute, and it does not. What, then, is this Bill? Is it a bargaining chip to try to browbeat the EU? Is it a bribe to right hon. and hon. Members in the Democratic Unionist party to get back around the table at Stormont?
Simon Hoare
Let me just finish on what the Bill might be, and then I shall of course give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Is the Bill a muscle flex for a future leadership bid? To sacrifice our national reputation on the altar of personal ambition would be shameful.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
The hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) made a point on this subject earlier, but as a result of the protocol we have a democratic deficit in Northern Ireland. Many of the laws that now regulate how we trade with the rest of the United Kingdom are made by a foreign entity over which we have no say whatsoever, and our VAT rates are set by that foreign entity. There should be no taxation without representation. I do not need to be bribed to ask for what is the right of my people: democracy.
Simon Hoare
That is a point with which I have much sympathy, and which Committee members discussed with the Commission when we were there last December. The Commission is aware of that. Norway has Ministers of its Government in Brussels to discuss such things week in, week out. The EU and, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, Northern Irish business organisations are really keen to identify platforms whereby that democratic deficit can be in some way addressed. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman entirely. I am tempted to say to him, “Don’t shout at me; shout at the Ministers who advocated for the protocol and for us to sign and support it.”
Simon Hoare
I am going to make some progress, if I may.
I suggest that we have to be the party of the rule of law, or we are nothing. It is sad that we have to be reminded of that. This a power grab, with all these Henry VIII clauses. If we were being asked to pass powers to Ministers so we could polish an already superlative protocol, we might have some faith, but they have admitted that the results of what they negotiated have caught them by surprise—that they did not understand the import of what they were signing up to, or they did not quite understand the terms or the meaning of the words. We are told that they were surprised that the other side would expect us and them to fulfil the obligations we had negotiated.
Given our deep understanding of the complexities and difficulties of the politics of Northern Ireland— I have little or no doubt that we can all unite on that—I suggest that to enter into something so lightly without understanding precisely all the details, and then to say, “We’re having to do this because we didn’t expect the other side to do it in the way that they want us to do it,” is for the birds. It is totally bonkers. The Government told us that, having reached a difficult compromise on the final text of the protocol, they expected the EU to do something else. With all the history, all we relied on was expectation.
These Henry VIII clauses really will not stick. Seventeen of the clauses give unspecified powers to Ministers. Was taking back control about this Parliament handing powers to the Executive to use for unspecified purposes? Even worse, one clause tells us that powers will be used to change powers that might have been changed in the Bill if those changes are subsequently thought to have been wrong or ill-advised. That is not only someone marking their own homework, but someone copying somebody else’s homework and then claiming all the credit themselves.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I find it astonishing that my hon. Friend has got eight minutes into his speech and he has still not mentioned the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
Simon Hoare
My hon. Friend was obviously not listening, because I made it very clear at the start that the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom is not touched by the protocol. The constitutional integrity of Northern Ireland within our United Kingdom is contained within the clauses of the Good Friday agreement—that is the only way. Anybody who tries to position this protocol—
Simon Hoare
I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because of the time.
Anybody who thinks that this is, in some way, a back door to a speeding up of the reunification of Ireland is fundamentally wrong.
Simon Hoare
I will not, but I know the hon. Gentleman will understand why.
The argument of necessity is clearly not made. The Prime Minister himself wants to see this done by negotiation, and I agree with him. There is the option to trigger article 16 if the Government think that that is necessary. If the situation is as bad as some Ministers would have this House believe, one has to ask why they have not used the emergency brake of article 16, but have instead suggested a calm and tranquil Sunday afternoon walk through a bicameral system of legislative progress—something that will take 10 months. Either the data is as bad as they tell us it is—incidentally, it is not—in which case rapid action is required, or we are just going to do this, which suggests to me that this is all gamesmanship and muscle flexing. Belfast port is now handling a record amount of cargo; last year, it handled a record 25.6 million tonnes. The food and drinks sector is benefitting. More Irish businesses are buying stuff from Northern Ireland, which is good for Northern Ireland plc.
The Henry VIII clauses are wrong, the purpose of the Bill is wrong, and the necessity for it is not proven. I ask this question sincerely of my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches. We are talking about playing fast and loose with our international reputation; playing fast and loose with our adherence to the rule of law; an Executive power grab with Henry VIII clauses; and pandering and giving way to some sort of political brinkmanship on one side of the very sensitive divide in Northern Ireland, which we cannot afford to treat as a plaything. If the Labour party were on the Government Benches and doing what is contained in this Bill, what would our response be, as Conservatives? We would say that this was a party not fit for Government. We would say that it was a party that does not understand or respect our traditions, and that does not understand the importance of reputation. For a fellow Tory to have to point that out to Tories is shameful. I ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to think about what this does to our party’s reputation and to our nation’s reputation, because both are in peril.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I rise to speak in line with the basis of our reasoned amendment, namely that we believe that this Bill breaks international law.
We have already had to stumble our way through the consequences of a Brexit deal that was supposedly oven-ready. Quite frankly, what is proposed in this legislation is no better. The fact is that, if this Bill does not break international law, it is an act preparatory to doing so.
I will start my remarks by being as helpful as I think I can be to the Government. First, I hope I can understand and at least empathise with some of the concerns of people in Northern Ireland over how aspects of the protocol are working or, as they would view it, not working. Secondly, I do not consider it unreasonable in and of itself that, in the light of experience, the Government should seek to try to renegotiate aspects of the deal that has taken effect. However, I am firmly and clearly of the view that this is absolutely not the way to go about trying to achieve that objective.
I am bound to observe that, although we are here to talk about a Bill on the Northern Ireland protocol, the issues here do not only affect Northern Ireland. We are subject to a withdrawal agreement that does not work for Scotland or, I would contend, any other part of the United Kingdom. There is much rhetoric from the Government about our precious Union, but it is a Union under the stewardship of a Government who did not pay a great deal of attention to the concerns or priorities of the majorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland who opposed Brexit. If relations are to be rebalanced across these islands, whether that is cross-community in Northern Ireland or even cross-Union, some recognition of those points by the Government is long overdue.
Jim Shannon
I was very fortunate to have the hon. Gentleman in my constituency, where I gave him the opportunity, which I know he enjoyed it, to meet some of the Unionist community groups, the fishermen and the elected representatives. Every one of those people, as he will remember well, conveyed to him the unfairness of the Northern Ireland protocol and the impact it was having on fishing and on the community. He will know that the local people he met were very fearful of a future where the Northern Ireland protocol was retained. Does he understand those issues, and will he express that in the Chamber as well?
Richard Thomson
I recall that visit with great fondness, particularly the discussions we were able to have in Portavogie, and I am extraordinarily grateful to him and to everybody I met when I was last in Northern Ireland for the chance to discuss these matters. As I have said, I certainly hope I can empathise with and understand some of the issues raised there; if he will allow me to make some progress, he might see where there are perhaps areas of agreement and also, inevitably, some areas of divergence.
Richard Graham
It seems to me that the fundamental issue of debate is whether the EU would move on the implementation issues that it claims are the only problem. For the EU, it is not a question of renegotiation, but of implementation. It has said that it believes that customs formalities can be reduced by about 80%, and the same with sanitary and phytosanitary checks, and that the expanded trusted trader scheme could solve many of the problems. How confident is the hon. Gentleman that those things will be delivered, given how long this has been going on for and the affect already evident in Northern Ireland?
Richard Thomson
It certainly appears to me that there is a potential landing zone between what has been proposed by the European Union and what has been proposed by the UK Government—indeed, there is a bit of an overlap. I would offer to come along with Ministers, but they might feel that reinforcements had arrived and somehow weakened their position. Nevertheless, there ought to be a landing zone here for those of goodwill and good faith.
Even as a supporter of Scottish independence, I find it utterly inconceivable that any Unionist Government would have signed up to the kind of arrangements that placed a trade border down the middle of the Irish sea while denying they were doing any such thing. All the issues inherent in the protocol could have been avoided had the UK Government maintained a modicum of statecraft and respect for all parts of the Union, acknowledged the limitations of the mandate they had from the Brexit referendum and remained in as close alignment as they could with the single market and customs union, thereby minimising the economic harms we have seen to the UK since then and ensuring that no part of that precious Union was left behind. Yet even now it seems that the Government have not learned from their mistakes. The Scottish Government were not consulted by the UK Government before they took this action. I believe I am right in saying that the UK Government did not even afford the Scottish Government the courtesy of a phone call in advance to advise of these plans.
It has also been reported that the UK Government did not consult their top legal adviser—the First Treasury Counsel, Sir James Eadie—on the legality of their move. So we have a UK Government who are in contempt both of international law, as we have seen in other matters, and domestic law. Aspects around the Prime Minister’s current travails are bad enough, but to stand up and use the full authority of a ministerial office to say that which is not gets right to the heart not just of the problems being presented by the protocol in its current form but of the fitness of the Prime Minister, or anyone aspiring to replace him.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
It is clear that the protocol is not working, and Northern Ireland business is suffering. In what way does this Bill act to the disadvantage of the European Union, because it seems to me that it is a very good way forward?
Richard Thomson
Well, it seems to me that whether it disadvantages or not is not something that Her Majesty’s Government get to decide. While I am clear that there are problems with the protocol, clearly there are aspects of it that are working very well, as indeed those on the Treasury Benches have admitted. I will set out some of the examples, particularly over trade, where it is not having the impact that we are told, in all aspects, that it is. I come from the point of view that trust has been broken between the UK Government and the people of all these islands, as well as between the UK Government and our international partners. That gets right to the nub of the issues about trying to renegotiate it.
We should not really need to say this, but it is absolutely vital that the UK Government should be able to respect the international obligations that they enter into freely. Lord Butler, who was head of the civil service for 10 years, has said that this country has repeatedly criticised states like Russia and China for breaking the rules-based international order and yet now holds that it is perfectly justified in breaching international law itself. It seems that in this Bill we are going from a “limited and specific” breach to something that is potentially extensive and egregious. General Sir Richard Barrons, the former chief of joint forces command, who served in Afghanistan, Iraq and Northern Ireland, has said that
“what the government is proposing is short-sighted tactics which will do much harm strategically in the wider world. In fact what is being done is particularly stupid.”
He went on to warn that these moves will empower our adversaries as
“it will undermine us with our enemies by giving them the opportunity to accuse us of hypocrisy when we call them out for breaking the rules-based international order. It will also undermine us with our allies who will doubt whether they can rely on us to keep to an agreement, keep to our word.”
Dr Murrison
I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with a great deal of interest. He is right to defend international law and international treaties. Did he raise the concerns he has just expressed when the European Union was busy breaking those treaties—for example, over subsidies to Airbus?
Richard Thomson
My hon. and learned Friend says it very eloquently in one word: whataboutery.
We have been brought here by 40 years of political dysfunction in the Conservative party and the various neuroses it has had over Europe. The exceptionalists of the “punch above our weight” brigade to be found extensively, but not exclusively, within the European Research Group, where research seems to be at a premium, have led us to this point, in the process shredding any reputation that the UK might have preserved either for good, stable government or adherence to international norms.
Whatever the bluff and bluster, and personal agendas that might be at play—I notice that the Foreign Secretary is no longer in her place—it is of course the UK’s exit from the EU rather than the protocol that created this difficult situation, because there were only ever three options that would allow this particular circle to be squared: a return of a border on the island of Ireland, close alignment between UK and EU regulatory standards to reduce the need for checks, or checks to be carried out at the main Northern Ireland ports. The further that there is a diversion from the single market and the customs union, the harder the border then eventually becomes.
Sir William Cash
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in 1937 de Valera himself actually tore up the Anglo-Irish treaty in exactly the same kind of way as he is accusing other people of doing?
Richard Thomson
The hon. Gentleman seems to be confusing me with a representative of the Government of Ireland; that is an interesting historical diversion that I would be more than happy to discuss with him later, but I am not exactly certain how germane it is to this particular discussion. It seems a little bit recondite to say the least.
The Government have presented a precis of the legal advice. The Law Society of Scotland has identified a number of provisions in the Bill that it believes to be inconsistent with the UK’s international law obligations. Because of the amount of time available and the fact that we are only on Second Reading, I do not intend to go into those points in any great depth or delve unnecessarily into the horrors of the empowerment of Ministers that the Bill represents—the Henry VIII powers. However, I just specifically highlight the issues that the Bill creates given that article 4 of the withdrawal agreement states expressly that the UK cannot legislate contrarily to its commitments through primary legislation.
We now get on to necessity, which is ultimately the justification that the Government are using. As I understand it, that rests on two key points: first, that there is effectively, when viewed from London, no detriment to the single market from these measures; and secondly, that this underwrites the Government’s wishes to protect the UK single market and the Good Friday agreement. That argument was neatly eviscerated by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) in an earlier intervention, but there are three points that instantly leap out at me. First, as I have said, whether or not there is detriment is a largely subjective measure. Whatever unilateral assertions might be made on this, whether or not there is detriment requires to be determined in another manner.
Secondly, making an invocation of necessity must not seriously impair an essential interest of another party, and it is quite hard to argue that this could not at least be at risk of happening. Thirdly, it is not particularly credible now to cite the protocol as harming the single market or the Good Friday agreement when it was cited by HM Government as a means of protecting both those things. The Prime Minister wanting to override a deal that he himself was happy to claim credit for, in terms of having got Brexit done, during his 2019 election campaign is not the strongest basis for sustaining that argument.
With regard to the economic effect, Northern Ireland has clearly lagged behind the rest of the UK in economic performance in recent decades. For some reason, it is currently outpacing every other part of the UK, except, perhaps predictably, London. There must be some reason why that might be, and I do not know whether anyone can help me with it, but perhaps there is a clue—
Sammy Wilson
If the hon. Gentleman were to examine the economic performance in Northern Ireland, he might find that, surprisingly, it is the service sector that has increased, by seven times more than the manufacturing sector, and of course the service sector is not covered by the protocol at all.
Richard Thomson
Manufacturing also seems to be doing quite well, as I recall. Perhaps having a foot in both markets and easier access to both, in contrast to counterparts on the other side of the north channel, might also be a reason for that.
A survey by the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce shows that 70% of businesses now believe that that unique trading position with preferential access to both the EU and UK single markets presents opportunities for Northern Ireland, with the number of businesses reporting a significant problem dropping from 15% to 8%. While I would not seek to diminish in any way the problems that those 8% feel, that is perhaps an indication that many of the problems, at least initially, were because of the short lead-in time that was given and the lack of preparation and clarity ahead of the big changes that came in January 2021.
To come back to my fundamental point, we need a protocol. The nature of Brexit means that there needs to be a protocol. It does not need to be exactly the same as this version, but what we absolutely do not need, in the middle of a cost of living crisis, is the prospect of increased trade frictions through needless conflict and a developing trade war with our largest and closest overseas market. That is what I very much fear this legislation, if enacted and utilised, would do.
I believe that the way forward is through negotiations. Like the man asked to give directions, I would not be starting from this point, for a variety of reasons, and I need not detain the House on that. We need negotiations based on trust, good faith and co-operation. The UK Government would stand a much better chance of success if they were driven by that, instead of by this piece of legislative brinkmanship, and if they were to pursue measures that for once were motivated by a genuine desire to deliver the best possible outcomes out of this mess for all peoples on these islands, rather than simply pandering to the agendas of those in the tiny subset of the population who might have an influence over who the next leader of the Conservative and Unionist party might happen to be—a party that no longer seems to be very certain what it is here to conserve or to unify.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, although I have to say to the lone Minister sitting on the Front Bench that I do not welcome this Bill. I fully understand and share the Government’s desire to uphold the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. I understand and share the desire to keep the Union of the United Kingdom. I recognise the frustration and difficulty when the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive are not in place and operating. I also share the Government’s desire to get that Assembly and Executive back operating for the good of the people of Northern Ireland. I do not believe, however, that this Bill is the way to achieve those aims.
In thinking about the Bill, I started by asking myself three questions. First, do I consider it to be legal under international law? Secondly, will it achieve its aims? Thirdly, does it at least maintain the standing of the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world? My answer to all three questions is no. That is even before we look at the extraordinarily sweeping powers that the Bill would give to Ministers.
The Government’s claim of legality, as we have heard, is based on the doctrine of necessity in international law. The Government, as the Foreign Secretary said, have published a legal position, and that described this term “necessity” in the following way:
“the term ‘necessity’ is used in international law to lawfully justify situations where the only way a State can safeguard an essential interest is the non-performance of another international obligation…the action taken may not seriously impair the essential interests of the other State(s), and cannot be claimed where excluded by the relevant obligation or where the State invoking it has contributed to the situation of necessity.”
Let us examine that. First, if the necessity argument is to hold, this Bill must be the only way to achieve the Government’s desires, yet the Government’s legal position paper itself accepts that there are other ways. For example, it says:
“The Government’s preference remains a negotiated outcome”,
which was reiterated by the Foreign Secretary in her opening speech. The paper also acknowledges that another way to deal with this issue lies in the existence of article 16. The Government’s preferred option is negotiation, and then there is a second option, which is article 16.
Article 16 is referred to in the legal position paper, but when I read that I thought it was referred to in a way that seemed to try to say that the existence of article 16 somehow justifies the introduction of this Bill. Article 16 does not justify this Bill; the very existence of article 16 negates the legal justification for the Bill.
Let us also examine some of the other arguments for invoking the necessity defence. That defence cannot be claimed where the state invoking it has contributed to the situation of necessity. Again, in their legal position paper, the Government set out their argument that
“the peril that has emerged was not inherent in the Protocol’s provisions.”
I find that a most extraordinary statement. The peril is a direct result of the border down the Irish sea, which was an integral and inherent part of the protocol that the Government signed in the withdrawal agreement. It is possible that the Government might say, “Ah well, we knew about that, but we did not think the DUP would react in the way that it has.” I say to the Minister that the Government should have listened to the DUP in the many debates that went on over the withdrawal agreement, because it made its position on the protocol very clear at that point, and it was not positive.
Finally, necessity suggests urgency; “imminent peril” is the phrase used. There is nothing urgent about the Bill. It has not been introduced as emergency legislation. It is likely to take not weeks, but months to get through Parliament. As the former Treasury solicitor Jonathan Jones said in The House magazine,
“If the UK really did face imminent peril, you might think the government would need to deal with it more quickly than that.”
My answer to all those who question whether the Bill is legal under international law is that for all the above reasons, no, it is not.
Question two is whether the Bill will achieve its aims. I am assuming that the aims are either to encourage the DUP into the Northern Ireland Executive, or that the Bill is a negotiating tool to bring the EU back round to the table. On the first of those, so far I have seen no absolute commitment from the DUP that the Executive will be up and running as a result of the Bill. There were rumours that that might happen on Second Reading, but as far as I can see it has not happened. If my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary wants to have a discussion with me about negotiations with other parties in this House on various matters, I am happy to do so.
If the Bill is a negotiating tool, will it actually bring the EU back round the table? So far, we have seen no sign of that. My experience was that the EU looks carefully at the political situation in any country. As I discovered after I had faced a no-confidence vote—and despite having won that vote—the EU then starts to ask itself, “Is it really worth negotiating with these people in government, because will they actually be there in any period of time?”, regardless of the justification or otherwise for its taking that view. I suspect those in the EU are saying to themselves, “Why should we negotiate in detail with a Government who show themselves willing to sign an agreement, claim it as a victory and then try to tear part of it up after less than three years?” My answer to the second question as to whether the Bill will achieve its aims is no, it will not.
My final question was about the UK’s standing in the world. The UK’s standing in the world, and our ability to convene and encourage others in the defence of our shared values, depends on the respect that others have for us as a country—a country that keeps its word and displays those shared values in its actions. As a patriot, I would not want to do anything to diminish this country in the eyes of the world. I have to say to the Government that this Bill is not in my view legal in international law, it will not achieve its aims and it will diminish the standing of the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world. I cannot support it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am grateful to the Back-Bench speakers so far, who have been very considerate of others in the length of their speeches, but I will after the next speaker have to introduce an eight-minute time limit in order to be able to give everybody equal access.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
I welcome the opportunity to speak on Second Reading of this very important Bill. At the outset, it is important to make the point to all right hon. and hon. Members that this is not simply another Brexit-related Bill. Nor is it a technical Bill to remedy problems that have arisen since January 2021, albeit that it will have that effect.
Fundamentally, the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill seeks to finally and fundamentally reset and restore Northern Ireland’s relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom, given the devastating impact of the protocol on the economic, constitutional, social and political life of Northern Ireland over the past 18 months. Many in this House will remember our opposition to the protocol, and it is an honour to follow the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). She rightly flagged up our opposition from the outset to the protocol. It gives me no pleasure to say that we warned that it would be bad for Northern Ireland and that it would not work. That assessment has been more than borne out in reality.
The Northern Ireland institutions were restored in January 2020. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), is in his place and he was very much involved in bringing about the New Decade, New Approach agreement. At the heart of that agreement was a clear commitment by the UK Government to protect Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market, and that it would be respected. On that basis, my party re-entered power sharing.
We kept our side of the bargain and we were patient. We waited and waited for the Government to take action to protect our place in the internal market. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland did refer to measures to be introduced to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 that would have at least partly dealt with the problem, alongside other measures to be proposed to a Finance Bill, but those measures were not brought forward, so still we waited.
Last July, when I became leader of the party, I warned that if the Government failed to honour their commitment in New Decade, New Approach, we would have a real difficulty, because the consensus that is essential to ensure that power sharing is maintained in Northern Ireland is being undermined.
Simon Hoare
The right hon. Gentleman has not said anything up to now that is any way factually challengeable. On the presumption that the Bill secures its Second Reading this evening and begins its parliamentary progress, in the interest of serving those people in Northern Ireland who look to the Executive and Stormont to meet their daily needs, will he instruct his party colleagues who are MLAs to return to the Executive, get it back up and running, discharge their democratic duty, and serve all the communities in Northern Ireland?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I will come to that point, but I simply ask the hon. Gentleman: if I were to do that, would he then support the Bill? I heard nothing in his contribution to suggest that he would.
Last July, I made it clear that:
“The Irish Sea Border is not just a threat to the economic integrity of the United Kingdom, it is a threat to the living standards of the people of Northern Ireland”,
and so it has proven. The impact of the additional cost of bringing goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland is contributing to the cost of living situation in Northern Ireland. It is driving up the cost of food in our supermarkets, it is driving up the cost of manufacturing, and it is making it difficult for businesses to operate effectively.
Bob Stewart
Further to that point, it seems that the people of Northern Ireland sometimes cannot get goods from Great Britain. Manufacturers here are not sending them to Northern Ireland, because of the additional burden of trying to get them there.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. Many of my constituents, and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, have experienced that as consumers and businesses. This is about not just businesses, but every citizen of Northern Ireland.
It is also about the democratic deficit. My Members, who were elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly and are Ministers in the Executive, are expected to preside over the imposition of regulations over which they have no say. They have no democratic input into how those regulations—the ones that regulate how we trade with the rest of our own country—are put in place. How can any hon. Member defend a situation where part of this United Kingdom is treated in such a way that its elected representatives have no say in many of the laws that regulate our trade with the rest of the United Kingdom? That is simply unacceptable and it is part of the problem.
Karin Smyth
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, as I have said in this place many times, about aspects of the Joint Committee. This Bill that he is agreeing with, however, similarly gives absolutely no power to anybody in Northern Ireland—him, his party or anybody else— but gives it all to the Secretary of State. On that basis, how can he support it?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
If enacted, the Bill will restore confidence in Northern Ireland, will restore the consensus essential to operate power sharing, and will therefore give back to the elected representatives in Northern Ireland the power to take the decisions that they have not been able to take.
I also say to the House that it is a bit rich to hear hon. Members arguing for devolution and the restoration of power when this House, on a number of recent occasions, has overridden devolution and the Northern Ireland Assembly and has enacted powers contrary to the desires of the elected representatives in Northern Ireland.
I believe that this Bill is essential to the restoration of political stability in Northern Ireland. It will provide a framework for the free movement of goods within the UK internal market in line with the Government’s commitment in New Decade, New Approach. It gives reasonable protection to the EU single market; it does not have an impact on the EU and the integrity of that market. In fact, it protects the integrity of that market as well as the integrity of the United Kingdom’s internal market. I see no reason why this House should not bring forward measures to do that, when it is clear and evident that the protocol has disrupted the integrity of the UK internal market.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I know that the right hon. Gentleman gives a lot of thought to these issues and does not arrive at opinions lightly. He is arguing that the Bill as it stands will give Northern Ireland the things it wants—I think that is his main point—but what will happen if he is wrong?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I am not suggesting that the Bill is perfect. It is rare for legislation that passes this House to be perfect in every sense and not to require subsequent amendment. The benefit of the Bill is that it empowers Ministers to make change where change is necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the UK internal market, which is an entirely valid thing for this Parliament and Government to do.
Furthermore, as a Unionist, I make no apology for saying that it is important to me that the Bill will restore Northern Ireland’s place within the Union. Some right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the rule of law, yet the High Court and the Court of Appeal in Belfast have stated clearly that the protocol subjugates article 6 of the Act of Union, which is an international agreement —it is the fundamental building block of the Union.
Article 6 states clearly that I, as a Northern Ireland citizen and a member of this United Kingdom, have the right to trade freely within my own country and that there should be no barriers to trade between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. In putting in place the Irish sea border, the protocol has broken article 6 and made me a second-class citizen in my own country, because I do not have the right to trade freely with the rest of the United Kingdom. I am simply asking for my rights as a British citizen.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
The Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee shakes his head, but if he found his constituents in a position where they were unable to trade freely with the rest of their own country, he might be as annoyed as I am and he might actually have something to say about it.
Jim Shannon
My right hon. Friend is putting forward an excellent case for how to do away with the Northern Ireland protocol through this legislation. Does he agree that it removes the direct jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and brings it back here, and that it should be the people of this House, and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, who make those decisions, not Europe?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I believe in fairness and that when there is a dispute at an international level, the court of one side should not be left to be the arbiter of that situation. That needs to be rectified.
On the implications of the Bill, I make it clear that in our view, it will provide for the restoration of the equilibrium that is essential in Northern Ireland—the cross-community consensus that is at the heart of the Belfast agreement and that is absolutely necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the political institutions. As was evident in the May elections, not a single Unionist Member elected to the Assembly supports the Northern Ireland protocol, so there is no cross-community consensus in favour of it.
This House can bury its head in the sand and pretend that there is no instant solution to the problem. It can say, “Let us just wait for the EU to finally agree to change its negotiating mandate,” but what about Northern Ireland in the meantime? I want to see the political institutions restored, but I am not able to do it if my Ministers are required to impose a protocol that harms Northern Ireland. I am not prepared—my party is not prepared—to engage in an act of self-harm to Northern Ireland’s part of the United Kingdom. We are simply not prepared to do that.
Therefore, is it the will of this House that it wishes to see Northern Ireland languishing without political institutions able to operate because there is no cross-community consensus while we argue the rights and wrongs and the legalities of this situation? Unfortunately, I do not have a situation for my people whereby we can talk all night and debate this Bill and its legality in international law. I happen to believe there is a necessity, and the necessity is peace and stability in Northern Ireland.
This House and this Government are charged with the responsibility of ensuring peace and stability in Northern Ireland. That is the necessity, and I do not see and have not heard in this House from anyone opposing the Bill what their solution is beyond saying, “Let’s have more negotiations”—negotiations with an EU that refuses to change its negotiating mandate and will not change the text of the protocol. I have to say to right hon. and hon. Members that refusal to change the text of the protocol simply means that we will not get a solution that will achieve the cross-community consensus required in Northern Ireland, and I believe the Bill offers a solution.
Sir William Cash
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept, as he said earlier, that a serious democratic deficit exists at the moment in the making of laws by European institutions—in the Council of Ministers, by a majority vote, behind closed doors? None of his voters has any opportunity to intervene whatsoever, and it is done in a manner completely inconsistent with proper democratic procedures. Is that not the absolutely right reply to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare)?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention and for the excellent work he has been doing in helping to bring about the progress we are making towards the restoration of the political institutions in Northern Ireland.
As I come to a conclusion, let me say that much of what will happen in the coming period in Northern Ireland will be shaped by attitudes and decisions in this House. If this Bill convincingly passes all its Commons stages in its current form and the Government continue to develop the regulations required to bring to an end the harmful implementation of the protocol, that will of course give substantially greater confidence that new arrangements are on the way, which in turn would provide a basis to take further steps to see the return of our local institutions.
Therefore, I appeal to Members of this House who genuinely want to see the institutions restored and up and running in Northern Ireland again to prioritise the interests of Northern Ireland over any narrower ideological reservations they may have about this Bill. I urge them to recognise the vital nature of this Bill now progressing rapidly through its legislative stages in the Commons before the summer recess, and of ensuring not only that it receives substantial support in this House, but that it is not subject to either wrecking amendments or other amendments that would dilute the framework and impact of the Bill.
In conclusion, much harm has been inflicted on the Belfast agreement and its successor agreements. Time is now short to ensure that we arrest this situation, and the only way to do that, finally and fully, is to deal with the protocol and to see Northern Ireland once again focus on moving forward together. We want to see the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive restored, and that can be achieved when there is a sustainable basis for doing so. We will continue to be condition and not calendar-led as we look forward to this Bill now making rapid progress. I commend the Bill, and we will be supporting it in the interests of Northern Ireland and the integrity of the entire United Kingdom.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak after the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson).
Powerful and legitimate arguments are being made about the legal basis of this Bill, and I am sympathetic to them. Whatever the motivations and goals behind the Bill and whatever the reasons why we are at this point, it is important to look at what is practical and most likely to succeed regarding the Northern Ireland protocol and what will ensure that we show the people of Northern Ireland we are handling this issue with balance and an even hand. There are real and significant issues, as we have just heard, with the protocol—customs checks east-west and regulatory challenges to name but two. While I do not accept that the protocol is a constitutional threat to the UK, it is clear that it creates many complex challenges.
I acknowledge those issues, but there is significant support for the Northern Ireland protocol. Business organisations across Northern Ireland have been engaging in good faith with Government for over two years and looking at myriad ways to improve the deal. Their view is that the needed stability and balance can be achieved only through a negotiated settlement, and they want to preserve the opportunities of the protocol. They also want to protect the strong position of the Northern Ireland economy, which has now been shown in multiple reports to be performing among the best in the country.
There are major concerns that the advantages as well as the disadvantages of the protocol could be lost with this Bill, and that the Henry VIII clauses are there to remove almost all of the protocol should Ministers want to do so. A majority of MLAs also articulated this view in a recent letter to the Government. They accepted that changes need to be made, but they are clear that they want a negotiated approach. Voters across Northern Ireland, many of whom support the need for change, also want a UK-EU negotiated solution: 74% of voters support that.
I fear that this Bill is a kind of displacement activity from the core task of doing whatever we can to negotiate a better protocol deal for Northern Ireland. I also fear that it risks creating an impression to Unionism that a black-and-white solution is available when the reality is that, once this Bill has been dragged through the Lords and the courts and after EU responses and reprisals, compromise will ultimately be needed. Our sole focus should be on how we shift the EU into a negotiation to get the changes needed for Northern Ireland and from the right hon. Member’s party.
We risk toxifying further the discussions we are having with the EU and member states, and we risk prolonging instability for Northern Ireland business, not to mention putting the whole of the UK at risk of trade and tariff reprisals. We also risk further entrenching the view of many middle-ground voters in Northern Ireland that the desire to finish Brexit by removing the protocol is against their best interests. This issue of winning hearts and minds is important to bear in mind as we seek to persuade and cajole people to stick with the Union.
We should be looking at how we persuade the EU to make the changes needed by Unionism. We should be looking at how we encourage the Northern Ireland parties to work together on joint priorities and the EU to understand that it is in its interests to provide much greater political focus on this issue. What else can we do in other parts of the UK-EU relationship to encourage the bloc to shift? Our challenge is to push the EU to move beyond the flexibilities it is proposing and to change the text, but we also need to be realistic about how changes will be made. It will be by more suspensions, more grace periods and turning the eye, and compromises seem more likely than wholesale rewriting. Northern Ireland is very used to these types of deals—shades of grey rather than black and white.
We know that patient, quiet work can deliver. We have already seen this happen on medicines. The EU has now changed the protocol, and the Government have secured uninterrupted supplies to Northern Ireland. Not only that, but Northern Ireland’s crucial pharma sector has access to both markets. There is no reason why the medicines deal cannot be replicated across agrifood and customs if the political will is there on both sides. However, to do that we need the highest-level focus, leader to leader, with a political negotiation focused on Northern Ireland and challenging the approach the EU took over the May years.
The announcement yesterday on more joint working with France in other areas could lead to a space in which we can push forward with a crucial member state the changes needed on Northern Ireland, but it is worth bearing in mind that, from the readout of the Macron-Johnson meeting, the Northern Ireland protocol was not raised yesterday.
We also need to work out how to encourage Dublin. We need its help to get the EU to shift. Ireland should have done more to help when we needed an exit mechanism on the backstop, but we now need to get Dublin, and also the parties in Northern Ireland, to focus on a resolution. We need a new, intensive UK, Northern Ireland, Irish and EU process. That is how we will get the east-west checks resolved so there is no border down the Irish sea. That is how we will fudge issues on regulation. That is even how we might get to fix legal oversight. But we need a sustainable solution.
The task in Northern Ireland is, as ever, to secure broad consensus and that means that Government, as well as addressing the concerns of Unionism, also have to reflect on the concerns of all communities and the growing centre ground. A new intensive Northern Ireland focus in the negotiation process is the only way to ensure that this fragile but high-performing part of our country is handled with the utmost care, balance and respect.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. First, I remind everyone that, if you were not in at the beginning—you know who you are, and, even more importantly, I know who you are—do not stand because you will not get in. Secondly, everybody participating: please do come for the wind-ups.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The Bill is proof, if ever it were needed, that Brexit is not done. It was always going to be difficult to reconcile leaving the EU with the challenge of an open border and so it has proved. Let us be absolutely frank from the start: our relationship with the European Union is now in a very bad place. Perhaps that has something to do with the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) because, before he became Prime Minister, he promised he would never ever put a border in the Irish sea. When he became Prime Minister, he promptly did that. He described the protocol, when he negotiated it, as in perfect conformity with the Good Friday agreement. He then said that there would be no checks on goods going from GB to Northern Ireland. That was not true and it is probably one of many reasons why so many people do not trust the Prime Minister, including many EU leaders.
What can we conclude from that process? Despite the fact that the impact assessment made it very clear that there would be checks—what would happen—the Government either did not fully understand the protocol they had negotiated, thought it would not be a problem, mis-sold it, or always intended to resile from it later. Whatever the explanation is, it does not reflect terribly well on Ministers.
But having made that point, we are where we are and we have a problem. The problem is that the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive are not functioning and all of us should be worried about that. I should have said at the beginning that it is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) because I think he spoke extremely wisely.
As the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) pointed out, I suppose in the Government’s eyes, the test of the Bill is, will it work to bring the institutions back up and running again? None of us knows for sure the answer to that, but in the meantime the Foreign Secretary is taking a very big gamble and in the process in my view she is trashing Britain’s international reputation as a country that can be trusted to keep its word.
I do not propose to dwell on the detail of the Bill—others have done that effectively—but it is just not the way to solve the problem. I oppose it because it will lead to a prolonged stand-off with the European Union, it will prolong the problems the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), who speaks for the Democratic Unionist party, has just referred to, it will worsen relations and, if everything goes horribly wrong, we could end up in a trade war with the EU at a very difficult time for us economically and when we have a real war on our hands between Russia and Ukraine. So we have to find another way of resolving this, and that requires the UK and the EU to sit down and negotiate.
I have heard all the arguments from both sides—“It’s the other lot who are not doing the talking; we are willing” and so on and so forth. They can carry on blaming each other until the cows come home but, as long as they do that, both sides will be failing to fulfil their political responsibility to find a political solution to what is a political problem. At the heart of this is the question: how do we protect the integrity of the single market while not interfering unreasonably with goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland? That is why the protocol refers to goods “at risk”. That is the key phrase that we have to bear in mind.
I think there are some pretty easy places to start. For example, on supermarket deliveries travelling from Cairnryan to Larne, to shops that are only in Northern Ireland, what exactly is the risk of those goods undermining the integrity of the single market? As far as I can see, there is none, so why should they require an export health certificate? In the 18 months for which the grace periods have been extended, can anyone point to a single example of the integrity of the single market having been undermined? I am not aware of one.
I genuinely cannot fathom why the EU is so insistent on requiring a customs code to be provided by supermarkets and others. What is it going to do with the statistics? Is it actually going to publish stats on the movement of baked beans and baby food between GB and Northern Ireland? We are aware of the other problems—seed potatoes, organic products, divergence on certain ingredients. In making that point—
Hilary Benn
I am not going to give way, as I want to keep to time.
Of course there are products where it can reasonably be argued that there is a potential risk. I wish we had spent the time talking about those products, one by one, because if there is a good case I am sure the Government will respond. While the EU says it has offered to reduce paperwork, it is important to remember that it is a reduction compared with the full application of the rules; it is an increase compared with what is currently the case because of the extension of the grace periods. That is why I have said to the EU and all I have spoken to that the EU needs to move to make this negotiation work. Surely we can reach some agreement on SPS checks on the basis that almost all the food produced in Britain is produced to exactly the same standards as it was while we were members of the EU.
I find this very frustrating because we hear Simon Coveney say on the radio, when the idea of a green lane is put to him, “We have proposed something very similar”. Well, why cannot the two parties get on with the negotiation to make this happen? Heaven forbid, if we can negotiate the Belfast/Good Friday agreement—an astonishing achievement, the phrase of my good friend my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—are the Government really incapable, with the EU, of negotiating for a prawn sandwich to cross the Irish sea without a lot of accompanying paperwork? This cannot be beyond the wit and ability of politicians.
In my view, this is a Bill borne of desperation rather than principle. It is a Bill trying to solve a problem that is entirely of the Government’s own making. It does Britain’s international standing no good whatsoever. And it will make the negotiation, which is the only way this is going to be solved in the end, harder rather than easier. There are so many more pressing things for us to be talking about with the EU—our biggest, nearest and most important trading partner still—not least the war in Ukraine and not least climate change. The current crisis in the Government in respect of Northern Ireland arises from a practical problem and requires a practical solution. We need those old virtues of patient diplomacy and negotiation, which take as their starting point the purpose of the rules, which is to protect the integrity of the single market, rather than the rules themselves. Frankly, it is now time for the Government, together with the EU, to get back around the table and sort this out.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I am grateful to be called so early.
May I start by saying to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) that I agree with all that stuff about the trade issues? They have been on the table for ages. I will just go over one small point. During the breakdown in negotiations when my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) was Prime Minister, I happened to take a delegation, including Lord Trimble, to see the then chief negotiator. I put to him the fact that the whole issue around trade across the border was easily settled, as long as we were able to trust each other on things like phytosanitary foods and veterinary checks, which the EU does with New Zealand. He completely agreed and said it would be possible, but then it came to another agreement and we have plunged ever since.
It is wholly feasible not to have these ludicrous checks and ludicrous requirements for customs codes to be banged across to the EU, or for the Court of Justice to sit to rule over what is going on in Northern Ireland. It would have been agreed then, under a thing called mutual enforcement, where both sides take complete responsibility for the enforcement of transgressions in the other’s area when it comes to Northern Ireland. That would have solved that problem straight.
Here is the problem: the EU has point blank refused to negotiate that. Here is the point about the protocol. I am not saying that the protocol should go completely. I am saying it should be changed—that is the whole point. When I read it before we originally voted on it, I read clearly what its main purpose was. Article 1, paragraphs (1) and (3) make it clear that the primacy in all this is the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. Upholding that is critical—of course it is.
I served in Northern Ireland. I never want anyone I know to go back to a thing like that again. I lost people in Northern Ireland. It is part of me as much as it is of those who live there. We do not want to go back there. Therefore, the Good Friday agreement must be prime; by the way, it is an international agreement. So we have a problem. We are talking about breaking international agreements, but we have a clash between international agreements. Which one is prime? Paragraphs (1) and (3) of article 1 make it clear that maintenance of the balance in the Good Friday/Belfast agreement is prime. If that is the case, I do not believe—I accept I am not a lawyer; I say to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, who is on the Front Bench, that that is a badge of pride for me, although I am sure that others would argue differently—[Interruption.] Of course. I always hear him argue and I love it. I have read the text of this. I do not believe this legitimately will break international law. There is a good reason. If the Good Friday/Belfast agreement is so prime in the protocol, it was agreed from the word go that what affected that badly would make this thing fall.
The rest of the protocol is important. The protocol was never seen as permanent. First, it was negotiated under article 50, which means that it cannot be permanent of its own right. Secondly, article 13(8) of the protocol makes it clear that it can be changed in whole or in part. So what is the problem? It is not working—change it. It could have been changed ages ago. In fact, last year, I asked for article 16 to be triggered simply so we could start that process immediately.
The point that I want to make is that the Good Friday/Belfast agreement is critical. It is about safeguarding that first, and then there is no hard border, the EU single market and the UK’s territorial integrity. The last one has clearly been badly damaged and we cannot have that reign any further. Northern Ireland is clearly an important part of the United Kingdom, so it must be treated as an important part of the UK, as much as my constituency is. That is critical. Actually, the protocol specifies that that is one of the priorities. So here we go again: why would the EU not change the mandate? It set a narrow mandate that said that it would deal only with issues that affected the running of the protocol. It did not allow its negotiator to have a mandate that would change article 13(8) of the protocol in whole or in part. We are here today with this because we are only going to be able to force this to happen through this Bill.
There are those who say, “Negotiate, negotiate, negotiate.” Negotiation is not an end in itself. It has a purpose. At some point, you have to leave the room because it no longer works and, until the other side makes a change, you cannot simply go back. That is the real problem that we face. The only time the EU will sit up and look at this is when it realises that the British Government are determined to make this change come hell or high water. If the EU will not agree to the necessity for this, we will have to make it.
I believe that the Government are acting reluctantly. I have listened carefully to what the ex-Justice Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), has said about the efficacy of this in international law. He will speak shortly and we will want to hear what he has to say.
Quite simply, the most important thing is that the EU—including, I might say, Ireland—wakes up to what the challenge really is. The process at the border was wrongly and damagingly weaponised during the negotiations. We got locked down in the original negotiations and ended in this position because it was seen as a stick to beat the dog. The dog was Brexit Britain, and the EU was going to use it no matter what to ensure that it could not be clean. It is time to recognise that that has to stop. So I support the Bill tonight not on technicalities, but on the reality as it has turned out.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I am surprised to see the right hon. Gentleman wanting to interfere further on “Brexit means Brexit.” Is he not the one who told the House in October 2019 that this matter had been
“debated and thrashed to death”
and said that if anything else needed debating about it, he
“would love to know what it is”?—[Official Report, 22 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 853.]
When was the epiphany?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I read the protocol—that is why. I do not know whether the hon. Member did. In the protocol, it is clear that if it does not work, it will be changed
“in whole or in part.”
He should have read it, and he would have understood. The whole point is that we can change it. The protocol has always been clear: the seeds for its own major change are in it. [Interruption.] I made no resolution on it. I was absolutely right to do so, and I would repeat that. [Interruption.] Whether he wants to hear what I have to say is another matter altogether. He had his moment in the sun and he lost, so I will move on.
I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that we are here out of necessity because of how the EU has behaved, and, I must say, because of how the Irish Government have behaved. Some people, such as the Irish Taoiseach, have been good—he has been much more reasonable—but quite recently the Irish Foreign Secretary celebrated the diversion of trade that was taking place. That contravenes article 16 and makes it clear that the protocol has to be changed. I read the treaty, but I do not think that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) did.
I do not believe that the Bill breaks international law. It is a clash of international treaties, and the most important international treaty is the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Maintenance of that is critical. I want to see the DUP back in power sharing. I understood the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) to say that he would head in that direction and get back into power sharing once the Bill was through the Commons. I hope so, and I will hold him to that. Let us get the Bill done as quickly as possible, because only then will the EU realise that we mean business.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
These few years have been frustrating and damaging for Northern Ireland, and the Bill adds to that. They have been bad for the economy—for businesses that need stability, not brinkmanship—and for relationships in each of the Good Friday agreement’s three strands: within Northern Ireland; between the north and south of Ireland; and between east and west. More than that, the Bill is being seen as part of the Government’s departure from the Good Friday agreement’s values of compromise, partnership and the rule of law. The Bill recycles the same distortions and half-truths that the people of Northern Ireland have been listening to for the last six or seven years of the Brexit debate, and there is still a failure to reconcile the dilemmas that Brexit forces and the choices that the UK Government have made with the reality of our geography.
Some truly mind-bending arguments have been put forth to justify the Bill. It is said that the Bill is about consent and consensus, when in fact the majority of people in Northern Ireland have not consented to Brexit in any form, and a majority of voters and MLAs reject the Bill in the strongest terms. We are told that it is about protecting the Good Friday agreement, while the UK Government and people whom we all saw scuttling away from Castle Buildings when the Good Friday agreement was being forged—they screamed in the windows for the first few years, while we tried to implement it—are in the middle of body-slamming a cornerstone of that agreement.
We have also heard that the Bill is about rights. If it is truly about rights, the women of Northern Ireland, the LGBT community of Northern Ireland and the minority ethnic community of Northern Ireland would like a word. We have heard that it is about the alleged damage to our economy, when every credible business organisation in Northern Ireland is calling for the retention of the protocol. Business after business lauds the potential of dual market access, and Northern Ireland is the only UK region outside London managing to achieve post-pandemic GDP growth.
We are told that the Bill is about a democratic deficit. That is being protested against by removing the entirety of Government from the people of Northern Ireland, and it will apparently be solved by handing over Henry VIII powers that allow the Government to ride roughshod over everybody in Northern Ireland. I am old enough to remember the time when Brexit was supposed to be about parliamentary sovereignty. We have been promised that, and we were promised sunlit uplands, but people in Northern Ireland are getting the gaslit uplands, given that there has, for years, been a cynical campaign to distort the causes and effects of the protocol.
I understand entirely the hurt and frustration of many ordinary Unionists. They have been catastrophically misrepresented by the Democratic Unionist party, and by the Prime Minister, who insisted—[Interruption.] The DUP has been saying all those words for three, four, five years, and we ended up with the protocol. Some of us are here to try to clear up the mess that was created, while the DUP voted down every option that could have prevented the sea border. Unionists and others are wrong to think that the solution is breaking international law and walking away from partnership and compromise.
I hope that the DUP will understand—I mean this in the best possible way—that hundreds of thousands of us in Northern Ireland who do not identify as Unionists constitutionally compromise every single day; we live in a reality where the governance lines do not directly match up with our identity. We do that because it suits the majority of people, and because Northern Ireland is not a place where hard, sharp lines of sovereignty work, or where the winner can take all. It is a place where governance survives in the shades of grey, as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) said.
I am glad that some very plausible solutions, including on sanitary and phytosanitary arrangements and veterinary deals, are being mentioned, because for some reason, they disappeared off the agenda. We are told, “I would do anything for Northern Ireland, but I won’t do that. I won’t agree to a simple, negotiated solution that could remove 70% or 80% of checks.” There is no doubt that the protocol can be smoothed and its operation can be improved; everybody says that. As I have said before, nobody in Northern Ireland loves the protocol, but the better options were voted down. As with everything that is worth doing in Northern Ireland, that improvement will be achieved through partnership and compromises, not by imposing unmeetable red lines. That would remove the people of Northern Ireland from the single market, and that has no support.
Instead of doing the hard work and levelling with the people of Northern Ireland, the Government, to whom the DUP has shackled itself, are choosing to distort and deflect. They are using the “stabbed in the back” narrative; they are saying that this is all the fault of remainers, the EU, the Irish, and those who are not patriots, but we know that this is about the DUP. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) mentioned Eamon de Valera, and that reminded me of a quote that has echoed down through Anglo-Irish relationships from the last century. Lord Edward Carson, who had been the leader of Unionism, said in the other place, as he reflected in disillusionment on the shambles left by the Conservative party on the island of Ireland,
“What a fool I was. I was only a puppet, and so was Ulster, and so was Ireland, in the political game that was to get the Conservative Party into power.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 1921; Vol. 48, c. 44.]
The only difference between then and now, when we have this miserable, deceitful Bill before us, is that we are talking about maintaining the Conservative party in power and propping up a failing, discredited Prime Minister. This is also perhaps about the Foreign Secretary currying favour with the malevolent European Research Group and once again pulling the wool over Unionism’s eyes.
I suspect that we cannot stop the Bill—people will troop through the Lobby and support it—but Members should understand that people on the island of Ireland, and further afield, are watching the Government. They will have to work through the implications of dealing with a Government who are in a very bad place morally, and who are in contravention of the culture of lawfulness that many of us have worked very hard to cultivate in Northern Ireland. The Government’s approach is fundamentally altering the dynamics of relationships on the island.
Having spent the last six years having the same argument time and again, I do not believe that the Conservative party has it in it to put the people, businesses and economy of Northern Ireland first. I implore my colleagues on the Opposition Benches: please, unshackle yourselves. Work with us—your neighbours, colleagues and friends—on the negotiated solutions that we all know are possible. We have solved bigger problems before; these solutions are available. End this toxic debate. That is what the people of Northern Ireland want. They do not want to have to hear about this day after day on the radio. They want dual market access, and they want our economy to prosper; and that is entirely achievable, with good will.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. In order for us to get as many Members in as possible, the time limit is reduced forthwith to six minutes. I call Mr David Jones.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
The status of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom derives initially from the Act of Union 1800, the sixth article of which provides that, in matters of trade and in treaties with foreign powers, the
“subjects of Ireland shall have same the privileges…as…subjects of Great Britain.”
The 1800 Act was augmented, as we know, by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement of 1998, which declares that
“it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people”.
As hon. Members have said today, the Belfast agreement is fundamental to the maintenance of peace in Northern Ireland, and preserves its constitutional status. The fact that the agreement is crucial is acknowledged in the Northern Ireland protocol, which says that the protocol
“is without prejudice to the provisions of the 1998 Agreement in respect of the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and the principle of consent”.
The essential point is that the protocol, which is part of an international treaty, explicitly acknowledges the primacy of the Belfast agreement—another international treaty.
The agreement, however, has been undermined by the protocol. It is absolutely clear that the arrangements set up by the protocol are having a detrimental impact on life in Northern Ireland and on the privileges of its people. As we have heard, there are burdensome checks on goods passing from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, and that has created a border in the Irish Sea between constituent parts of the United Kingdom, which cannot be acceptable.
As we heard from the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), people in Northern Ireland find it difficult to secure many goods that they have traditionally been able to purchase, and there has been a diversion of trade away from mainland Great Britain and towards the European Union. The disruption has also impacted the democratic institutions of Northern Ireland. The Assembly has not been reconstituted since the elections earlier this year, and the Executive remains suspended. This is a worrying and potentially dangerous state of affairs, especially given the sensitive political history of Northern Ireland.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Given the right hon. Gentleman’s concern for the Assembly and for democracy in Northern Ireland, does he think that the protocol should be decided on by that very Assembly?
Mr Jones
The Assembly will, in due course, have the right to decide on it, but that will be after the passage of four years.
Both the UK and the EU recognise the practical problems of the protocol and its impact on Northern Ireland. Both recognise that those problems should, if possible, be resolved by negotiation, and hon. Members in all parts of the House have repeated that today. Everybody would like the issues to be resolved through negotiation, but for that to happen, it would be necessary for the EU to change the negotiating mandate given to Vice-President Šefčovič—and that it refuses to do. As we heard from the Secretary of State, there have been extensive negotiations over 18 months, and they have been fruitless.
The Government have a clear duty to take action to restore the privileges of the people of Northern Ireland, so that they are equal to those of people in the rest of the UK, and to respect the primacy of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The action that the Government have taken is to introduce this Bill, which does not, as has been suggested, tear up the protocol; on the contrary, it respects and protects the integrity of the EU’s single market and the openness of the land border, both of which are matters in which the EU and the Irish Republic are concerned. There will still be checks on goods arriving in Northern Ireland but destined for the European Union, through a red lane arrangement.
The Bill explicitly protects the EU single market against the movement across the Irish land border of goods on which the correct EU tariffs have not been paid, or which do not comply with EU regulatory standards. It also provides explicitly that no land border infrastructure or checks or controls on the borders may be created. In every respect, that satisfies the European Union’s concerns.
The Bill also complies with the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It preserves the status of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom by restoring the equality of the privileges of its people with those enjoyed by the people of the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Bill is wholly necessary. Without it, the peace process established by the Belfast agreement will be dangerously compromised. It is a crucial but proportionate Bill, and it deserves the support of the House.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
Anybody in the House who takes legislation seriously ought to start from the presumption that operating tactically is a dangerous process. It is short-sighted and for the short term. However, in the context of Northern Ireland, it is not simply foolish, but very, very dangerous. We know about the forces that have been unleashed in Northern Ireland in recent times. The rhetoric in the election in Northern Ireland only a matter of weeks ago and the rhetoric over weeks and months from the UK Government have heightened tensions in that context. This is dangerous and the House should take that on board.
I do not want to be alarmist. We have to move towards taking a much more serious, much more rational view. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and a number of others made the point about article 13.8 of the protocol. They are right to say that there is scope for amendment under that article. However, that has to be done through negotiation and agreement, and on the basis of getting back to the negotiating table.
We know that if we put a shotgun to the heads of any of the parties in this situation, we will get a negative response. That applies to the DUP and other parts of the community in Northern Ireland. We have to take people with us. Frankly, however, it also applies to the bilateral relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union. If we are not involved in serious negotiation to look for common-sense solutions, we will fail the people of Northern Ireland.
There is a bigger risk: the situation could be traumatic for people across Northern Ireland. If we enter into a really serious breakdown in our relations with the European Union, things will be dramatically worse for the people of Northern Ireland—as they will be for my constituents and those of every Member of the House—so we need rational politics.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) made some sensible points. It has long been the case—this has been obvious from the beginning—that once we began to move towards Brexit, the solution that guaranteed respect for the Good Friday agreement could be reached in only one way. It could not be done by having a hard border across the island of Ireland and it should not be done by having a hard border down the Irish sea. It has to be done through some form of negotiated solution that respects the fact that the two potentially different systems have to be brought as close together as possible.
A sanitary and phytosanitary agreement is obvious. We start from the same premise. No Members from the governing or Opposition parties are arguing that we should deteriorate our SPS conditions in Great Britain. We therefore need a negotiated SPS agreement, as was achieved with not only New Zealand, but Switzerland. They are two different models, but a uniquely UK-EU model would be perfectly practical. Let us move on that and look hard at the practical details. If we take the heavy rhetoric away and see these problems as practical ones that can be solved by good will, we can move the situation on.
There have also been some powerful voices among Government Members about the legality of the Bill. That should worry hon. Members across the Chamber. It is not good enough to compare the Good Friday agreement with the protocol, as though one somehow has to go and the other does not. We have to maintain international law under all circumstances. When I say to people in other countries that we have an expectation of very high standards, I am right to say, “It is because my country also respects those very high standards.” That, actually, is true patriotism. Real patriotism comes from such measures, not simply from jingoistic flag waving. Let us say that it really matters that we are a law-abiding country, because if we are not, frankly, we let ourselves and the world down. We have to confront that serious issue tonight.
I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members to take this issue very seriously and to my friends in the DUP on the same basis, because it will affect all of us—the people in Northern Ireland and in the rest of Great Britain—if we get this wrong. There are some really difficult issues. They can be solved, but they will not be solved by the Bill, even if we amend it. We need to get back to the negotiating table and deal with the practical issues. That is the sensible way forward.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I have sat diligently through the entire debate, and I think that the House is soberly and carefully examining an issue that is not just about Brexit or our relationship with the EU, but which goes to the heart of the exceptional nature of Northern Ireland and its position in our great United Kingdom. That arrangement was reached a century ago, whether we like it or not. The consequences of Northern Ireland’s exceptional position have made this particular issue so vexed and complicated.
I was in Government when the final withdrawal agreement was negotiated. We all remember—I certainly do with great clarity—the need for there to be an agreement with the EU for us to be able to chart a way forward, not just in terms of our withdrawal and the period of grace that we had for a year after that, but our subsequent trade agreement. For me, that is of paramount importance.
I therefore come to this debate after very careful and measured thought. As an unalloyed pro-European, I still believe in the importance of Britain’s role with our friends in Europe and the importance of maintaining strong bilateral arrangements, and I do not want to see us doing anything hastily that could jeopardise that important continuing relationship. That is why we should heed very strongly the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), who was the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—he worked diligently to bring back that Executive, with great success—about the need for Franco-British bilateral discussions to proceed at pace. In my considered view, that will be how we unlock the sort of negotiation that everybody in the Chamber wants.
Hon. Members are right to talk about the need for negotiation, but the reality is that there is no negotiation. We cannot even call it a negotiation because Maroš Šefčovič, in working for the Commission, needs political direction from the EU and its member states—most notably, France—to be able to even call his discussions with the United Kingdom a negotiation. That is the reality.
Although masterly inactivity is sometimes absolutely the right way for nation states to proceed, I am afraid that that is not an option for us here. A nation should pursue masterly inactivity when it has a position of advantage and I am afraid that we do not have that, because our essential interests are under threat. We have identified our essential interests as the
“maintenance of stable social and political conditions in Northern Ireland, the protection of the 1998 Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement, the effective functioning of the unique constitutional structures created under that Agreement, and the preservation and fostering of social and economic ties between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom”.
Here is the point I want to make, in the short time I have: a lot has been said about necessity, as if it requires imminent peril or an immediate threat facing us just outside the door. Nobody is saying that we face that, but necessity in this context does not require that degree of imminence; it requires a degree of real threat, and growing evidence of a real threat to our essential interests. I would argue that there is such growing evidence. Clearly north-south is entirely unaffected—the respect we are showing for the single market is clear—but there is a growing problem when it comes to east-west. The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) put it very well when he talked about the prawn sandwich argument.
I have to say that at a time when there seems to be violent agreement among all the parties of Northern Ireland, and indeed among all of us in this Chamber, the full implementation of the protocol is not what we want to see. Nobody wants that. What on earth are we all arguing about?
Sir Robert Neill
My right hon. and learned Friend speaks wisely about these topics, as ever. He refers to the doctrine of necessity and the tests that must be met. I think he will agree that, whether it be imminent or emerging, there has to be evidence that the high threshold is met. Does he think that, in common with the approach adopted in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, if there is evidence so pressing as to justify a departure from an international agreement, with the risks that that involves, it should be brought back to this place for the House to decide in a vote? As was then suggested in that Bill, on the evidence available, there should be a parliamentary lock on the use of that important step.
Sir Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. His amendment to that Bill was adopted by this House in 2020; I thought it was a sensible mechanism to allow this House of Commons to have its final say with regard to the implementation of these measures based on clear evidence.
My point is simply that this is not a matter of law or a question of legality. There is a respectable argument that can be deployed by the British Government to assert necessity, but this is not about the law; it is about the evidence that the Government will need to marshal to demonstrate that point. The Government’s responsibility is to be a good steward of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement.
Sir Robert Buckland
I am afraid I cannot give way any further.
It is paramount that article 1 of the protocol, which says that it
“is without prejudice to the provisions”
of the Good Friday agreement, means that the Good Friday agreement definitely—in my view, as a matter of law—takes precedence. Any Government who fail to act or who sit idly by and ignore the concerns of Opposition Members, the wider community or the wider interests of our kingdom are therefore failing in their duty.
I have listened very carefully this afternoon to the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), and his party. I would like further clarity as to whether in referring to the passage of this Bill he meant its clearance through this House, as opposed to through the other place before it returns here for a final consideration.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I was very clear: I want to see progress being made in the passage of this Bill through the House of Commons. I want to see steps being taken that give us the certainty that we will see this legislation moving forward and that Parliament will enact it. In those circumstances, we will respond positively.
Sir Robert Buckland
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I know that he speaks about the issues with conviction and passion. As a friend of the Union—as a Unionist to my bones—I say to him and his party that it is time to act. It is time for us to come together if we are to restore the stability that the mainstream opinion of people in Northern Ireland, for whom politics is not their everyday preoccupation, is crying out for. What the right hon. Gentleman, his party and I must agree on is that the United Kingdom must be the source of that stability. If we fail to be the source of stability, people cannot be blamed if they vote with their feet—or vote in another way, God forbid.
That is why I am taking part in this debate: because as a Unionist I feel a responsibility for the stewardship of the United Kingdom that I love. I think Northern Ireland is as British as Wales, where I come from, and Swindon, which I represent. It is in the interests of all Conservatives to remember that, however tactically difficult the issue might be, and however inopportune a moment it is to have to make hard and fast decisions, the issue is of such importance that inaction is not an option. Tonight, I urge colleagues to vote for the Bill in the hope and expectation that we will see real progress and the stability that the people of Northern Ireland and the people of Britain want and deserve.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
The Bill unilaterally sets aside significant provisions of the Northern Ireland protocol, an international agreement for which the Prime Minister was quite happy to take credit when he claimed in the 2019 election campaign that he would “get Brexit done”. The Foreign Secretary has said that the Bill is needed to protect the Good Friday agreement, but dismantling the protocol against the will of the majority of people in Northern Ireland also risks undermining that agreement. She said that the protocol needs cross-community consent. Indeed it does, but does she have consent from both communities for this Bill? I doubt it.
Scant consideration was given to the Province by Brexiteers before the referendum, nor was consideration given thereafter to the fact that the majority in Northern Ireland, as in Scotland, voted to remain in the EU. It is the UK’s exit from the EU, rather than the protocol, that has created the difficult situation for Northern Ireland. That was recognised by the then First Minister Arlene Foster when she demanded a special trading arrangement for Northern Ireland shortly after the referendum—a request for special treatment that she and her party now repudiate.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) has already highlighted, there were only three choices: a border on the island of Ireland; close alignment between UK and EU standards to reduce checks, including a veterinary agreement; or checks carried out at Northern Ireland ports. The return of border infrastructure in Ireland was seen as an unacceptable threat to peace, but it was the Prime Minister’s choice of a hard Brexit with maximal divergence from the EU that inevitably left checks on Irish sea crossings as the only remaining option.
The issues posed by an Irish sea border were clearly highlighted in the Government’s own impact assessment, which undermines the claim of sudden necessity and means that the Prime Minister’s December 2019 claim that there would be
“no question of there being checks on goods going NI-GB or GB-NI”
was disingenuous, to say the least. The UK Government state that there is no need for checks, as current UK regulations are close to those of the EU; indeed they are, but the Government are proposing a bonfire of EU regulations and are already negotiating trade deals that would allow lower-standard foods and goods to be imported into the UK.
The Prime Minister cites economic failure and the outcome of the recent Northern Ireland elections as justification for tearing up the agreement, despite a clear majority of Assembly Members supporting the protocol in principle, and despite recent economic data showing Northern Ireland outperforming Great Britain. Business surveys by the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry show that two thirds of local businesses have now adapted to the protocol, and 70% claim that they see advantages in their dual position, which is something that the rest of us in the UK have lost.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
My hon. Friend is quite right that there is an advantage to business and to the economy of Northern Ireland. Interestingly, last week the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland could not tell me whether the Government had done any economic analysis whatever.
The Minister for Brexit Opportunities has said that introducing a border for imports in the United Kingdom
“would have been an act of self-harm.”
If that were to happen, it would make it even more obvious that the Northern Ireland protocol was an economic advantage to Northern Ireland. It would not be doubly hampered—first by this, and secondly by the completion of Brexit borders.
Dr Whitford
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is without question that issues with, in particular, the implementation of the protocol remain: 29% of businesses are still experiencing some difficulties, although the number of businesses facing serious problems has dropped from 15% to 8% since last year. That improvement over time suggests that some of last year’s problems could have been avoided if businesses had been given more than a matter of weeks to get ready for last January.
I think we all recognise that supply chains from GB producers and manufacturers would certainly benefit from technical improvements, especially improvements to reduce the burden on goods that are for sale purely in Northern Ireland, but while the EU proposed mitigations last October—including an express lane for exactly those kinds of goods—the UK Government have not engaged in any discussions since February, so talk of 18 months of solid negotiation is nonsense. Despite the remaining challenges, Northern Ireland business leaders have made it clear that while they seek improvements, they do not want the protocol to be removed.
The loss of trust in the UK Government to honour their commitments is already holding back participation in Horizon Europe to the detriment of research teams across the UK, especially in Scotland, where they had disproportionate success in attracting EU funding. Disapplying almost half the protocol undermines a key part of the withdrawal agreement, and, as others have said, runs the risk of provoking a trade war with the EU, further exacerbating the cost of living crisis. The EU would then be likely to place tariffs on UK exports, and, given that Scotland produces the UK’s leading food and drink exports—whisky and salmon—Scottish businesses would bear the brunt of such retaliatory action.
It is vital that the UK and the EU get back round the table with all the stakeholders from Northern Ireland to discuss practical improvements to the implementation of the protocol, reducing the friction and intrusion to a minimum while keeping the economic benefits for the Province. Solutions can be achieved only with willingness, trust and good will, but, sadly, those are now in very short supply, and unlikely to be improved by the Prime Minister’s plan to wreck an international agreement that he signed less than three years ago.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
This Bill stands behind the Union, and the Union itself is dependent on the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. These are fundamental constitutional issues, on which the Bill rightly insists. The European Union has been intransigent about the protocol, which undermines the Good Friday agreement. Furthermore, its intransigence is motivated by considerations that are completely contrary to our right as a third country, and it refuses to change its mandate. It has no right to insist that in relation to a third country, such as the United Kingdom, it should exercise European jurisdiction over Northern Ireland, through the European Court, now that we have left the European Union. The European Union would no more allow any part of the national territory of any one of its member states to be governed by other countries which are not members of the European Union than, for example, the United States would allow Texas to be partly governed by Mexico, or Canada to exercise legislative control over parts of the United States. It is simply inconceivable.
As for the question of our parliamentary sovereignty, section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020—in particular, subsection (2)(b),which expressly provides that we can override direct effect and direct applicability notwithstanding European law in relation to Northern Ireland—enables us to take the necessary constitutional steps to dispose of parts of the protocol in our national interest, and, in doing so, enables us to save the Good Friday agreement. In respect of the democratic deficit—on which I had an exchange with the leader of the Democratic Unionist party—the European Scrutiny Committee, which I chair, revealed in its March report that since we left the European Union, European legislation relating to Northern Ireland has been turning into a motorway. The Bill will allow us to prevent that from happening, in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole.
One example of EU law that is on the way to being imposed on Northern Ireland was presented to the European Scrutiny Committee just last week, but there is a whole stack of them piling up. This is only one of a continuous stream of regulations, and is known as the construction products regulation. It will become the law of Northern Ireland. It consists of 120 pages and seven annexes. This has to stop, and so does the peril of the democratic deficit that goes with it. It must be borne in mind that such legislation—and there are at least 40 examples in the pipeline—is made by majority vote of all the 27 countries in the European Union, made in the Council of Ministers of the EU, and made behind closed doors and without even a transcript. That is how the United Kingdom was being subjugated by the EU since 1972.
As for international law, there are numerous precedents in which our pre-eminent judges, such as Lord Denning and Lord Diplock, have made it completely clear that international treaties are subject to parliamentary supremacy, and similar principles were enunciated by the judges in the recent unanimous decision in the case of Miller. The principles that underlie this Bill are sovereignty, our national interest, and the need to protect Northern Ireland as part of the Union and, in particular, the Good Friday agreement. That is why the Bill is so necessary.
We have been prepared to negotiate over the past two years and more, but our attempts have been rebutted by intransigence and the EU’s refusal to renegotiate its mandate. We had to draw the line. Ultimately, this has become a matter of necessity consistent with international law itself. Indeed, in 1937 Mr de Valera himself repudiated the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921 in fundamental respects when setting up the constitution of the Republic in its own national interest. We want good working relations with the Republic and with the European Union, but not at their price. It is well reported that one of the key EU negotiators indicated at the outset of the negotiations on these matters that the price of Brexit would be Northern Ireland. That will not be the case, and this Bill will ensure that it does not happen.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). He brought to mind the importance of the warning that George Orwell gave us not to confuse nationalism with patriotism, which I think we all need to bear in mind during this debate. He wrote:
“One prod to the nerve of nationalism and the intellectual decencies can vanish, the past can be altered, and the plainest facts can be denied.”
Let me, in the time that I have today, try to do justice to what Orwell warned us about.
This situation has been caused by Brexit, because it was Brexit that led to the need for us to negotiate the Northern Ireland protocol. If we do not acknowledge that, we cannot start to deal with the problems that we have created ourselves. I say “ourselves” because this Government knew in advance of the problems that would arise in these circumstances. When, on 19 October 2019, the Prime Minister stood up and told us of a deal that would “heal this country”, he was not being truthful about the consequences that they themselves predicted. The question before us now is this: will the Bill make finding a solution to these problems easier, or will it inflame further an already delicate and difficult situation?
We know that the Government need the bogeyman of Europe to distract people in this country from its domestic woes, but the people of Northern Ireland deserve better from all of us. If the Government were really doing their job, they would put Northern Ireland at the centre of this conversation. They would start by bringing more of the Northern Irish communities into the conversation and the negotiation, and then go to the European Union to hear what it was saying. However, that is not what we are seeing at present.
There are five examples, from this legislation alone, of how the Government are not being intellectually decent. They cannot tell us why the Bill is a necessity—why they need this power rather than the powers that they have already been given in article 16 of the protocol to act to safeguard the UK. That, surely, was about remedying the situation, but the Bill will drive a coach and horses through the proposals that we currently have.
The Government could also start with article 16, rather than making us drag this proposal through Parliament over many months before they would get the remedies they are talking about, if they really cared about the people of Northern Ireland. If this Bill is a necessity, why is it giving Ministers huge sweeping powers that will change the rules on state aid and allow the UK courts not to send questions about the interpretation of the protocol to the European Court of Justice? The EU has never refused the UK permission to bring in a measure under the article 10 state aid rules, yet somehow this is what the Government think they need to do for the people of Northern Ireland.
The Bill will also give sweeping powers to Ministers to do things in terms of the EU protocol without any consultation with the people of Northern Ireland and without any agreement with this House at all. Why do the Government say that they need the powers under clause 19 to implement a new power or protocol without bothering to go through the parliamentary process? After all, we went through the withdrawal agreement in a few weeks and we went through the trade and co-operation agreement in a day. What is it about scrutiny in this place that this Government are frightened of? Why do they have to bring a sledgehammer to crack a nut by giving Ministers these wide powers? As the Treasury Solicitor himself said, clause 18 is the “do whatever you like” power. Others call it a Charles I power. If Ministers can do that in Northern Ireland, what will they do to the rest of the UK?
Everybody in this House must recognise that this Bill’s implications go further than Northern Ireland. When we trash our reputation on international agreements, we trash our opportunities to make the trade deals that our constituents will depend on and we risk the spectre of a trade war when this country is already dealing with the consequences of the increase in the cost of living directly caused by the impact that Brexit is having on food prices in our country—let alone the message that we send to President Putin when we try to stand up to him in one place but in another say that international rules of law do not matter.
The people of Northern Ireland are being let down by this legislation, as are the people in every constituency in this country. The failure to find a solution that puts the people of Northern Ireland front and centre of negotiating a solution for their future lets down everybody in this Chamber. We can and should do better. Everybody in this House knows that, but will we have the bravery to listen to George Orwell, to stand up to those scoundrels who quote patriotism when they mean nationalism, and finally to put doing the right thing first? I fear that in this place we will not, but I have hopes for the other place. I certainly know that many of us will not stop standing with the people of Northern Ireland and the people in our communities who will be affected by this legislation and by the implications—[Interruption.] And we will stop laughing at the British public when they are frightened about what this place is doing, and start asking what we can do to make things better. Naming those problems is a starting point. When we have people who are addicted to power and addicted to using Europe as a bogeyman, rather than solving those problems, it behoves all of us to say that enough is enough.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
While I understand the reason for his absence, I rather wish that it had been the Prime Minister and not the Foreign Secretary who introduced this Bill tonight, because when he took office the Prime Minister told us that he had an “oven-ready” deal and I believe I am right in saying that he said there would be a border down the Irish sea over his dead body. The withdrawal agreement and the protocol were freely entered into. The Prime Minister and David—now Lord—Frost brought that document back in triumph and campaigned on it in the 2019 election campaign. It subsequently went through this House with a large majority. I know that only too well because I was sitting in the Chair you are sitting in now, Mr Deputy Speaker, when I announced the result of that vote. But the Government were warned that the deal was flawed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) and others pointed out, before it went through this House, what was wrong with it. They indicated the dangers of the border down the Irish Sea, but they were not heeded. That is why we are here tonight.
This Bill breaches the Vienna convention on legal treaties. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) spelled that out very clearly. There is no doctrine of necessity that applies in this case. Article 16 exists as a backstop—if I am allowed to use that word—and the case in law simply cannot stand up. That means that the Bill we are proposing to put through this House tonight will be a gross breach of international law if it is enacted and implemented.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in what he is saying about the Bill. Does he agree that the UK Government will not be able to complain if the European Union chooses to cherry-pick and undo something unilaterally, because that is the precedent the Government are now setting? Anyone can do what they want.
Sir Roger Gale
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I think the rather more dangerous point, which has already been made tonight, relates to the damage that this will do to our reputation for integrity and the position that we will find ourselves in when we criticise President Putin for breaking international law, which of course he does over and over again.
Robin Millar
Does my right hon. Friend really think that that is a fair comparison to make?
Sir Roger Gale
I gently suggest to my young friend that, if I had not thought it was a fair comparison, I would not have made it.
I feel very strongly that we are going down an extremely dangerous path. I believe passionately in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and we have to get back on track, but we are not going to make Maroš Šefčovič’s job any easier by lumbering him with this legislation. I am sure that it will ultimately get through this House—whether it gets through the other place is another matter—but I hope very much indeed that an agreement can be reached before it becomes law. That agreement has to be reached by negotiation; that really is the only way forward. Some of the proposals in the legislation—such as the red and green routes—are sound and can be implemented. There is every indication that the European Union is willing to accept not all but at least some of those kinds of proposals, and I believe that that is the way forward. I do not believe that the Bill is the way forward and that is why, sadly, I shall not be supporting it tonight.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome this Bill, which is long overdue. It delivers on some of the promises that were made to get devolution restored in Northern Ireland but on which no action has been taken for the last 18 months. It is important for people to understand that it is essential for the restoration of devolution in Northern Ireland that the protocol issue is dealt with. That is because the very basis of devolution in the Belfast agreement is destroyed by the protocol. Unionist parties believe that the protocol is designed for the destruction of our place within the United Kingdom, that it is damaging our economy and hurting individuals, and that if the Assembly is up and running and the protocol is not dealt with, Unionist participation in the Assembly would mean that we had to facilitate the implementation of the agreement and acquiesce in other parties facilitating and implementing the protocol, which we believe is designed for our destruction. No other party in this House would enter a coalition arrangement—don’t forget, this is a mandatory coalition; we have to be there—where it was obliged to support, facilitate and undertake policies to which it was totally opposed. That is why devolution will not be restored until the protocol issue is dealt with.
Much has been said today about having flexibilities in the checks on goods, but it is not just about that. The whole issue of the protocol is that it undermines democracy in Northern Ireland. It imposes foreign law on Northern Ireland and on companies that do not even trade with the EU. It is not necessary for them to comply with that law, yet the protocol requires them to do so.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
It is worth noting that not one Unionist party has approved the protocol. We are all united against it. The protocol has virtually created an economically united Ireland, and the EU is party to driving that forward with the Republic of Ireland in the negotiations, which has created a major problem. Not one constituency in this Parliament does not have people who are finding it difficult to supply goods to businesses in Northern Ireland.
Sammy Wilson
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Only the Social Democratic and Labour party has suggested tonight that there are no problems with the protocol. Every other party now accepts that, to one degree or another, there are problems caused by the protocol, which is one of the issues we have faced in these negotiations. The Irish Government, through their Foreign Minister, have patronisingly come to Northern Ireland to tell us, “You don’t really know what you’re talking about. There isn’t a problem.” Of course that has fed through to the EU negotiators, which is one reason why it is important that we have this Bill.
I have listened to Labour Members ask, “What about article 16?” The first people to squeal if the Government had invoked article 16 would have been the Labour party. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) talked about consulting the people of Northern Ireland, but she did not care too much about consulting on abortion. Now she is, as a Labour Member, appealing to the toffs down the other end of the building to defeat this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I think the right hon. Gentleman is talking about Members of the other place.
Stella Creasy
Would the right hon. Gentleman be opposed to bringing more representatives of the Northern Irish political parties into the joint working groups to solve this problem? Is he actually saying that he does not want a voice in this and that he just wants to shout?
Sammy Wilson
The people of Northern Ireland recently spoke in an election, and the Unionist population made it quite clear that they will not accept the protocol.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) for setting the parliamentary precedent that we are now allowed to refer to the House downbye as the “House of toffs.” I think that is a rather good suggestion.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The hon. Gentleman will find it was corrected to “Members of the other place” or even “noble Members of the other place.” Toffs? No.
Sammy Wilson
I do not know whether “noble toffs” is acceptable, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Members have argued that surely we can do this by negotiation, so let us look at the record. The EU has said not once or twice but every time that it will not renegotiate the text of the protocol. The EU has said it every time it has visited Northern Ireland and every time it has met Government representatives. In fact, the EU has now gone further and is taking us to court to impose more checks.
The result of removing the grace periods would be to increase the number of checks per week for goods coming into Northern Ireland from 6,000 to 25,000. This is hardly flexibility from the EU. Indeed, the EU recently wrote to the Government to demand checks on not only goods but people on ferries or airplanes from GB into Northern Ireland. The EU is demanding that people’s personal baggage is searched to make sure they are not bringing in sandwiches or whatever else. Constituents told me this week that such searches have already started in Cairnryan. This is not flexibility but a hardening of attitude by the EU.
Whether by triggering article 16 or through negotiation, we all know what the outcome will be, and that is why the Government have had to take this unilateral action. The Government are not abandoning their obligations. In fact, they are honouring their obligations in two ways. First, they are honouring their obligation to the EU in so far as the single market will be protected by the goods going through the red lane, by the imposition of fines on firms that try to avoid the checks and by the requirement on firms in Northern Ireland that want to trade with the EU to comply voluntarily with all EU regulations. That safeguards the EU market, so we are living up to our obligations to the European Union.
At the same time, the Government are living up to their obligation to the people of Northern Ireland, because the green lane or free lane—or whatever they want to call it—enables goods to come into Northern Ireland without any checks. It does not require the imposition of EU law on the 95% of firms in Northern Ireland that do not trade with the Irish Republic, and it ensures that judgments on whether the law has been broken are made by courts in the United Kingdom, albeit with reference to decisions made by the European Court of Justice.
If one looks at this Bill objectively, rather than through the eyes of those in this House who think we should have remained and still want to act almost as agents of the EU, it will help to restore devolution, it will ensure the integrity of the United Kingdom and it will protect the European single market.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
Everyone in the House this evening should remember what this is all about. It is about protecting the Good Friday agreement of 1998—nothing more and nothing less. As a mere lad born in 1966, I lived through those times on this side of the pond. To have peace on that island after so long was a prize worth having by all.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) said that this was about the situation in which Northern Ireland finds itself, of having regulation without any representation at all. The Northern Ireland protocol contains many articles and provisions, and I assume they have an important basis. Article 1 says most clearly:
“This Protocol is without prejudice to the provisions of the 1998 Agreement in respect of the constitutional status of Northern Ireland”.
Article 13.8 could not be clearer:
“Any subsequent agreement between the Union and the United Kingdom shall indicate the parts of this Protocol which it supersedes.”
Article 16 is the safeguarding clause. Let us not forget that only one party has thus far reached for article 16, and that was the European Union to try to stop us having life-saving vaccines. That is who we are dealing with here.
Article 164(5)(d) of the withdrawal agreement says what the Joint Committee can and cannot do. The Joint Committee can agree to change the text of the protocol to address deficiencies or to address situations unforeseen. There are Members of this House who will say, “Well, you signed it. It is international law.” That is fair enough, but the draconian way in which the EU has interpreted its rights under this protocol is disproportionate. How can it be that goods crossing from GB to NI, which is a mere rounding error in the entirety of trade within the European Union, suffer a full 20% of checks? That cannot be proportionate or reasonable.
I will tell Members why we are in this situation. It is because of animosity towards Brexit. This is about punishment because the EU can. We got to this stage because of the legal straitjacket that the Parliament of 2017 to 2019 put us in, when Members of this place did all they could to make sure that the cards were stacked in the hands of the EU and against this place, and we had a very poor game to play. Do not forget that EU officials were quoted as saying that Northern Ireland was the price to pay for Brexit.
Where do we go from here? We have had 300 hours of negotiation by Lord Frost and our Foreign Secretary. What does Maroš Šefčovič say? He says, “I have no mandate.” Well, please, EU, give us somebody who has that mandate. Let us have that negotiation, because this cannot continue.
We have heard much this afternoon about necessity, and I feel that the clause of necessity has most certainly been reached. The usual doctrine of our constitution says that subsequent legislation is more important than or overwrites previous legislation, but we need to ask ourselves something really important. What is the most important legislation? Is it the constitutional Act of Union 1800? Is it the Good Friday agreement, which has brought peace to the island of Ireland? Those things have been set aside—particularly the Act of Union—by the Court of Appeal in Belfast. Or is it more important to somehow save the dear European single market from the threat of an errant pork pie? That is what we are looking at.
The EU should take great comfort from those on the Government Front Bench. I have heard the Foreign Secretary and others say throughout that this Bill will protect the single market, including with powers against those who may seek to undermine it. We will have full legal measures to stop those who want to break the rules. The EU should take every comfort that it needs from that, because this has nothing to do with upsetting the single market.
I believe that there is a little bit of timidity in this Bill, and I would have preferred it to go further. I see some difficulties with the red and green lanes, because if the EU does not trust us now, I find it hard to believe that it is going to trust us in the future. We need mutual enforcement, where we trust it and it trusts us. That is what people do across borders.
We are the Conservative and Unionist party. I look across the Chamber to my Unionist friends and say: I am with you. I will fight for this Union, and this Bill will help.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I have to say that there are elements of this debate that feel a bit like a bad sequel. We thought that the Brexit debates were behind us, but instead we see a Government intent on reopening old wounds to save their own political skin, rather than looking forward and solving the issues facing the country now. People are in crisis here and now. The cost of living crisis is real, but what is the Government’s response? Rather than spending time focusing on that, they are reneging on an international agreement and risking plunging us into a trade war with our biggest trading partner. As a result, the Bill will only increase blocks and barriers against imports and exports, and that in turn will cause prices to rise even further. That is the last thing that farmers, fishermen and families up and down the country want.
Businesses in Northern Ireland do not want it, either. The UK Trade and Business Commission, of which I am a member, has taken evidence from people and businesses in Northern Ireland over the last year. One leading service provider told us that unfettered access to both the UK and the EU single market has benefited the Northern Irish economy. Another witness told us that support for the protocol is growing in Northern Ireland precisely because it protects the Good Friday agreement and brings economic opportunities. It is for that reason that the majority of Members of the Legislative Assembly support the protocol.
That said, no one is suggesting that there are no issues. We knew that we would have to go into further negotiations. Let us start with a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. Doing that is going to be difficult, but how do we do it without basic trust between both sides? I ask the Minister: how does breaking international law increase trust between negotiating partners? It does not. We knew that this was going to happen, because the Treasury highlighted in its 2019 impact assessment what the protocol would do. It said that the protocol would be disruptive, particularly to Northern Ireland businesses. It is extraordinary that it is only now that the Government seem to care about cross-community consent, because most people in Northern Ireland voted against Brexit, and even more voted against the hard Brexit chosen by this Government, and yet the Government went ahead anyway. To be fair to the DUP, it voted against the withdrawal agreement. It was clear before the Prime Minister signed it that the protocol did not have cross-party consent.
What has materially changed since then? The answer is the Prime Minister’s position. And so what does he do? He breaks the law—again. This is an egregious breach of international law. Article 25 of the International Law Commission’s text on internationally wrongful acts of state allows a breach of international obligations only where it is
“the only way for the State to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril”.
Others have already explained why this is not the only way. Furthermore, article 25 states that necessity may not be invoked when
“the State has contributed to the situation of necessity.”
How can anyone claim that we did not know? The Government signed the agreement and it was debated to death in this place all through the Brexit years. To suggest that this is new information is doublespeak—it is straight out of Orwell’s “1984”. Moreover, despots across the world will be delighted. How on earth can we hold others to account when we are tying ourselves up in knots, trying to find loopholes to get out of the agreements that we sign? This is how banana republics act, not Great Britain. The world looks to us. Can they trust us, they ask, when they want to make trade agreements with us? It is that trust that is being eroded today in this Bill.
This is being noticed on the ground. It would be remiss of me to not mention my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), who joined our Benches today. Like many in this House, including Government Members, I was there, knocking on doors, and this came up—trust in this Government, trust in this Prime Minister. This Government breaking international law is par for the course.
This Bill is a disgraceful course of action, and I and the Liberal Democrats will vote against it, because we are a party of law and order. We believe in the international rules-based order. The Government should withdraw this Bill and get on with tackling the cost of living emergency and safeguarding the interests of the whole of our nation.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
May I begin, just as the Foreign Secretary did, with the Good Friday agreement? There is common cause across the House that that is the sacrosanct treaty that we in this place really must uphold. Obviously, where there are competing treaties, there have to be mechanisms to decide between them, as DUP Members have said.
As the Foreign Secretary said in her piece in yesterday’s Financial Times:
“The protocol was not set in stone forevermore on signing. It explicitly acknowledges the need for possible new arrangements in accordance with the…(Good Friday) Agreement.”
As she has said, our first preference is to renegotiate the text with the EU. We have been working at that for a year and a half, but we have not been able to do it. The EU has not been engaging, as recently as this weekend, she said. To quote another piece, written by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill):
“A good deal of the blame lies with the needlessly rigid and inflexible approach adopted on the EU side.”
I could not agree more. We really need to get negotiation going, and I will speak about negotiation for most of the rest of my speech.
This is a Second Reading debate—nobody expects the Bill to be rammed through the Commons, let alone Parliament, in short order. I understand the arguments that have been put forward throughout the House, including by many learned and senior colleagues on the Conservative Benches, but I will not stand here and undermine and circumscribe the Government’s negotiating position with the EU.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) questioned whether the Bill is a bargaining chip; if we are to have a negotiation, I would rather have as many bargaining chips as possible. I tried to intervene on him during his speech but he would not take my intervention. The fatal mistake that the previous Parliament made between 2017 and 2019 was that too many Members tried to circumscribe the Government’s negotiating position, to undermine our position and to take the EU’s side. The current Leader of the Opposition and the former Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), posed with the EU negotiating team, undermining what the Government were trying to do.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman makes a point about Members of this House. Does he believe in parliamentary sovereignty? If he does, he will understand that Members had every electoral right to do as they did.
Aaron Bell
I completely agree with parliamentary sovereignty. I also believe that no Parliament can bind its successor and am pleased that, following the results of the 2019 general election, we have a much more reasonable Parliament on these matters than we had previously. I might add that we now have a Speaker who is much more reasonable on these matters. The previous Speaker completely undermined what the Government were trying to do in that Parliament. Negotiation is about achieving a win-win. We do not do that by undermining our own position.
Aaron Bell
I am not going to take a job, thank you very much.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) that the Northern Ireland protocol was flawed, but that was because of the antics of the previous Parliament. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) said in his speech a few moments ago, the antics of that Parliament created the unsatisfactory need for the protocol in the first place.
In reality, we need to go right back to the start of the negotiations. I have a huge amount of time for the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), but the reality is that the sequencing decision in that first summer of 2017 was where it all started to go wrong. We should never have allowed Northern Ireland to be split apart from the negotiation in the way we did. We should have found a way and we would not have had the problems with the protocol that we now see. That is what led us to this position.
The EU has been using the negotiations, or the lack thereof, in bad faith. They have resisted co-operation with the Government even in areas where we ought to have simple mutual advantage. I speak in particular of the Horizon programme, which we on the Science and Technology Committee have considered at great length. I would like to see that programme reinstated and it is a shame that the EU is using the Northern Ireland protocol issues to resist that.
To conclude—[Hon. Members: “More!”] Members can have more. The Bill contains solutions to the four principal issues with the protocol—customs, regulation, tax and spend and governance—but I fervently hope that in the end we will not need to pass it. I hope the Bill unlocks the negotiations with the EU, thereby leading to a result that is mutually satisfactory for not only the Government and the EU but, most importantly, for the people of Northern Ireland: nationalists and Unionists alike. It should be a device that brings people together and kick-starts negotiations.
I stand in the same position as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), who made exactly this point in summing up: the Bill is perhaps a negotiating device and it is also a backstop in case the negotiations fail. I support it on both bases and I will support the Government in the vote tonight.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
This is an extremely bad Bill. It is unwanted, unnecessary and, indeed, dangerous. A number of Members have referred to Orwellian double-speak; we should add that there is also some Alice in Wonderland thinking to what is happening here.
The Foreign Secretary’s approach to opening this debate was deplorable and did not take the issues entirely seriously. As well as the process by which she has reached this point being extremely disappointing, her engagement in Northern Ireland has been incredibly selective. She has chosen an echo chamber to reinforce her own prejudicial views on the way forward rather than to engage with the entire community in Northern Ireland.
The Bill is opposed by a majority of Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and, indeed, of voters in Northern Ireland. The business community is deeply concerned about many aspects of the Bill and it is not even effective in getting the DUP to recommit to an Executive. Some Members have lauded the words today from the DUP leader, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), but if Members listen carefully and read Hansard, they will find that what he said was full of ifs, buts and maybes. If Members read those words carefully, they will see that they do not commit to returning to the Executive any time in the near future.
Stephen Farry
I hear those words from the Bench behind me rather than anyone trying to refute what I am saying. That tells its own story.
The protocol is a consequence of the Government’s decisions on Brexit, and particularly of the decision to go for a hard Brexit. It also reflects the fact that the DUP pursued Brexit without any real consideration of the impact on Northern Ireland and the reality that any hard Brexit would require some form of special arrangements for our part of the world. A hard Brexit poses some particular challenges to the whole notion of a shared and interdependent Northern Ireland. It has to be recognised that Northern Ireland is a diverse society. The protocol is by no means a perfect solution, but it offers Northern Ireland the opportunity of a soft landing, given all the tensions Brexit brings to it. It brings opportunities in terms of dual access to both the GB and EU markets, but of course it also has its challenges. We must do all we can not only to maximise the opportunities but to address the challenges.
The Bill is very far-reaching. It immediately disapplies some aspects of the protocol and gives Ministers the ability to disapply others. It brings major consequences: it threatens Northern Ireland’s access to the EU single market for goods. The business community sees the dual regulatory system as unworkable. I hope that Ministers have heard from the Dairy Council, the meat producers, the Northern Ireland Food and Drink Association and Manufacturing Northern Ireland, all of which have expressed major concerns in that regard.
The loss of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice will also bring consequences. The protocol is not the same as a free trade agreement: it is a different type of beast. It is about us having access to the single market as a region. It is not a neutral situation that we have to almost tolerate; it is to Northern Ireland’s benefit because the most likely outcome is a situation in which other parts of the European Union do not treat Northern Ireland’s goods as having free access. We may need the European Court to enforce access for our businesses, so let us not throw it away without thinking through the consequences.
The Bill risks a trade war with the European Union—I do not want to see that but it is a potential risk—and undermines relations with the United States of America. The rules-based international order is of fundamental importance to the UK and the wider world and we mess with it at our peril. The Government have been disingenuous in a number of aspects related to how they have sought to defend the Bill. This is not about defending the Good Friday agreement. Brexit was a threat to the Good Friday agreement; the protocol is a response to protect it against that situation. There is not a choice between the protocol and the Good Friday agreement; the two can be reconciled if people wish.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
The hon. Member says that the protocol is designed to protect the Good Friday agreement. The north-south institution has collapsed, the Assembly is not meeting, the Executive is not functioning adequately and, in the words of the Irish Foreign Minister, east-west relations are at their lowest ebb for years. How is the protocol doing in protecting the Good Friday agreement?
Stephen Farry
I rather suggest that the right hon. Gentleman lies at the heart of all four of the outcomes he just listed, in the sense that DUP Ministers pulled out of the north-south institutions, they pulled out of the Executive, they are not allowing the Assembly to meet and, frankly, east-west relations have been poisoned by both the Government and the comments from a number of Unionist Members in Northern Ireland in recent years.
On the other issues used to justify the Bill, one of the first things the Government say is that they cannot reduce VAT on renewables in Northern Ireland—“This is an outrage!” I have looked into the matter, and the Government’s own figures suggest that the entire net value of the measure for Northern Ireland is a sum total of £1 million per year. The Government also have the option of going to the European Commission to ask for flexibility. Have they done that in the past three months since the Chancellor made the announcement? No, they have not. It is clear that they prefer to have this manufactured grievance rather than trying to find a genuine solution.
The Government say that no proper negotiations have happened over the past 12 to 18 months. Why is that the case? The Government have not approached the matter in good faith, so negotiations have stalled. They now say that they cannot proceed unless the EU says it is up for the renegotiation of the protocol. That denies the fact that there are three different ways in which things can be fixed that are all consistent with the protocol as it currently stands. First, there are flexibilities inside the protocol. We have already seen progress on the issue of medicines, but the Government, for their own reason, refuse to acknowledge the progress that has been made. I wonder why that is the case.
Secondly, I agree with other Members that article 13(8) of the protocol exists to allow the protocol to be superseded in whole or in part. I understand that that was put into the protocol at the request of the UK Government. That provision can be used but it has to be done by negotiation and mutual agreement.
Thirdly, we can do things in terms of supplemental agreements to the trade and co-operation agreement, such as a veterinary agreement. Again, those options have not been pursued. There are plenty of options out there that the Government can pursue entirely in keeping with the EU’s current negotiating mandate. People say that there is no alternative to this Bill, but there is: it is to go back and negotiate in good faith to build trust and partnership with the European Union.
Let us think about this for a second. Will this Bill improve trust and partnership? Will it make those negotiations any easier? No, it will make them harder, because every practical solution that I agree with depends on the EU and the UK trusting each other, and that is not where the Government sit tonight.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
In rising to speak this evening, I find myself, unusually, in disagreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and in agreement —in part at least—with the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson). I am in agreement only in part because he said in his speech earlier today that we bandy around phrases such as “our precious Union” and “the integrity of our Union” quite a lot in this House, but it is quite clear that not everybody understands what is meant by the “Union” or its “integrity”, so much so that I worry that the meaning—the importance—has indeed been lost.
None the less, the Union does mean quite a lot to those of us who are in politics, because we are fighting every day to maintain it: to retain our national identity and to retain the right, which we all have in this country, to say that we are British, or that we are of this United Kingdom. We may be Scottish, Northern Irish, Welsh or English, but we are also British, and all else is secondary to that.
I sympathise with those in Northern Ireland who were alarmed to hear the British Government claim in court that the Northern Ireland protocol “temporarily suspended” article VI of the Act of Union. Article VI created the internal market of the United Kingdom and was designed to give Ireland—now Northern Ireland—residents equal footing with regards to trade, and guarantee equal footing in all future treaties with foreign powers.
To those of us who hold most dear the notion that all in these islands are equal and that all are held in parity of esteem, that article is fundamental to who we are as a people. That is why it is not surprising that those who want to break this Union, to remove that right, to take away our identity, to remove the right to call ourselves British, from those of us who hold that right most dear are against that move today.
The SNP may couch its opposition to the Bill in legalistic language and it may claim, as it did in its amendment, which was not selected, that it was against this Bill because it was against international law—
Martin Docherty-Hughes
If the hon. Gentleman is protecting what he and I would both agree is the Treaty of Union, why does he not extend the protocol, even as reformed by the Government, to Scotland, which, like Northern Ireland, voted to remain in the European Union?
Andrew Bowie
It might have passed the hon. Member’s attention that we actually had a referendum in Scotland in which the people of Scotland voted to remain in the United Kingdom. The reason why it was extended to Scotland is that Scotland voted to remain in the United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom voted as a whole to leave the European Union. He really must catch up. It was eight years ago that we had that argument—and we won.
The SNP is against the Bill because, as it says in clause 1, the introduction, it
“provides that enactments, including the Union with Ireland Act 1800 and the Act of Union (Ireland) 1800, are not to be affected by the provision of the Northern Ireland Protocol”.
In effect, the SNP is against the Bill because it affirms our Union and protects its integrity, which is a very bad thing indeed for the separatists.
We, myself included, did vote for the protocol. But, as we have heard numerous times today—I will not waste the House’s time by rehashing the examples that we have already heard—it is not working. Rightly or wrongly, true to previous international obligations or not, whether we like it or not, whether we would rather it were different, whether we brought it upon ourselves or think it the fault of others, the protocol is not working. And almost everyone acknowledges that. The European Union, albeit tacitly, acknowledges that. The protocol fails to meet its first objective. It says, as specified in article 1, paragraph 2 of the protocol itself:
“This Protocol respects the essential State functions and territorial integrity of the United Kingdom.”
And that is before we even look at whether it passes its own tests regarding trade. It says:
“Nothing in this Protocol shall prevent the United Kingdom from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to other parts of the United Kingdom’s internal market.”
It is hugely frustrating that the Commission refused to change the mandate of its representative in the talks, Maroš Šefčovič.
Everyone wants to see a negotiated solution to this. The European Union reopens agreements and negotiates changes with international partners all the time. It is almost certainly the world record holder in reopening international agreements. Having been in Brussels recently and spoken to colleagues in the European Parliament about this, I simply cannot understand the outright refusal to do so on this occasion, particularly when there is provision in the actual protocol to do just that. I do wonder whether all the Opposition’s strenuous efforts in demanding that we negotiate a solution might be better directed in calling for the EU to come to the negotiating table with a mandate to do just that. We cannot negotiate when there is nothing to negotiate about.
I am pleased that the Government have introduced this Bill. We need to resolve the issues of east-west trade. For the people of Northern Ireland, we must see a return to devolved government at Stormont. We must restore the primacy of the Good Friday agreement and we must ensure that parity of esteem for all people on these islands is held dear. I would rather that we did not have to introduce this Bill, but the refusal of the EU to come properly to the negotiating table is a huge frustration, so acting as they are is the Government’s only option. That is why I am proud to be supporting the Bill this evening.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
This Bill says everything about the sorry state of this Government. It is not about solving the problems of the protocol, which of course the Government themselves created, but, like the Rwanda plan, the human rights proposals and the handling of the rail strike, it is another wedge issue. As the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) said, instead of getting to grips with the problems they are facing, this Government are
“simply seeking to campaign, to keep changing the subject and to create political and cultural dividing lines”
for their advantage and that of the Prime Minster.
There is no dividing line that the Government like better than Brexit, so here we are again, picking a fight with the EU. It is surely no coincidence that last week’s by-elections were scheduled by the Government on the anniversary of the referendum. In the run-up, we had not only the launch of this Bill but the increasingly ridiculous so-called Minister for Brexit Opportunities rolling out his equally pointless Brexit dashboard. But it did not work. People want the Government to stop banging on about Brexit and start coming up with real answers to the problems they face, and that applies to this issue, too. This Bill is not about fixing the problems arising from the protocol—and there are problems. They are flaws that the Prime Minister negotiated, and he knew what he was doing.
Our membership of the EU provided an ideal framework for the Good Friday agreement through a shared market with common rules. Unpicking it was always going to be difficult, because there were only three choices: land border, sea border or some form of all-UK alignment. The Prime Minister made his choice. He negotiated a sea border. He knew that it involved checks, and then he lied to the Unionist community about it. We argued that it would damage the Union, but the Prime Minister went ahead and, having played his role in creating the problems, he is now exacerbating them. Ministers are choosing to bypass the existing mechanisms for resolution that they agreed to when signing up to the deal, and to put political self-interest over the national interest. As they did with the internal market Bill’s first iteration, the Government are willing to undermine the peace process in Northern Ireland, provoke a row with our closest allies and most important trading partners in Europe, and anger our friends in the United States.
There are practical solutions to the problems with Great Britain-Northern Ireland trade, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) outlined them, but it seems as if this Government do not really want a solution. Seeking to remove the role of the European Court of Justice feels like a deliberate provocation from a Government wanting a fight. Manufacturing Northern Ireland, representing a key section of business, said that it is a “Brexit purity issue”. Its chief executive explained:
“No one in business has raised the issue of the ECJ oversight as a problem for them in my presence. It is purely a political and sovereignty issue, and not a practical or business issue.”
Why are we back at provocation rather than negotiation? Because provocation is this Government’s approach: lecturing the world on the rule of law, but reneging on international treaties and trashing our reputation on the world stage. When they took the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill through the House, the Government learned the hard way, and they rowed back on the most egregious parts of the legislation. Frankly, it is more than tiresome to be going around this loop again—it is deeply irresponsible.
There are proposals that form a basis for agreement with the EU. The UK Trade and Business Commission, which has been mentioned and of which I am a member, along with representatives of every political party in this House and a cross-section from business, has listened to the voices of business on the issue. The chief executive of the British Meat Processors Association told us that the cost of exporting food has gone up considerably and described the rules the Prime Minister negotiated as a “monster of a system”, but one that could be simplified through a veterinary agreement.
The director of the Chartered Institute for Environmental Health Northern Ireland said:
“The Government has repeatedly stated that it will not compromise on our food standards and on health protection, but it has singularly and spectacularly failed to legislate for that.”
He continued by saying that
“that goes back to the need for proper robust veterinary agreements and standards that I would argue, let’s aim for surpassing the standards within the EU, let’s have the best food and environmental standards in the world, because that will ultimately add value to our food products.”
Those involved are clear that an agreement with the EU on veterinary standards and non-regression would allow us to reach the highest possible standards. It would reduce checks, it would reduce costs for businesses and it would not involve this fight. It could be done quickly—certainly much more quickly than the months of Government posturing that we can look forward to with this Bill.
Last week’s elections confirmed just how out of touch this Government are with the public, and not only in Great Britain: in Northern Ireland, polling carried out last month showed that the cost of living, the health service, education, the economy and jobs are higher concerns for the people of Northern Ireland than the protocol. Ministers should focus on addressing those issues and commit to sensible negotiations on the protocol, dropping this reckless approach.
There have been many powerful and thoughtful speeches from hon. Members on the Government Benches this evening. I hope that they will follow their words by joining us in the Lobby tonight and putting an end to this nonsense.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
This is a profoundly serious debate, because it is a profoundly serious thing for any country to depart from its international obligations. It is not an impossible thing to do, but it is a profoundly serious thing to do, and it should be done only under circumstances of the most exceptional nature and on the most profound and compelling evidence. That, again, is possible, but we need to test whether we are yet there.
Against that background, I start by saying that everybody accepts the importance of the Northern Ireland protocol as an attempt to reconcile conflicts that were inevitable post Brexit, given the nature of the Brexit that was decided upon. Equally, we must be honest and say that, despite best endeavours, it has failed to reconcile those problems. Therefore, I accept as much as anyone that it does need to change, and change significantly.
I recognise that there are economic dislocations, not in all of the Northern Ireland economy, but enough for it to be a serious problem, and certainly the non-functioning of the Executive at the very least gives rise to the risk of real societal divisions and tensions. Those are circumstances where it is envisaged that there might be changes, but we have to think about whether we are acting proportionately and wisely in what we do.
Looking at the position legally, it is this: logically, there is already a route set out in the protocol by which these matters can be addressed. If there is to be change, there is of course provision in article 13.8 and subsequent articles, and I think article 164 of the withdrawal agreement, for changes to deal with “deficiencies, or…situations unforeseen.” One might well argue that some of the ways the protocol has been interpreted—largely, I would accept, because of the intransigence frequently adopted by the EU side and the unwillingness to extend Mr Šefčovič’s mandate—have contributed to that. That might make a case for acting under those articles.
I also accept that the protocol was never expected to be permanent; it was always envisaged that it could be changed. Equally, however, all that presupposed that it would be changed by negotiation, rather than unilateral action. That is the difficulty we must face here. How do we reconcile the primacy of the Good Friday agreement, which I accept both politically and legally, and the need for adjustment with maintaining our reputation as a country that sticks by its word? Pacta sunt servanda, as we all say.
How do we get around that? The Bill, as currently drafted, does not achieve that. It could do, were it to be amended, and that is why I do not take the view that we should exclude the idea of legislation to act in the way envisaged, but it needs some serious thought. At the moment, as I have suggested elsewhere, it raises as many questions as it answers—and we do not have the answers.
If we are not to go down the route of renegotiated changes envisaged in the protocol, and there may be pressing reasons why that is not achievable in the timeframe available, we then have the ability under article 16 to take emergency safeguarding measures. Those have not yet been used. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) that that might be an appropriate route to use. It might not solve all the problems, but, for reasons I will come to, I would suggest that legally it would put the UK in a better position were it then to seek to go further.
If we are to rely upon necessity, as the Government do—I concede that it is a respectable and established concept in international law, but also one that, it is well known, must be used exceptionally and therefore rarely and with a high evidence threshold to be met—it would be much better to have exhausted all opportunities. Indeed, that is part of the doctrine. To invoke necessity, there must be a grave and imminent threat. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) that it need not be immediate, but it must be something more than merely contingent or a possibility, and it must be evidenced.
It seems to me that we do not yet have the evidence before us. Before this Bill passes its stages in this House, the Government, who are working on their evidence base and say they will be able to draw together the facts that can be applied to the evidence to substantiate the grounds of necessity, ought to come to the House with that evidence. Going forward, rather than having exceedingly wide Henry VIII powers, I would think it much preferable that we do as we did with the UK Internal Market Bill and require the Government, when they wish to disapply an element of the protocol, to come to the House and seek its endorsement, having presented that evidence to it.
Similarly, I do not see why clause 18, with such wide powers to do virtually anything, is acceptable—that should come back to the House—or why it is necessary in clause 20 to seek to oust the jurisdiction of the European Court at this stage. As yet, the potential jurisdiction of the ECJ is at least contingent and potential, and therefore not pressing and immediate in relation to the doctrine of necessity.
I will not support the Bill tonight, but I will not vote against it; I am deliberately abstaining tonight to see how the Bill develops. It could be amended into a workable form, but it comes with very many caveats and a lot of questions that Ministers need to answer. I hope they will seek to address those.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
This Government are making a habit of breaking the law. Only last Friday, the Home Secretary was found to be in breach of the law, and not for the first time, in relation to the Equality Act 2010 and the mistreatment of refugees. Overnight, we learned that the Prime Minister intends to be in breach of World Trade Organisation rules in order to slap tariffs on steel. Here we are today with the Foreign Secretary telling us earlier that this Government will rip up the Northern Ireland protocol that they negotiated and voted for. This is clearly another breach of the law and a shameful hat-trick from the holders of three of the foremost senior offices of Government.
The Conservatives can keep trying to spin it however they like, but the bottom line is that the withdrawal treaty is an international treaty, and the unilateral abrogation of such a treaty, or any part of it, is a breach of international law. In addition to undermining any reputation for straight dealing the Government may still have, this also tarnishes the reputation of the country. It drives a coach and horses through the entire agreement that we have made with the European Union and it undermines the Good Friday agreement, with all the potentially serious consequences that that entails. It insults our intelligence when the Foreign Secretary claims that this is to protect the Good Friday agreement; it does the very opposite and she knows it.
The potential consequences of the Bill include, but are not limited to, the possibility of an all-out trade war with the EU, no trade deal with the United States, severe disruption to our trade when the economy is already suffering from Conservative economic mismanagement, and instigating political turmoil once more on the streets of Northern Ireland. The claims that the economy in Northern Ireland is suffering as a result of the protocol are completely false. North-south trade in Ireland is actually booming. It is the economy here that is suffering, because of Brexit. Ministers know full well that the majority of people in Northern Ireland voted against Brexit, by a much bigger margin than the Vote Leave campaign achieved, and they continue to elect a large majority of MPs and MLAs who oppose Brexit and support the protocol—but then this Government and their predecessors have never been over-concerned with democracy in Ireland. The reality is that the claim on which the Conservatives fought the election—that they would get Brexit done—was a great deception. Six years after the referendum vote, the Conservatives have gone through three Prime Ministers, and may soon be on their fourth, but still have not got Brexit done; we would not be here if they had.
The Foreign Secretary called herself a patriot and said that her party was the party of the Union, and firmly in belief and support of the Union, but the Conservative party can’t be serious. We have a disastrous Brexit that they are now trying to fiddle with, a shoddy Government generally, shocking legislation that is just making nationalists’ arguments for them, hostility to greater devolution, and ignoring of the views of people across the nations of this country. This Government are not a defender of the Union; they are probably the biggest threat to the Union of the United Kingdom that there has been in recent years. They are unwilling to face reality or to come clean with the people of this country. They are willing to risk peace in Ireland, to further damage living standards across the UK and to break the law in order to cling to office. To paraphrase one of their own, Winston Churchill, never in the field of international relations has so much been put at risk to the detriment of so many for the interests of so few. If it is not already abundantly clear, I am firmly against this ridiculous Bill.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
Before I start, I would like to comment on the quality of the debate that we have had. I have been really encouraged that Members in all parts of the House have contributed and we have heard many different views. This is a reflection, too, of the conversations I have had around this place over the past few weeks in the run-up to the debate. I welcome that engagement across the House on all these points.
At its heart, this is about the Union. It is a question of principle. The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said that this was a Bill born out of desperation, not principle, but I would argue exactly the opposite. This starts with principle. For me, it starts with the ruling of the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal that the Acts of Union were subjugated by the Northern Ireland protocol. It is imperative, then—a point well made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson)—that while we consider issues of trade and the peace agreements, we also consider the integrity of the Union. All these are important and each must be addressed, but all can be addressed only if the integrity of the Union underpins them.
With regard to trade, the Bill restores free movement of goods within the UK. However, it also respects the integrity of the EU single market through the introduction of green and red channels. I would suggest that this meets the test set by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for delivering the aims of the Bill.
With regard to governance and jurisdiction, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) mentioned the democratic deficit that exists within Northern Ireland. I would suggest that the Bill meets that requirement through rejecting the jurisdiction of the EU and the European Court of Justice because with that residents of Northern Ireland have no control over the laws that are set and that must govern them.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I thank the hon. Member for his point. If I may, I will just return briefly to the point he made prior to that. At no stage has this Government or my party ever called for a hard border on the island of Ireland. That is why we support this solution, but is he aware that, by threatening retaliation, the only people who are now talking about a hard border on the island of Ireland are the EU? If it is a trade war, the EU will not leave the border unsupervised on the island of Ireland, and it has threatened to remove the right of Northern Ireland companies to trade across the border in those circumstances—that cannot be policed in any other way than on the border itself—so it is the EU that is threatening a hard border on the island of Ireland through retaliation and, by extension, it is threatening the Good Friday agreement.
Robin Millar
The right hon. Member makes a strong point that I will come on to address in just a moment.
I would make the case that the Bill meets the second test of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) on reputation. What self-respecting nation allows itself to be split and part of it to fall under the governance of another unaccountable power? That cannot be the reputation that this Union wishes to pursue.
Thirdly, on the question of the integrity of the United Kingdom, clause 1(c) states that the Bill
“provides that enactments, including the Union with Ireland Act 1800 and the Act of Union (Ireland) 1800, are not to be affected by provision of the Northern Ireland Protocol”.
That, I suggest, meets the test of legality. There might be questions about necessity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) pointed out, but my reason for supporting this Bill lies in the imperative of what the Court of Appeal said. It said that the Acts of Union have been subjugated, and that is reason enough for me.
The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), when he was challenged as to whether he would change the protocol, declined to answer what changes he would make or how they could be delivered. He did, however, make a good point when he said that we must focus on what works and that, I suggest, is what the Bill is trying to do. It is a Bill that provides a solution, seeks to address the issues of trade, respects and seeks to restore cross-community consent and, most importantly, restores the integrity of the UK while at the same time protecting the integrity of the EU single market.
This is not a perfect Bill. I have concerns about the sweeping powers within it given to Ministers. I suspect that, subject to further debate—I hope that the Bill will rapidly progress without delay through this House—those might be considered. However, I will support this Bill with enthusiasm, because there is a legal basis for action. As I have said, the Court of Appeal has set that by indicating that the Acts of Union have been subjugated. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) said, it means that inaction is not an option. I will finish with this question for hon. and right hon. Members. If it is the case that our Acts of Union have been subjugated, and if, as my right hon. and learned Friend says, inaction is not an option, then if not this Bill, what? If not now, when will we restore the integrity of our Union?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The hon. Lady has already spoken. She has forgotten. That really confused me—I am counting the people. I admire her enthusiasm. Most unusually, some Members who had indicated to Mr Deputy Speaker earlier that they wished to speak are not in the Chamber and appear not to wish to speak. Therefore, most unusually, I am going to extend the time limit, at least for a short while, to seven minutes.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will see how we go.
Exactly six years ago today, following the Brexit referendum, we had a statement in this House from the then Prime Minister, and more than two hours of questions took place. I believe I was the only non-Northern Ireland Member of Parliament to raise the issue of the Northern Ireland border. Specifically, I referenced my own family who live on both sides of that border. My family are from Cavan and some of my family now live in Fermanagh. I spend a lot of time there crossing the border. It has always been personal to me. I witnessed and saw the benefit of the removal of the physical infrastructure throughout the 1990s. However, throughout most of the last six years—Members who were not here at the time have referenced it—Northern Ireland has received very little attention. It has always been an inconvenience to the Brexiteers, who have never really articulated a solution to the conundrum of the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland. Too many hon. Members on both sides of the House do not know or understand the history.
Clearly, among the European Research Group or somewhere, a briefing pack is circulating that starts at 1800 with the Act of Union, moves swiftly on to 1998, and finds us here today. It would well behove many hon. Members to walk along the corridor to the Library and check the Hansard from this place throughout the 19th and 20th century. It would behove Conservative Members to understand the arguments between Disraeli and Gladstone about that “coming storm” from the west, because it is different now from it was throughout those times. Careless words spoken in this place throughout those two centuries have an impact across Ireland—in the Republic and in Northern Ireland.
Peace and stability must always guide us—we all want that—but nothing in the Bill does anything to bring peace and stability to Northern Ireland. It gives no power to people in Northern Ireland, but all the power to singular Ministers in this Government. The Foreign Secretary told us today that she has had no agreement from the parties that they will go back to Stormont, and the powers given to the UK Government Minister are complete and unfettered with no accountability.
A key part of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which no one seems to want to mention but which has always been important for bringing peace and stability across communities, is the mutual interest and mutual respect between the UK and Irish Governments for the two communities that exist in Northern Ireland. The Conservative party does not like it, but Ireland remains a member state and is that mutual interest. When people talk casually about the EU being the enemy, they really mean that Ireland remains an enemy. For the Brexiteers, there has always been one solution to the problem of Northern Ireland, which is for the Irish to leave the European Union.
Brexit has never been about the UK leaving; it has always been about the destruction of the European Union. The solution for the Brexiteers—for the ERG that now controls the Conservative party—is for Ireland to leave, but that is not going to happen. Ireland has been successful in the European Union, which has transformed society and the lives of people there. That is the realpolitik. The unique circumstances on the island of Ireland have not changed. Somehow, we need to remind the Conservative party and other hon. Members of that place.
With the dual regulatory system, Northern Ireland is on the cusp of either great prosperity or economic failure. It is our duty to decide on which of those paths we want to support people there. We could choose the investment that awaits—being the fulcrum between the EU and the United Kingdom is potentially exciting for business and prosperity in Northern Ireland—or we could chose stagnation, indecision, fighting in the courts, and debates about the niceties of legal arguments and international treaties of the last 200 years, which would frighten off the investment that is crucial for prosperity and security.
It is not just personal now for me. The instability that breaking an international agreement causes definitely has an impact on businesses and people in my Bristol South constituency. Our international reputation as a safe place to do business, our stability and our rules-based economy are being totally trashed and shredded by the Government.
In my remaining minute, I will alert hon. Members to the inquiry of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, into international treaties. We have heard from Lord Frost and last week we heard from Professor Bartels from the University of Cambridge. When asked about the state of necessity, Professor Bartels said that
“you resort to a defence of necessity when it is necessary, in other words you don’t have anything else.”
The ultimate test of legislation is whether it will work, and it is clear that this will not work. It is a distraction—a distraction from the psychodrama within the Conservative party, and the Prime Minister—and it is truly shameful.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), although I profoundly disagree with the implication that those of us who decided Britain’s place in the world was best served by leaving the European Union view the EU—let alone the Republic of Ireland, for goodness’ sake—as “the enemy”, to use her words. Clearly, that is not the case.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is winding up, will be spoilt for choice when it comes to commenting on speeches. If I may say so, however, in a brief period of time the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) pretty much nailed it with his assertion in an intervention on the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry). The status quo is clearly not compatible with the Good Friday agreement and the Acts of Union, and the doctrine of necessity certainly applies in this case.
It is remarkable, is it not, that the protocol’s supporters appear to be the opposition parties, while those who drafted it and are trying to change it sit on the Conservative Benches? I also enjoyed the remarks of one or two Opposition Members who appeared trenchantly to support the other place in the hope that it will defenestrate this Bill, which I sincerely hope it fails to do. That said, though I welcome this Bill, I hope it will be improved in Committee and in the other place, and in particular that some of the swingeing powers that it gives Ministers will be clipped.
I have to say to Ministers, while assuring them of my support this evening, that I remain somewhat bewildered by their refusal to consider in a meaningful way triggering article 16. That is already available to them, and nobody has marshalled a creditable argument—certainly not one that satisfies me—that it could not or should not be done. The grounds for triggering article 16 are clearly there, in that we do not have anything approaching proper governance in Northern Ireland—not at all. Despite the May elections, the Assembly has failed to assemble and the institutions are not working.
Surely to goodness, those are grounds—the strongest grounds possible—for triggering article 16. They are far stronger, I must say, than the grounds chosen by the President of the European Commission early in 2021 to trigger this thing, albeit very briefly and ignominiously, on the grounds of trying to prevent vaccines from transiting from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland.
Sir Robert Neill
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. Does he agree that, from a legal perspective, if article 16 were to be triggered, at least we would be able to argue that we had used all means available to us under the protocol, as is necessary to meet the necessity test—in other words, that the state has exhausted all the options open to it before it acts unilaterally? That is exactly the value of using article 16.
Dr Murrison
I absolutely agree with that. It is argued—of course it is—that triggering article 16 is meant to be temporary. Those of us who have been around a bit realise that temporary very often turns into something far more permanent. However, that would certainly be a reasonable first step in dealing with this situation, which pretty much all of us—apart from the SDLP—agree is unsatisfactory. I am still unsure, despite the earlier remarks of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, why the Government are not doing that. The Secretary of State, when he winds up, may like to address that.
I would also like to know where in this legislation there is a threat to the single market. Trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is pretty much a rounding error—a point that has been made by others. Companies such as Sainsbury’s do not exist in the Republic of Ireland, so goods going to Sainsbury’s in Northern Ireland from GB cannot possibly land up on Sainsbury’s shelves in the Republic, because there are none. There are more checks on this border than on the border with Chile, and checks for what? It is not clear to me why we need checks at this point in time, since we have an agreement on tariffs and we have standards and regulations that have not yet had the opportunity to diverge.
Many contributors today have talked about the doctrine of necessity, but what they have not mentioned is that there is a second part to that doctrine; it is a lesser part, but it is germane nevertheless. It does not deal with grave or imminent peril; it allows parties to rescind an obligation if to do so would not
“seriously impair an essential interest of the states towards which the obligation exists or of the international community as a whole.”
Where in this Bill, and where, indeed, in triggering article 16, would the threat to the single market come from? Indeed, I would argue, as Ministers certainly have, that the Bill is helpful in many respects to the single market, and it certainly is to the internal market.
So why is the EU doing all this? Why is it not giving Mr Šefčovič the powers he needs in order to negotiate properly with, first, Lord Frost and, secondly, the Foreign Secretary? We can all suggest geopolitical reasons for not doing that, and of course some member states are perfectly happy, for their own benefit, with the status quo. The Republic of Ireland is probably rather enjoying the current export opportunities as a result of Northern Ireland being unable to get what it needs from GB. But we have to hope that the EU, even at this stage, will recognise the damage this is doing to the Good Friday agreement and the prospects of ongoing peace and harmony in Northern Ireland, and that it will, even at this late stage, consider the interests of the people of Northern Ireland first, in which case this Bill will not be needed.
The Government, in my view, signed the Northern Ireland protocol in good faith. They were entitled to receive the same back from the EU, but after 18 months it is plain as a pikestaff that that reciprocation has not happened. It is not as if there are not technical solutions to the current problems. I wrote about this in my report when I chaired the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. It distresses me that, all this time later, nothing appears to have been done about the recommendations that I made, and that others have made subsequently, to deal with this perfectly elegantly. Of course, things may very well get worse, with the SPS offset through the movement assistance scheme likely to be viewed as ultra vires by the European Court of Justice, and the prospect of energy VAT—I hope very much that it will be reduced in GB—not being reduced in Northern Ireland, completely contrary to the Good Friday agreement and the Acts of Union.
The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who is no longer in his place, said that the EU “needs to move”. It does, but it will not; I hope this legislation gets it moving.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
It is always good to follow the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), even though I am going to profoundly disagree with him.
It is interesting that we now have a tantalising real-time example of what happens when a part of the UK is able to diverge from the current UK economic model. It turns out that not simply accepting lower growth than south-east England in perpetuity in exchange for a guaranteed lump sum can actually be quite beneficial, and so of course the UK Government want to put an end to it.
It is important, however, to take a historical view of where we are. It behoves the British Government to remember their history, for their predecessors have been here quite a few times before. The end of the seven years war in 1763—a few folk here now might have been around back then—was a catastrophic success for a newly fledged Great Britain. As a result of victory over the perfidious Europeans, it gained supremacy over the North American continent and possessions elsewhere. Let me quote from Pulitzer prize-winning Professor Alan Taylor’s history of the American revolution, here quoting Henry Ellis, a colonial Governor:
“What did Britain gain by the most glorious and successful war on which she ever engaged? A height of glory which excited the envy of the surrounding nations…an extent of empire we were equally unable to maintain, defend or govern”.
Taylor adds:
“Because of that triumph, the empire would reap a revolution in British America”.
As we stand here in these sunlit Brexit uplands, we must also consider the price that this modern-day facsimile of Georgian Britain would have us pay for attaining their own heights of glory. Even then, the idea that this place—this legislature—should be supreme above all others led them to make similar mistakes.
The contradictions of British North America were slightly different from those we face today. In short, while the colonialists liked to distinguish themselves from their French and Spanish rivals as more democratic because they had a form of self-rule—let us not call it devolution—we now know that that was somewhat erroneous, as that self-rule was very much restricted to Protestant landowners. While that made the ruling of the original 13 colonies relatively straightforward, the newly won possessions in New France did not fit that model, so this Parliament decided to pass the Quebec Act, which did not go down too well with the puritans in New England or elsewhere.
The vastly expanded sphere of influence was also much more expensive to maintain. Therefore, despite the warnings that this would not be appreciated, taxes were levied for the first time on colonial possessions, first through the Sugar Act 1764 and then the Currency Act 1764 and the Stamp Act 1765. All the time, the consequences for those who were subjected to the legislation were ignored, and that slowly drove a wedge between England’s interests and those of its periphery. [Interruption.] Perhaps Ministers should listen. We know what happened next.
I take us on that American detour because we live in hope that Ministers will reflect on how their wonderful wheeze, designed to reassert the primacy of this Parliament, will not work in places where people look to legislatures that are closer to them.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I will not, I am afraid, as I want to make some progress. Quite simply, be we in the 18th century or the 21st century, introducing legislation that damages the economic self-interest of those on the periphery to benefit those in the core will never end well, especially when, as in this case, it satisfies the desires solely of the parliamentary sovereigntist-fetishists, who do not represent any real majority, even in the core.
Let me conclude with a quote from Edmund Burke, who was not only the father of conservatism but an Irishman and a Unionist to boot. Many will remember how in “Reflections on the Revolution in France” he said:
“People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backwards to their ancestors. Besides, the people of England well know that the idea of inheritance furnishes a sure principle of conservation, and a sure principle of transmission”.
But I think more pertinent to our discussions is what comes a few paragraphs later, where he said:
“The institutions of policy, the goods of fortune, the gifts of providence are handed down to us, and from us, in the same course and order.”
How providential it is, then, that this Conservative and Unionist Government’s blessed inheritance, and this state’s institutions of policy, are to repeat the same mistakes that have always been made. It is shame for the people of Northern Ireland that the economic and political damage of the Bill is to be visited on them in such a manner.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I was struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) about how, when we in this place debate issues relating to Ireland, we often do not pay sufficient respect and attention to the complex politics of Northern Ireland. It is good that there has been a thorough airing of different perspectives in the debate; it has certainly illuminated my thinking.
When we consider that Ireland remains the fourth largest destination for UK exports and the 10th largest source of imports into the United Kingdom; and that, for Northern Ireland, 40% of goods exports go to Ireland and 36% of imports come across from Ireland, it is clear that this is an important economic relationship. It is an important relationship in the context of addressing the cost of living and other things that we know are important from debates in the House.
I am persuaded, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) outlined, that although we have many concerns about elements of the Bill, it is right to give the Government the benefit of the doubt and to create the space for a negotiation that, as we have heard, is happening in good faith, with a view to seeking an agreement to address these issues, while recognising that, if that goes wrong, we need the ability to protect our position in due course.
Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner is a long way from Northern Ireland, but Northern Ireland is of enormous interest to my constituents, because my constituency has a very large number of small and medium-sized exporters and importers. I have heard from many of those businesses directly, including at constituency surgeries, that the issues that arise in this debate on Northern Ireland, and issues of international trade more generally, are incredibly important to them.
Let me highlight an exciting judgment of the European Court of Justice, C-213/19, in respect of legal action taken against the United Kingdom for long-term, persistent failure to undertake proper border controls while we were a member of the European Union. By “long-term”, I mean that the failure goes back to at least 2005, so Governments of all parties have a degree of responsibility for this matter. Clearly, when we in this House talk about green and red lanes, or any other part of the United Kingdom’s international trading arrangements, it is important that we demonstrate that we have effective customs, and border controls in which people can have confidence. My small and medium-sized importers and exporters do not wish to be undercut by fake imported goods that are brought into the United Kingdom, which was for some time notorious among EU member states for failing to undertake this work properly, as the judgment highlights. We need to take that seriously.
On our attitude to international law, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) that it is not fair to draw a comparison with what is being said about the likes of Vladimir Putin. However, I recently visited the European Court of Justice in Strasbourg, where I heard about those who are charged with enforcing its judgments, many of which are about commercial disputes, property assets, and the ability of families to enforce their right to family life. I certainly heard that when it comes to enforcing judgments in countries where Governments are disinclined to follow the law, there is always a degree of pushback from the diplomats representing those countries, who say, “If a founding father state of the European convention on human rights says that it disagrees with those laws, why should we follow them?” That has an impact on my constituents, and on all our constituents. We need to demonstrate that we remain absolutely committed to upholding the highest standards of the rule of law.
As we debate these issues, it is important to remain focused on the benefits that we expect future arrangements to bring to the people of Northern Ireland, which is part of our United Kingdom. Many Members have referred to the latest release from the Office for National Statistics, which suggests that London, where my constituency is, has had 2.3% GDP growth—a strong rebound from covid. The part of the United Kingdom with the second highest growth was Northern Ireland, with 1.4% GDP growth. It has been helpful to hear from Members on the Opposition Benches about some of the nuances of that—about what it means for services versus goods, and how that affects the communities of Northern Ireland, because we need to get this right.
The complexity of the issue is demonstrated by a point made at the Dispatch Box at the very start of the debate: we must make sure that the benefits of our decisions extend to all parts of the United Kingdom. Let me give the example of the removal of VAT from environmentally friendly green energy products. On 7 December 2021, the Economic and Financial Affairs Council decided to enable the removal of VAT from all those products. About four months later, the same decision, which I very much support, was taken here and presented to this House. The benefit of it has been felt across England, Wales and Scotland, but we are told that it is not possible for Northern Ireland to have that benefit.
When Ministers sum up, I ask them to explain why that is, given that the measure is also allowed under EU rules, and was allowed there before it was introduced here. Why have we not been able to ensure that people in Northern Ireland can benefit from the investment that the measure would prompt? It would ensure that homes and businesses enjoyed the highest standards of environmental friendliness.
I will finish as I started. I will give the Government the benefit of the doubt this evening; as the Bill goes through the House, there will be an opportunity to explore many of the issues that I and others have raised. It is important to demonstrate that we are taking these issues extremely seriously, and demonstrate to our biggest trading partner the European Union and our people in our United Kingdom that we are determined to negotiate in good faith and reach agreement together.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) and I thank him for his thoughtful speech. This debate reminds me a wee bit of the story of the man who asked for directions in Northern Ireland. He said, “Could you tell me how to get to Lisnagunogue?”, and a man said to him, “I wouldn’t start from here.”
The debate about the protocol in Northern Ireland feels a wee bit like that, when we start to examine it. As the Government know—the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the former Prime Minister, made this clear in her cutting comments today to Government Front Benchers—our party warned from 2019 onwards, and before that, that the protocol would cause problems and that it would not work. Unfortunately, those warnings fell on deaf ears, so it is right and proper that the Government take action this evening.
I remember a sitting of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in which the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) —he is unfortunately not in his place now, but he spoke earlier—commented on the protocol. I asked him directly then, “Would the protocol put in place any barriers or cause any friction in relation to trade in Northern Ireland?” He said, “Don’t worry about it. It will all be light-touch.” Well, it is the heaviest touch that anyone has ever seen in terms of trading relationships in these islands, so we weigh very carefully and cautiously the words given to us by the then and current Governments.
The Government’s decision to bring the Bill to the House is welcome. I believe that their mettle, their steadfastness and their patriotism—that was put on the record by the Foreign Secretary—will now be tested by this matter. The House will then be left to judge whether the Government are sincere. We on the DUP Benches definitely hope that they are. We believe that our word can be counted on and trusted. It is now up to the Government to prove through their actions that their words can be counted on, believed in and be shown to be true.
The Foreign Secretary made it clear in a communication to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that the problems of the protocol are about the disruption and divergence of trade, the significant costs and bureaucracy for businesses, the undermining of the three strands of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and the collapse of the power-sharing arrangements at Stormont. Although we do not have time to deal with each of those issues tonight, she rightly outlined some of the problems.
Paul Girvan
This is about the diversion of trade, how that has impacted on local suppliers from the rest of the GB market and how they have not been able to access the Northern Ireland market because of the bureaucracy and additional paperwork required.
Ian Paisley
I thank my hon. Friend for drawing that to the House’s attention. The diversion of trade is absolutely critical and that was raised by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. By volume and value, local purchases from Great Britain are worth £13.4 billion to Northern Ireland. That is four times the value of imports from the Republic of Ireland, which stand at £3.6 billion—I hope that that answers the hon. Member’s question about the value of trade in Northern Ireland. Of the 16,000 businesses in Northern Ireland, 14,900 are small and medium-sized enterprises. They cannot cope with the paperwork, bureaucracy and cost of doing business in Northern Ireland. That is not a teething problem; that is a nightmare for trade.
Last year, the Consumer Council published statistics showing that, of people in Northern Ireland,
“over two thirds (68%) have experienced UK online retailers no longer delivering to NI; nearly two thirds (65%) have experienced delayed delivery of goods from GB online retailers; over half (53%) have experienced reduced access to products offered by GB retailers; over half (51%) have experienced an increase in the cost of goods bought online; nearly a third (29%) have been charged customs related fees for parcels coming from GB”.
Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom! It is not some far-flung part of the world; it is a few hundred miles away, and it is part of this UK. That is the impact that the protocol is having on the daily lives of citizens in Northern Ireland.
People say, “But there are grace periods.” Last month, Mr Šefčovič made it clear that the grace periods, in his view, are illegal and should not be used. We hear, across the House, “Oh, let’s have negotiations.” We do not have a willing partner in this negotiation—hence why, for the past year, the Government have told Europe in a White Paper that article 16 could be invoked. Instead of that being welcomed by the Opposition and other parties, for almost the past 12 months we have heard, “Do not dare invoke article 16. It is a step too far. It would be an atrocious action.” Yet tonight, when the Government say that things have now gone too far, we have to go beyond article 16 and bring in this Bill to solve the problems that have been discussed.
The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) put a little gambit to the House tonight—“Oh, why don’t we invoke article 16?”—only to be shot down within 20 seconds by his Front-Bench colleagues because they would not support invoking article 16. The hypocrisy is not lost on Members of this House, and neither is how difficult a situation we are in or how urgent the requirement is for the Government to fix it. I call on the Government to move expeditiously to fix this matter. Until March this year, we had had more than 300 hours of negotiations with the EU, and it has not budged. Its mandate will not move.
Labour Members may have been suffering from amnesia, or else make-believe, when they thought that they were negotiating with us on the matter, as they claimed in earlier comments. There have been no negotiations between the Democratic Unionist party and the Labour party. There have been no negotiations between the shadow Foreign Secretary and our party on any of these matters. [Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State can mutter and mumble from a sedentary position, but he knows that it is true. There have been no negotiations in the process, because Europe pulled stumps. It has not extended its mandate, because it does not want to negotiate. I wish it would. We would quite happily do so, because the provisions of the protocol are very clear under article 18, article 13(8) and article 164 that it can be lawfully suspended—and it should be. We would welcome that, but things have now come so far.
The prize is great. By fixing the protocol issue, we get devolution back, so let us fix it.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley).
As a patriot, I find that many things make me proud to be British, but perhaps what makes me proudest of all is that so many people and so many Governments across the world see Britain as a law-abiding country that plays by the rules; as a country that is a consistent, reliable and trustworthy international partner; as a country that treats its allies with respect and always defends the rules-based international order; as a country that acts in good faith and has a sense of fair play hardwired into its DNA; and as a country that is capable of tremendous feats of statecraft such as the Good Friday agreement—one of the proudest achievements of any Labour Government. Yet here we are this evening, debating a Bill that takes a unilateral wrecking ball to an international treaty that the Prime Minister himself signed and described as “an excellent deal” just 30 months ago.
Let us be clear: this Bill fundamentally undermines our reputation as a nation that upholds the rule of law. This really matters, because geography is destiny. Whether the Conservative party likes it or not, what happens on the European continent is of pivotal importance to Britain’s security and prosperity. When Europe thrives, we thrive; when Europe slumps, we slump; and when Europe fights, we fight.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and, obviously, speaks on the basis of great experience internationally. I presume that he is about to refer to the events in Ukraine. Does he agree that not only is the Ukraine war a very pressing issue on which we need to co-operate fully, but there are many other international crises with which we are currently dealing as a country—including the climate emergency—and that it is therefore vital for us to work in partnership with our colleagues?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He understands that foreign policy begins at home, and that if you do not have your own house in order, your ability to project influence, to build alliances and to speak with moral authority is fundamentally undermined.
From trade to diplomacy, from defeating Putin’s barbarism to tackling the climate emergency, and from scientific co-operation to responding to the rise of an increasingly authoritarian China, our democratic partners and allies across the channel should always be at the heart of our foreign policy. However, instead of recognising that basic reality, Ministers are stuck in what my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), the shadow Foreign Secretary, has called
“a fever dream of 2016”.
Rather than seeking constructive solutions, they pick fights with our closest neighbours and introduce this deeply destructive Bill, which is a clear breach of international law, and which is designed solely to inflame tensions and chase Daily Mail headlines.
With inflation soaring, with the country facing a cost of living crisis, with war on the European continent, this is the worst possible time for the Bill to arrive; so why are the Government doing it? Who in their right mind would seek to sow division when, now more than ever, we need to be standing shoulder to shoulder with our European friends and partners? The explanation is clear. The Prime Minister has made a calculation, and, as usual, his calculation has nothing to do with the national interest and everything to do with saving his own skin. The Prime Minister knows that it is the European Research Group and its fellow travellers who are calling the shots, and he knows that he must have their support if he is to continue to squat in Downing Street. Just like his two predecessors, he has found that his fate now lies in the hands of the ERG, and just like his two predecessors, he seems foolishly to believe that he can appease the members of the ERG by throwing them some red meat from time to time.
It really is extraordinary that Conservative Prime Minister after Conservative Prime Minister has failed to learn a simple lesson of 21st-century British politics, which is that you can never satisfy the members of the ERG. No matter how much red meat you throw to them, their hunger will never be sated: they will always come back for more. Right now they are once again at the height of their powers, because the outcome of the no confidence vote has maximised their leverage and given them a Prime Minister who, when they order him to jump, responds by asking, “How high?” Not only that; it has given them a Foreign Secretary whose leadership ambitions depend on their support.
So the planets have aligned for the ERG—but for our country, not so much. Out there in the real world, the impacts of the Prime Minister’s botched Brexit deal are being felt by working families and businesses across the country. Our exporters are suffocating under mountains of red tape, import frictions are driving inflation up, and next year we are forecast to have the lowest growth of any country in the G20, apart from Russia. The fact is that the Conservatives are unable to point to a single net economic benefit of the disastrously bad deal that they negotiated—not one.
Indeed, when the Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency was asked to name a single benefit of the Prime Minister’s botched deal, the only thing he could come up with was the fact that the road signs in the Dartford tunnel could be changed from metres to yards. You could not make it up, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is almost as absurd as the apparent legal basis for this Bill, which we are told is the doctrine of necessity, which requires “grave and imminent peril”. But if the peril is so imminent, why have the Government chosen a route that will involve months of passage through Parliament? We know the answer to that question too, because the only thing that is in grave and imminent peril is the Prime Minister’s job.
The fact that the Prime Minister’s botched Brexit deal is so clearly failing to deliver any of the economic benefits that were promised is bad news not only for the jobs and livelihoods of the British people but for our relations with the European Union and our international reputation more broadly. The more obvious it becomes that the deal is fundamentally flawed and failing, the more the Prime Minister and others who heralded it as a triumph when they signed it will start looking for scapegoats, pointing fingers and lashing out. They will blame the EU. They will blame those who voted remain. They will blame the civil service and they will blame the judges. In short, they will create a smokescreen of sob stories and grievances, which they hope will obscure their own profound incompetence. They will use the passage of this Bill and other ruses such as the Bill of Rights and the Rwanda plan to whinge and rant about the saboteurs and the conspirators, because they will always try to play the victim card. They will never stand up and take responsibility, and there is nothing patriotic about that.
To sum up, the purpose of this Bill is not constructive; it is deliberately destructive. It is not seeking to solve a problem; it is seeking to fuel grievance and shirk responsibility. It is not diplomacy or statecraft; it is a piece of reputation-trashing vandalism, and this House should treat it with the contempt that it deserves.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I welcome this Bill and its Second Reading in this House today. I also welcome the fact that the Government now recognise the significant problems caused by the protocol and the damage it is doing to political stability, to community relations, to vast swathes of our economy in Northern Ireland and indeed to businesses in GB. The Bill is a recognition of, and an appropriate response to, the unreasonableness that is intrinsic within the protocol and the fact that, despite protracted engagement with the EU, the only thing more unreasonable than the protocol itself is the EU’s attitude. Its obstinate approach to those intent on finding common-sense solutions that will undo the damage we are seeing in Northern Ireland is what brings us here today. Those solutions, with good will on all sides, can work for everyone. That is what my party desires: solutions that work for, and can be supported by, everyone.
I know that there are Members in this House who will rail against this legislation today, and we have heard some of them already. It is worth reminding the House that some of those are the same voices that have called for the rigorous implementation of the protocol but, having begrudgingly realised at least some of the issues with the protocol, they now say that the way to deal with the protocol is through negotiation, and no reasonable person is opposed to negotiation. Might I suggest, however, that they listen to Maroš Šefčovič, who holds some form of demigod status in the eyes of the SDLP and Alliance? He has stated adamantly that renegotiating the protocol is unrealistic.
While those who oppose this Bill deal with the unrealistic, my party and now the Government are dealing with the real problems caused by the protocol: the huge administrative burden and associated costs foisted on businesses because of the sea border; the increase in transport costs that is making bringing goods to Northern Ireland more expensive; the banning of items being imported into Northern Ireland from other parts of the United Kingdom; and the constitutional change for which there is no consent. It is time for other parties to wake up. I commend the many Members right across the House who have spoken in support of this Bill today. The transfer window is open: Members can switch from team EU to team Northern Ireland, and it is time they joined those of us whose intent is to resolve these issues for the betterment of our economy. Also of fundamental importance is the urgent need to restore the principle of consensus that has been so fundamental to our political process.
This House has heard in many debates on the withdrawal agreement and the protocol that the Belfast agreement must be protected, and Members on both sides of the House need to ask themselves whether they really mean that. If they do, they will recognise that consensus is the cornerstone of our political process. We need to get back to consensual progress, as the reality is that no Unionist elected to this place or the Northern Ireland Assembly—not one—accepts the protocol. That ought to be of concern to all who value the progress made in Northern Ireland, so I make a sincere appeal to the Members and parties who have met Unionist opposition to the protocol with ridicule, sneering and ignorant dismissal to ask themselves whether they share that desire to get us back on track to consensual progress, and to stop the slide into division and the destruction of what we have achieved.
I urge the Government to stay on course and to ensure this Bill passes with haste and without amendments designed only to undo the proposed solutions contained within. We need to get Northern Ireland back on track, and I urge colleagues to back the Bill and help to do just that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this House on any occasion, and it is an even bigger pleasure to speak on this issue of tremendous importance to everyone across Northern Ireland and, indeed, across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We have heard some fantastic speeches, and I thank all those who have contributed positively.
It is not a secret that I am very pleased to be the MP for Strangford, and it is probably one of the highlights of my life. It is always a pleasure to reflect my constituents’ views in this Chamber, and the majority of them are very clear in their opposition to the border down the Irish sea and the restrictions it imposes. Ninety-nine per cent. of businesses in my constituency have expressed concern.
I think the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) said businesses are doing well. My constituency is not far away from his, but he is in a different world. I do not understand what he is on about. At last week’s Northern Ireland questions, the Secretary of State said 200 businesses have stopped trading between the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. Well, at least 200 businesses in my area alone are not trading today, so I suspect the number is greater.
If farmers take their cattle to Carlisle market and they do not sell, they have to pay to put them in quarantine for six weeks before they can take the cattle home, all because of the problems with the protocol. My fishermen in Portavogie—I also represent the fishermen in Ardglass and Kilkeel because their MP does not come to this place, but that is up to him, although he will speak in Parliament Square—face extra tariffs, bureaucracy and red tape. For them and for the engineering works, the car salesmen and the nurseries, the protocol is not working. People do not buy seeds from nurseries in Great Britain any more, as a packet of seeds that cost £2 now costs £16. Those are examples of what my constituents face each and every day.
Some Members tell us this only affects Unionists. No, it does not. Nationalists have come to me who feel afraid to voice complaints to their MP due to the fear of reprisals. I speak with confidence when I say that Northern Ireland, as a whole, needs this Bill not simply for its cultural identity, which is imperative, but for the financial viability of small businesses due to the EU’s vindictive approach to VAT and state aid. This affects not only those who are designated as Unionists but those who are designated as nationalists, too. It affects everyone in the Province, and it affects their pocket.
As a boy, I recall Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher telling us that Northern Ireland is “as British as Finchley.” With the border down the Irish sea, it is clear to me that we are not as British as Finchley, but I want to be because I am very proud of my British heritage. I am very proud to have served in the British Army for 14 and a half years. I am very proud to be British and from Northern Ireland. I love to tell everybody that I am a Member of this Parliament. I love to tell people that I am from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, because it means something to me. It means something to every one of us sitting here, and it means so much that we want to have this Northern Ireland protocol brought forward in a way that can make us as British as you are. That is what I and my colleagues want to be, and we need this Northern Ireland Protocol Bill to make that happen.
Delegates from other EU countries have shown an absolutely disgraceful disregard to the Unionist people of the Province. Boy, do they stink to the high heavens, and I say that without any doubt. If they are sitting and listening in Brussels, I tell them again that they stink to the high heavens. The quicker we are away from those ones, the better.
This is a very simple issue that has been misunderstood, and clarity is needed as a matter of urgency. The protocol stops tax and VAT aid. It hampers small businesses from accessing their No. 1 market, makes Northern Ireland—my country—a third country and undermines the Belfast agreement. For the good of nationalists, Unionists and republicans—there are some here—the protocol must come to an end and we must allow common sense, common decency and common respect to be the bill of the day.
As I said on the day we received prenotification of this, I am very pleased to see the changes relating to the Court of Justice of the European Union. I welcome them because they remove the direct jurisdiction of the Court of Justice over this place. It should be this place that makes decisions on behalf of the people of Strangford, Upper Bann, Lagan Valley, East Belfast and every other constituency. It should not be Brussels or the European Court of Justice, so I am very pleased to see that change. I have told the Foreign Secretary in the past—I think it was last September—that my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) asks questions about east-west and I ask questions about the European Court of Justice. I am very pleased to see the changes proposed by the Bill. That is very positive.
Believe it or not, but from dog biscuits to daffodils, from picture frames to potato bread, from engine parts to eggs, and from artificial flowers to antibiotics, the EU has had ample opportunity to change its approach and allow trade to continue unhampered. The EU is like a giant sponge: it wants to take everything from you, but it does not want to give you anything. Tonight, we are asking for the EU sponge to be lifted off our back and for us to be given the same opportunities as the rest of the United Kingdom.
For us, it is about making sure that the EU knows our place. It is past time to stop begging it and asking it to act like the sovereign state that we are. It is up to us to take back control of British produce and British protocol on behalf of British people. The Northern Ireland protocol has had a detrimental effect on people, from the working poor to wealthy business owners, and tonight we have the opportunity to make the necessary changes.
I love this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is no secret. It a pleasure and a privilege for me to be here. I am proud to have the Union flag flying above my house. I am proud to have the Ulster flag flying. I am proud to have the Queen’s platinum jubilee flag flying as well. That is what I am. I want to be as British as everybody else. Do the right thing for us.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I want to begin with an apology to the victims of crimes committed during the troubles in Northern Ireland; they were expecting the Committee stage of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill today. Several had booked and paid for their plane and train tickets, so their money has now been wasted. For the Government, changing the parliamentary timetable might be trivial, but for victims and their families, such behaviour only adds to the pain and frustration of decades of hurt. And it exposes the truth—that Northern Ireland and its unique sensitivities are not taken seriously by this Government.
As the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said, if time were truly important, as the Government’s legal argument of necessity implies, this Bill would have been introduced as emergency legislation, or at least rushed through. There is only one real necessity in this Bill, at this time, and that is to try to distract from the catastrophic performance at the ballot box last week, and to fire the starting gun for the Foreign Secretary’s leadership bid. Once again, the Tories’ civil war is infecting our politics. Once again, Northern Ireland is paying the price. This House deserves better. Northern Ireland deserves better. Victims of the troubles certainly deserve better.
The Government claim to be acting on behalf of communities in Northern Ireland by tearing up the protocol, yet in the very same week they are simultaneously ignoring the opposition from all Northern Ireland communities, because opposition to their Bill to deal with the murders and acts of terror during the troubles is universal. Every party from every community opposes it, yet the Government plough on. They are picking and choosing parts of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement according to whatever their political needs are in any particular moment.
For example, one justification for tearing up the Government’s Brexit deal is the loss of community support for the protocol. This totally ignores one essential fact: the Government never had it to start with. The DUP and Unionists have been very consistent from the very beginning when it comes to the protocol: they opposed it. When Ministers were drafting and negotiating the protocol, the consent of the Unionists was never sought and never given. As the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) said, they even voted against it in this House. How can it now be claimed to have disappeared? It was never there to begin with.
In fact, when the Prime Minister presented the protocol to Parliament in 2019, he said in response to Lord Dodds that
“the people of this country have taken a great decision embracing the entire four nations of this country, by a simple majority vote that went 52:48 and which we are honouring now.”
He went on:
“I think that principle should be applied elsewhere, and I see no reason why it should not be applied in Northern Ireland as well. It is fully compatible with the Good Friday agreement.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 581.]
That was the Prime Minister speaking here, to this House, on 19 October 2019. We now have an entire Bill that reveals that the Prime Minister was not truthful with the House as he tried to sell the protocol.
Let us turn to another promise made and broken by this Government. Page 5 of the Tory manifesto could not be clearer. It says: “No…renegotiations.” So when the Foreign Secretary says, as she did at the Dispatch Box earlier, that the EU not agreeing “to change the text of the protocol” is her basis for this Bill, it exposes yet another broken manifesto promise. Fourteen million voters who believed that promise have been betrayed.
All this is perfectly in line with the Government’s approach to Northern Ireland: they pick and choose issues depending on whether they serve whatever grievance they happen to have and be peddling at any moment in time. Their approach is reckless and neglectful. When the politics of Northern Ireland demand sustained, diligent support, the Government look the other way. When the Northern Ireland Executive collapsed in February, the Prime Minister did not visit Stormont to fulfil the vital role of honest broker to help the parties to find a way forward. He did make it to Saudi Arabia, India and the United Arab Emirates. Five months later, and only when the challenges in Stormont became unignorable, he found time for a fleeting visit.
The biggest challenge facing Northern Ireland is not the protocol; it is this neglectful Government. All parties in Northern Ireland want to see progress on the protocol. We on the Labour Benches have called for the EU and the Government to get back around the negotiating table. There are large areas of common ground that show that successful negotiation is possible, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) outlined eloquently. The UK, the EU and all parties in Northern Ireland have identified areas of improvement, and many of them clearly overlap. This appears to be the only negotiation in history that has failed because everyone agrees. We have consistently said that the EU must show more flexibility over Northern Ireland, but the way to unlock it is by engaging and negotiating—the very things that Britain used to be good at.
The overwhelming number of issues raised in the Bill are negotiable, with statecraft, diligence and graft. Take the veterinary agreement that New Zealand negotiated and signed with the EU. There were no rows, no psycho drama and no lawbreaking legislation. They just sat around the table and put in the hard work. With statecraft, diligence and graft, it is possible to reach an agreement on outstanding issues with the protocol. A veterinary agreement and a data sharing deal would remove the need for the vast majority of remaining checks. That is what this ultimately comes down to: identifying those remaining products that face undue red tape in their journey to Northern Ireland. With Britain’s great history of instigating, supporting and delivering global historic agreements, is it not reasonable to expect our Government to just get on and deliver it?
That is why we oppose the Bill. It takes us further away from the negotiated progress that is the only way forward. It is worth putting the scale of the current Tory incompetence in perspective. The previous generation, including John Major and Tony Blair, negotiated a framework that delivered peace in Northern Ireland. This lot cannot even negotiate a prawn sandwich across the Irish sea.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
I thank all Members who have spoken on Second Reading. I will attempt to respond to as many of the points raised as possible, perhaps leaving out the choice of sandwich that the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) has been talking about this evening and in various interviews. There have been a huge number of thoughtful and insightful speeches and a wide range of views have been expressed across this House. That shows the interest and the support, certainly from the Conservative Benches, for ensuring a resolution to the issues affecting the people of Northern Ireland.
The Northern Ireland protocol, while agreed with the best of intentions, is causing practical problems for people and businesses in Northern Ireland, including trade disruption and diversion, significant costs and bureaucracy for traders. It cannot be right that it is easier to send goods from Great Yarmouth to Glasgow than to Belfast—still a part, and an important part, of the United Kingdom. Everybody in the United Kingdom should be able to access products and goods in the same way.
Political life in Northern Ireland is, as it has been, built on compromise and power sharing between communities, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) outlined, but the protocol does not have the support of all communities in Northern Ireland. As a result, we are seeing both political and social stress in Northern Ireland, including the lack of functioning of both the Northern Ireland Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly, as rightly outlined by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland).
It is clear that the protocol has become a major political problem, and it is putting a strain on the delicate balance inherent within the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It is worth noting, and it might be forgotten from what some Opposition Members have said today, that all party leaders in Northern Ireland, at some stage or another over the past few months, have been clear that there is a need to change the Northern Ireland protocol. This legislation is about preserving the wider social and political stability in Northern Ireland, finding a more stable and sustainable solution, and ensuring that the frictions faced by businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland on goods coming from the rest of the United Kingdom are removed.
It remains the preference of the UK Government to achieve these benefits through negotiations. These are negotiations that have been conducted by the Foreign Secretary and predecessors over the past 18 months. The lack of flexibility that we have seen from the EU, as rightly outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), has led us to the point where it is right that we make a decision about taking forward a solution that works for the people of the United Kingdom and, within the United Kingdom, the people of Northern Ireland.
This Bill will enable us to implement a successful negotiated settlement as well. It is important to recognise that that will require a significant change in approach from the EU Commission, as a number of hon. Friends have outlined. I am afraid that that change has not yet been forthcoming. The scale of problems and the depth of feelings aroused by the protocol unfortunately, if anything, have been exacerbated, rather than eased by the current EU approach—whether it was through triggering article 16 over crucial vaccine supplies to Northern Ireland in January 2021, launching infraction proceedings following emergency easements to ensure the movement of food and parcels to Northern Ireland in March 2021, or repeatedly failing to show pragmatic flexibility in more than 300 hours of negotiations over the past nine months and continuing to insist on processes that would add to, rather than remove, the burdens currently felt by businesses moving goods to Northern Ireland.
John Redwood
Has my right hon. Friend noticed how Labour always takes the side of the EU, even when, as in this case, the EU is damaging the Good Friday agreement and diverting trade expressly against the legal provisions of the protocol?
Brandon Lewis
My right hon. Friend makes a fair point. He will know from attending oral questions to the Northern Ireland Office that I have regularly had to listen to the hon. Member for Hove at the Dispatch Box taking the side of the EU—but then, the hon. Member wants to rejoin the EU, so I suppose we should not be surprised.
We should also be clear about the reality, when we hear about the flexibility of the European Union and the offer it has made, based on its October offer. That would be a backwards step from the current situation, which is already not working for businesses and people in Northern Ireland.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Scottish nationalist party tonight votes against this great piece of legislation, it will be voting to continue the situation whereby Scottish seed potatoes—the best-quality and the healthiest seed potatoes in the world—will be banned from export to Northern Ireland?
Brandon Lewis
My right hon. Friend is renowned for always speaking good sense, as he did in that intervention. I can go further; I was given an example not too long ago about the frustration of people in Northern Ireland at not being able to secure a supply of trees from Great Britain to plant in the Queen’s canopy to mark the platinum jubilee, because of the threat to the single market. The last time I saw trees uproot and walk across a border was in “Game of Thrones”—I happily commend the “Game of Thrones” studio tour to everybody in this Chamber when they visit Northern Ireland—but that is not a real threat to the EU single market.
The lack of progress and the subsequent failure of the Northern Ireland power-sharing arrangements is exactly why we as a Government must be prepared to act in the best interests of Northern Ireland and for the stability and delivery of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
Karin Smyth
The Secretary of State talks about the movement of goods. When I was shadow Northern Ireland Minister, I repeatedly asked him, in the run-up to the final decisions, why he did not prepare British businesses better for the agreement he had made. He consistently said, “There is unfettered access, always, both ways.” Why were British businesses not prepared for the deal he agreed?
Brandon Lewis
We have delivered unfettered access from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. I appreciate that hon. Lady is talking about where we do have real challenges, with goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. There were flexibilities and vagueness, and some areas of the protocol, in terms of implementation, were not resolved. That was why we had the grace periods, why we had to extend the grace periods and why we now have the standstill. That is exactly why the EU’s offer, which it pretends provides flexibility, is a backwards step from where we are today; and it is why nobody in this House should accept it unless they are determined to do damage to Northern Ireland.
This legislation will fix the practical problems that the protocol has created in Northern Ireland. It will enable us to avoid a hard border, protect the integrity of the United Kingdom and safeguard the EU single market. The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) spoke at some length—more than half an hour—in his opening remarks, and yet in the totality of those remarks we heard no plan, no proposal and no alternative from the Labour party, just words. The same goes for the hon. Member for Hove.
There were two interesting points, however. The right hon. Member for Tottenham raised Magna Carta to show the importance of treaties. He is right that Magna Carta is an important piece of our history, but he may want to recall that there were 63 clauses in it, and treaties evolve; that is why only four of them remain in place today. He also outlined, and I quote:
“In our discussions, the DUP had consistently said that it wanted a negotiated settlement”.
I gently say to him that that seemed to be a surprise to all the DUP Members, so he learned something else—[Interruption.] He talks from a sedentary position, but he might want to check Hansard.
As I say, what we have heard is an outline of noise without any real proposals or any alternative. Many hon. Members, however, have raised important points around the question of legality, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). I can assure the House that this Bill is not just necessary, but lawful. Proceeding with this Bill is legal in international law and in support of our prior obligations to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The protocol is undermining all three strands of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, as the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) well outlined, and the institutions that underpin it. It is the Government’s assessment that this Bill is currently the only way to provide the means to alleviate the socio-political conditions while continuing to support the protocol’s overall objectives of including and supporting north-south trade and co-operation, in the interests of both the EU and the UK, by ensuring that we protect its single market while protecting the UK’s internal market. These are all aspects of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
We recognise that necessity can only exceptionally be invoked in lawfully justified non-performance of international obligations, as was covered very eloquently by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon. This is a genuinely exceptional situation. It is only in the challenging, complex and unique circumstances in Northern Ireland that the Government have decided to bring forth this Bill. It has always been this Government’s position that should the operation of the protocol or withdrawal agreement be deemed to undermine the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, this would take precedence as the prior commitment under international law. That was outlined back in March 2019 by the then Attorney General and the then Secretary of State for the Department for Exiting the European Union. That was not just the understanding of the UK Government; it was the basis on which the protocol was agreed by both parties. The text of the protocol itself is clear that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement should be protected in all its parts. We should all take note of the important and powerful words of Lord Trimble, an architect of the Good Friday agreement.
Many colleagues have raised article 16. We have always reserved the right to take safeguarding measures under article 16 and have made the case that since the summer of last year, the threshold had been met. This Bill is the most effective, efficient and sustainable way to address the far-reaching problems that have arisen as a result of the application of the protocol. Article 16 in itself does not solve the problems in the way this Bill will. It is not only temporary but starts another process.
Hon. Members such as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) talked about the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly. We have been clear with all parties in Northern Ireland that we do need to see, and I want to see, the Executive back up and running to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. That has to be a priority for all of us. We want to see that Assembly and Executive as soon as possible. The people of Northern Ireland deserve a stable and accountable devolved Government who deliver on the issues that matter most to them. It is clear from comments today that this Bill is a key component that will see the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly return, as we heard from the right hon. Members for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and for Lagan Valley. I think we can all welcome those comments. This Bill builds on that work. That is what I have heard in the conversations I have had in meeting all party leaders who want to see Stormont return.
The New Decade, New Approach agreement restored the devolved institutions after a three-year impasse, and we all need to work together to uphold the stability that it provided. We as a Government have a strong record in making sure that the institutions are up and running after too many years of hiatus. The New Decade, New Approach agreement, as set out in legislation, provides for a period of up to 24 weeks for Northern Ireland’s political representatives to restore functioning devolved institutions. I expect the parties to make full use of this time to engage with one another in earnest to restore fully functioning devolved institutions and to develop a programme of government that I have written to all the party leaders to encourage work on.
We do have a role on the international stage. The UK has shown what it stands for in the world, not just with rhetoric but with actions, through our extensive support of Ukraine, our unprecedented offer to those fleeing political instability in Hong Kong, and our leadership of international institutions that is demonstrated again this week at the G7 and NATO summits. We have led the way on climate change, as in so many other areas. That is why it is important, and we are focused on ensuring, that we are acting within the bounds of international law. Indeed, we have repeatedly emphasised that it is only the rare, exceptional circumstances in Northern Ireland that make this intervention necessary.
Stephen Kinnock
In a tweet that the Secretary of State issued on 1 January 2021, he said:
“There is no ‘Irish Sea Border’. As we have seen today, the…preparations the Govt and businesses have taken to prepare for the end of the Transition Period are keeping goods flowing freely around the country, including between GB and NI.”
Can he explain how that tweet is compatible with this Bill?
Brandon Lewis
Absolutely, and I appreciate the opportunity that the hon. Gentleman gives me to talk about what I said back in January. This highlights exactly the behaviour we expected from the European Union around inflexibility in implementing the protocol. What we have seen since has reinforced that point, and that lack of flexibility and lack of understanding of the nuances of Northern Ireland have led us where we are today. [Interruption.] I gently say to him, while he chunters from a sedentary position, that if he looks at the decisions we took last year to ensure that goods could continue to flow to Northern Ireland, he will see that we took them under criticism from the EU, but they have been vital to ensuring stability in Northern Ireland and access to at least those products that are flown overseas, as international partners have recognised.
The EU has recognised that there are problems with the Northern Ireland protocol; it is just not willing to show the flexibility that is needed to resolve those issues. We are clear that we will ensure that we protect the EU single market, a tiny proportion of which could be deemed to be at theoretical risk. That is why it is important that we get the balance right.
Ian Paisley
Can the Secretary of State use this opportunity to confirm something, because there will be businesses listening to his every word? In fact, he is probably box office tonight in Northern Ireland among many businesses. In relation to clauses 4 to 13 of the Bill, can he confirm that goods entering what is called the green channel—going from GB to Northern Ireland—will be treated in exactly the same manner as goods travelling from England to Scotland, or from England to Wales?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and it is absolutely our determination that the Bill will ensure a good, flexible free flow of products from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, in the same way that they would move from Great Yarmouth to Carlisle, Birmingham or London. That is what we want to deliver.
One of the reasons we have taken what colleagues refer to as the Henry VIII powers is to ensure that we work with business to make sure that those regulations deliver that free-flowing, flexible process without the bureaucracy that is deterring businesses from accessing Northern Ireland.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
The Secretary of State refers to an important point, namely the regulations that this Bill will make it possible to introduce. Clause 1 is clear that nothing in this Bill should harm the Act of Union. Will he confirm that the regulations that will be brought forward from this Bill will not do anything to harm the Act of Union?
Brandon Lewis
Absolutely, and that is why it was important to have that in the Bill—the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Let us be clear: for just under a quarter of a century, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement has been the foundation of peace, stability and political progress in Northern Ireland. All three strands of the agreement are under threat, as we stand here today, and that is a direct result of the protocol. This Bill is the route to a solution. It is legal, it is necessary and it is right for the United Kingdom. Most importantly, it is not just right for the whole UK; it is right for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland. It creates the environment to facilitate the return of a fully functioning Executive.
While the Opposition have voiced criticisms, they have proposed no alternatives. We are taking the decision to act to protect the hard-won gains of the peace process in Northern Ireland. We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland to fix the problems, and that is why, as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
|---|---|
Clauses 1 to 3, 15 and 16; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those clauses | Three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the first day. |
Clauses 4 to 6 and 24; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those clauses | Six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the first day. |
Clauses 7 to 11; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those clauses | Three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second day. |
Clauses 12 and 17; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those clauses | Six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second day. |
Clauses 13, 14, 18 and 20; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those clauses | Three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the third day. |
Clauses 19, 21 to 23, 25 and 26; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those clauses; remaining proceedings on the Bill | Six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the third day. |
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill
Wednesday 13th July 2022
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022-23 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 13 July 2022 - (13 Jul 2022)
17:15 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 231 / Noes: 313 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:30 - divided: - Ayes: 230 / Noes: 308 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:44 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 308 / Noes: 231 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:55 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 229 / Noes: 300 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:19 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 212 / Noes: 285 - Question accordingly negatived.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
“(za) comes into effect only in accordance with section 26(2A) to (2D);”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 2 to clause 26, which would require parliamentary approval for bringing into force any provisions of this Act.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 26, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
“(za) requires Ministers of the Crown to set out a legal justification for altering the effect of the Northern Ireland Protocol in domestic law”
This is a paving amendment for NC8.
Amendment 31, page 1, line 4, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).
Amendment 32, page 1, line 14, leave out from “Protocol” to end of line 15.
Amendment 5, page 1, line 15, at end insert—
“(e) provides powers to Ministers of the Crown that may be exercised only after good faith negotiations with the EU (through the mechanisms provided for in the Northern Ireland Protocol) have been exhausted and only with the approval of both Houses of Parliament and, where relevant, the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
This amendment would give primacy to a negotiated outcome between the UK and the EU and reflect the consent required by both Houses of Parliament and, where relevant, the Northern Ireland Assembly for powers conferred by the Act to be exercised.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 25, in clause 2, page 1, line 17, at end insert—
“(A1) This section is subject to section (Limitation of general implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol: approval of Northern Ireland Assembly).”
This paving amendment is linked to NC7.
Clause 2 stand part.
Clause 3 stand part.
Amendment 6, in clause 15, page 8, line 47, at end insert—
“(1A) In this section “necessary” means the existence of a situation of grave and imminent peril that relates to one or more of the permitted purposes.”
This amendment defines the standard against which a Minister can exercise powers conferred by clause 15.
Amendment 14, page 8, line 47, at end insert—
“(1A) In this section “unpermitted consequence” means an outcome that would constitute a risk to or detrimental on—
(a) Strand Two of the Belfast Agreement including the North-South Ministerial Council, cooperation and action under the Council or consultation and agreements in all its formats, areas of cooperation and agreed implementation bodies;
(b) Strand Three of the Belfast Agreement, the British-Irish Council and cooperation, common policies or common actions on matters of mutual interest for relevant administrations including on issues, and in ways, referenced in that section of the Agreement;
(c) the single electricity market;
(d) Northern Ireland‘s access to the EU Single Market to the fullest extent permitted by the Protocol;
(e) continuing opportunities for institutions, economic operators and civic interests in Northern Ireland to access and participate in EU programmes and frameworks as permitted under and/or alongside the Protocol;
(f) Northern Ireland‘s access to trade deals between the EU and third countries to the fullest extent permitted by the Protocol;
(g) the productivity of businesses in Northern Ireland and the competitive marketability of goods produced there (through costs or complications associated with possible dual route regulatory compliances).”
This amendment provides that a Minister cannot exercise powers for the permitted purposes in Clause 15 in terms that could entail harmful impact on dimensions of the Good Friday Agreement and/or economic interests of Northern Ireland.
Amendment 27, page 8, line 47, at end insert—
“(1A) But subsection (1) is subject to section (Excluded provision: Parliamentary approval).”
This is a paving amendment for NC9.
Amendment 7, page 9, line 8, after “if” insert
“it does not cause one or more unpermitted consequence and if”.
Amendment 8, page 9, line 15, at end insert—
“(d) Article 18 (Democratic Consent in Northern Ireland)”.
This amendment adds Article 18 (Democratic Consent in Northern Ireland) of the Northern Ireland Protocol to the list of articles that a Minister of the Crown cannot exercise powers conferred by subsection (2) to provide cease to have effect in the United Kingdom to any extent.
Amendment 9, page 9, line 15, at end insert—
“(3A) A Minister of the Crown may not exercise the power conferred by subsection (2) until and unless the Minister has laid a report before both Houses of Parliament setting out the Minister of the Crown’s assessment of the necessity to exercise the power for, or in connection with, one or more of the permitted purposes and to state the one or more permitted purposes in question.”
This amendment places a reporting obligation on a Minister exercising powers conferred by section 15 to detail an assessment of why the regulations are necessary and to state the permitted purpose(s) relevant to that assessment.
Amendment 10, page 9, line 15, at end insert—
“(3A) A Minister of the Crown may not exercise the power conferred by subsection (2) before full consultation on proposed changes with, in particular—
(a) the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission,
(b) the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland,
(c) the Committee of representatives of the Human Rights Commission of Northern Ireland and Ireland, and
(d) persons whom the Minister considers appropriate as representatives of business, trade, economic interests and civic groups.”
Clause 15 stand part.
Amendment 40, in clause 16, page 9, line 19, leave out “the Minister considers appropriate” and insert “is necessary”.
This amendment changes the threshold for giving a Minister power to make regulations under this Clause. The threshold is amended to make it objective rather than subjective.
Clause 16 stand part.
New clause 1—Maintaining levels of environmental protection—
“(1) A Minister of the Crown must, before exercising the powers conferred by this Act, make a statement to the effect that in the Minister of the Crown’s view the exercise of the powers would not to any extent have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by any existing environmental law.
(2) The Minister of the Crown must seek the views of the Office for Environmental Protection before making a statement under this section.
(3) Any statement under this section must be published in such manner as the Minister of the Crown considers appropriate
(4) The Minister of the Crown must lay a copy of any statement under this section before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would ensure that the powers proposed to be conferred by this Bill could be exercised only if in the relevant Minister’s view this would not undermine existing levels of environmental protection.
New clause 2—Environmental principles—
“No regulations may be made under this Act unless—
(a) a policy statement on environmental principles has been laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly under paragraph 7(6) of Schedule 2 to the Environment Act 2021, and
(b) paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 to the Environment Act 2021 is in force.”
This new clause would prevent the exercise of any powers proposed to be granted by the Bill until the Department’s policy statement on environmental principles has been finalised and Departments and Ministers are under a statutory duty to have due regard to it.
New clause 3—Meaning of “environmental protection”—
“In this Act “environmental protection” means any of the following—
(a) protection of the natural environment from the effects of human activity;
(b) protection of people from the effects of human activity on the environment;
(c) maintenance, restoration or enhancement of the natural environment;
(d) monitoring, assessing, considering, advising or reporting on anything in paragraphs (a) to (c).”
New clause 7—Limitation of general implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol: approval of Northern Ireland Assembly—
“Section 2 of this Act has no effect unless it has been approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
This new clause would require the approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly before this Act could be used to limit the general implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol.
New clause 8—Publication of legal advice—
“(1) The Prime Minister must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the legal advice considered by the Government in respect to this Act which it received before the day of the First Reading in the House of Commons of the Bill for this Act.
(2) The Attorney General must lay before each House of Parliament the assessment made by Her Majesty’s Government of the doctrine of necessity in relation to the operation of the Northern Ireland Protocol prior to the First Reading in the House of Commons of the Bill for this Act.
(3) The Lord Chancellor must lay before each House of Parliament a report on to what extent the Bill for this Act was in accordance with Lord Chancellor‘s constitutional role in relation to the constitutional principle of the rule of law.”
This new clause requires the publication of the legal justification for the Bill for this Act.
New clause 9—Excluded provision: Parliamentary approval—
“(1) A Minister of the Crown may not make regulations that either bring into force any provision of this Act that makes any provision of the Protocol (or any related provision of the Withdrawal Agreement) excluded provision, or that make any such provision excluded provision, unless all three conditions in this section are met.
(2) The first condition in this section is that a Minister of the Crown has laid a statement before both Houses of Parliament setting out reasons—
(a) why, if no safeguard measures under Article 16 of the Protocol have been taken by the United Kingdom, the Minister of the Crown considers it appropriate to exclude a provision or provisions at that time rather than to do so only after the United Kingdom has taken such safeguard measures; and
(b) why and how, in the view of the Minister of the Crown, making the regulations is consistent with the international obligations of the United Kingdom.
(3) The second condition in this section is that the House of Commons has resolved, on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown, to take note of the statement under subsection (2).
(4) The third condition in this section is that a motion for the House of Lords to take note of that statement has been tabled in the House of Lords by a Minister of the Crown and—
(a) the House of Lords has debated the motion, or
(b) the House of Lords has not concluded a debate on the motion before the end of the period of five Lords sitting days beginning with the first Lords sitting day after the day on which the House of Commons passes the resolution mentioned in paragraph (a).”
This new clause would, except where the government had already adopted safeguard measures under Article 16, require Ministers to make a statement to the House as to why they thought it appropriate and lawful to treat provisions of the Northern Ireland Protocol or any related provision of the EU Withdrawal Agreement as excluded provisions; and to require a House of Commons vote, and a debate in the House of Lords, before those excluded provisions could be brought into force.
New clause 10—Condition prior to limitation of the Northern Ireland Protocol—
“(1) This section sets out the condition which must be satisfied before a provision of—
(a) the Northern Ireland Protocol, or
(b) any other part of the EU withdrawal agreement,
is excluded provision.
(2) The condition must be either—
(a) the agreement condition (see subsection (3)), or
(b) the Article 16 condition (see subsection (4)).
(3) The agreement condition is that the United Kingdom and the EU have agreed following negotiations that the provision is excluded provision.
(4) The Article 16 condition is that—
(a) the United Kingdom is unilaterally taking appropriate safeguard measures, in accordance with Article 16 of the Northern Ireland Protocol,
(b) before taking those measures, the United Kingdom has followed the procedure set out in Annex 7 to the Protocol (which governs the taking of safeguard measures), and
(c) the safeguard measures being taken necessarily require that the provision is excluded provision.
(5) Where the condition is no longer satisfied, then the provision ceases to be excluded provision, and as a consequence any regulations made dealing with excluded provision lapse to the extent that they relate to provision which is no longer excluded provision.
(6) For the avoidance of doubt, the provisions of this Act remain subject to section 7A(2) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, save where a provision of—
(a) the Northern Ireland Protocol, or
(b) any other part of the EU withdrawal agreement,
is excluded provision which has satisfied the requirements set out in this section.”
This new clause is intended to prevent Ministers from deviating from the international agreement that is the NI Protocol unless this has either been agreed to between the UK and the EU, or the UK have followed the procedure set out in Article 16 of the Protocol for unilaterally taking safeguard measures.
Sir Robert Neill
Amendments 1 and 2, the latter of which amends clause 26, relate to the commencement and operationalisation of the provisions in the Bill. I have drafted them in this way because of the nature of the Bill itself. We will come to amendment 2 on day three, but amendment 1 paves the way for it, so it may be convenient if I set out the thinking behind both amendments.
As was debated at some length on Second Reading—I will not repeat everything that was said—this is an unusual and rather exceptional Bill, and not necessarily in a good way. If fully brought into effect, the Bill would lead to the United Kingdom departing unilaterally from an international agreement and therefore breaking its obligations under both customary international law and the Vienna convention on the law of treaties, which is a grave and profound step for any Government to take.
I recognise that there are circumstances in which that step can be taken, and the Government asserted on Second Reading that the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol gives rise, or potentially gives rise, to those circumstances. The essence of it, though, depends on applying a factual evidence base to a legal test. The legal test in this case is essentially the international customary law convention of necessity, which is now enshrined in article 25 of the articles on state responsibility, which were adopted by the International Law Commission in 2001 and are recognised by the UN General Assembly, by our Government and by the international community as an authoritative statement of the law. Article 25 sets out that necessity may be invoked if certain tests are met. The point of these amendments is to say that if the Government, or any Government, were to take that step, they should do so upon the most compelling grounds, so that the factual basis for their actions met the legal test. The reputational consequences, politically, internationally and legally, are very significant, so this should be done only when that is thoroughly tested and set before this House to be tested.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
My hon. Friend is referring to certain tests of a reputational character, so I would be grateful if he would tell the Committee what those tests are right now.
Sir Robert Neill
I will be happy to talk about the essential tests of necessity, which are well recognised and well set out, as my hon. Friend knows. But the principle behind the amendment, which I will then go into the detail of, is precisely to say, “If you are invoking that doctrine, a most unusual thing to do, you ought to come to the House and set out the basis upon which you seek to do so.” The House would then have the chance to say whether or not we were prepared, on the basis of what the Government had put before us, to take the very exceptional step of putting ourselves in breach of a treaty obligation. That is the point.
Sir Robert Neill
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman first.
Sammy Wilson
On the question of necessity, does the hon. Gentleman accept, first, that we have dysfunctional government in Northern Ireland, and that the terms of the Belfast agreement have totally broken down and some have been removed? Secondly, does he accept that that has been brought about as a result not of actions by this Government, but by the protocol, the actions of the EU and the way in which it has insisted that it be applied? Thirdly, does he accept that the EU has not even tried to remedy this, because it has refused to negotiate, so necessity has been proved?
Sir Robert Neill
Let me return to that once I have set out the tests, because that is one issue that, with respect to the right hon. Gentleman—I do have much respect for him—the House ought to consider on the factual basis that is set before it. The first test is that departing from the treaty is the only means available to the state party
“to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril”.
I quote from the case law and the text of the convention. Let us just break that down. On “an essential interest”, it might be that the Government could, at some point, make a case to say that the disruption in Northern Ireland, be it economic, societal or political, gets to a stage where it could threaten an essential interest of the UK. I concede that, but I have not, as yet, seen the evidence to justify that.
Sir Robert Neill
Forgive me, but my hon. Friend asked me to set out the tests and I am doing so. The second test is the necessity to safeguard an essential interest against a “grave and imminent peril”. The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law has helpfully provided a briefing, setting out that that imports something that very grave indeed—it is a high test—with a degree of urgency to the matter. A possible, contingent or proximate risk does not come within the test of being a “grave and imminent peril”, and that is a risk with the way in which the Bill is drafted at the moment. Again, evidence might be produced to show that it does apply, and the Government might be able to make their case—they ought to do so.
Sir Robert Neill
May I set out the tests, as I was asked to?
The Government need to show that this is also the only means whereby they can safeguard the interest in question. The difficulty they potentially have there is that article 13 of the protocol makes provision for a renegotiation, which most of us would think is the right route to solve these problems, and that in the event of emergency measures, which one might think might be closer to meeting the test of an “imminent peril”, we would then use the unilateral safeguarding provisions under article 16. It might be difficult to argue that necessity is met if we have not attempted and cannot demonstrate that we have attempted those routes first, before moving unilaterally to breaching the protocol.
Robin Millar
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about necessity, and one that has exercised my mind. The Northern Ireland Court of Appeal said that the Acts of Union had been “subjugated” by the protocol. Therefore, what gravity and what imperative does he attach to such an existential threat to the Union?
Sir Robert Neill
It does not avail us in relation to the international law test, and the difficulty with this Bill is that it is seeking to disapply parts of the protocol in domestic law, but in a way that breaches an international obligation. In any event, could it be said that all available means had been taken to rectify that potential difficulty? That comes back to my point that the Government—any Government—should have to come to the House and set that out.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I admire the elegant way in which my hon. Friend has set out the three tests. However, the Joint Committee has been working at this for a long time and it has failed to make progress. At what stage, and in what circumstances, does he envisage that we could proceed on the basis of the provision we are debating at the moment? It seems to me that we have exhausted the possibilities and we are in the position of having to do this now to defend the Good Friday agreement. So why on earth is it necessary to have an amendment that would put another hurdle in the way of Ministers’ trying to resolve this?
Sir Robert Neill
With respect, I do not think the amendment would put another hurdle in the way, because it would not prevent the Bill from proceeding and it would not prevent what I know my right hon. Friend wants to see, which is a negotiated settlement. By far the best thing, which everyone in this Committee wants, is for the protocol to be renegotiated. I concede at once that the protocol is not working properly or as it was intended. I also readily concede that part of that is due to a rather intransigent stance taken by the European Commission and its refusal, for example, to give greater flexibility to Vice-President Šefčovič in his negotiating mandate. This is not an issue where all the fault is on one side at all. The EU has not acted wisely or helpfully in these matters, but that is not the same as saying that the international law test is therefore automatically made out as of now.
Sir Robert Neill
I will give way to my hon. Friend, probably for the last time.
Sir William Cash
I think that would be fine at this stage. My hon. Friend refers to “grave and imminent peril”. Does he not agree that at the heart of this entire problem lies the issue of the democratic deficit? I will not go into it now, but I will explain later that I think this is about the manner in which legislation is pouring into Northern Ireland from every side, like a tsunami, as we said in our European Scrutiny Committee report; we talked about starting with a small number of cars and turning into a motorway. The bottom line is that that is a grave and imminent peril, because of the constant and perpetual legislation, week in, week out, with no time or opportunity for people in Northern Ireland to say anything at any time.
Sir Robert Neill
The difficulty that my hon. Friend has is that that is an assertion. I am not sure that, as yet, we have had set out to the House the evidence base that the Government say they have and are working on. I referred the Foreign Secretary to that point on Second Reading, asking when we would see the evidence base that will set out the Government’s case and their reasoning.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend will recall that the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) raised the issue of the necessity standard applying in a context where a state has not contributed to that state of necessity. Does he feel that that provision has been activated or in some sense triggered by the present situation?
Sir Robert Neill
That is, of course, the fourth limb of the five-limb tests—that an essential interest of the EU member states should not be imperilled. I have to say that I do not think an essential interest is imperilled by this Bill, because it is clear that the risk of leakage into the EU single market has been minimal, even with the way the protocol is operating—or partially operating—now. That is probably the strongest ground that the Government have. But there is then the argument as to whether the party that invokes the doctrine of necessity has in some way contributed to the situation. I think that is more finely balanced, in fairness. I have seen the briefing from the Bingham Centre that suggests that that test is not met either. I am more prepared to give the Government some slack in that regard, but we need the evidence for that as well. After all, at the end of the day, the Government agreed the protocol—not long ago, in 2020—and did so on the basis of intending to operate it in good faith. That, of course, is a rather important reputation that this country has. My right hon. Friend is right to flag up those stages, but even before we get to them, I am not at all sure that we yet have the evidence before the House to justify the provision.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the knowledge and experience that he brings to the House, which we all very much appreciate. Does he agree with me, and probably others on the Opposition Benches, that Northern Ireland has been used as a bartering tool between the EU and the UK in trying to sort out some of the problems? Examples include whenever the vaccine was stopped for us and was then made available, all the tariffs, and regulations and red tape. All those things show that the process quite clearly is not working. Northern Ireland does not want to be a bartering tool between the UK and the EU; we want to be part of the UK. Does the hon. Gentleman understand why these issues are so important to us? I think he does, but I would like to hear his opinion.
Sir Robert Neill
I do understand that, which is why I have made it clear from the beginning that I am as much in favour of changes to the protocol as anyone else. Of course, the protocol had provisions written into it to enable those changes to take place, and that is what we would all want to see.
Let us be blunt: there will be a change of Prime Minister soon, and a change of personnel under those circumstances may—I hope it does—make negotiations easier. There has been a degree of strain in relations with the EU and the heads of some major Governments in the European Union. I very much hope that one consequence of what has happened is that it may be easier to rebuild and repair relationships and trust, and that could lead to a negotiated change, which would mean that this legislation was never necessary. Nobody would be more delighted than I—or, I suspect, anyone else in this House, including those on the Treasury Bench—if that were to be the case, but if the Bill is taken forward, we need proper safeguards to ensure proper parliamentary and democratic oversight of the way it is taken into force.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. Of course, Henry VIII only had six wives; this Bill has 19 delegated powers within 26 clauses. Does he agree that if we set a precedent that such legislation could be written here, it may be tempting for some Ministers to expand that precedent to other forms of legislation, so it is important that we confine whenever delegated powers are used—not just in this legislation, but to ensure that we uphold the primacy of this Chamber?
Sir Robert Neill
The hon. Lady makes a fair point. Those of us who have served as Ministers know that, frankly, all Governments use Henry VIII powers. We all tend to criticise them when we are in opposition and use them a bit when we are in government, if the truth be known. But the reality is that there are Henry VIII powers and Henry VIII powers; and this is Henry VIII, the six wives, Cardinal Wolsey and Thomas Cromwell all thrown in together, as far as I can see. The powers are almost Shakespearean or Wagnerian in their scope and breadth. That is the problem, and it is why we need some greater hold on how they are used.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) raised another important point. Very wide Henry VIII powers have been criticised by the Hansard Society and in the other place—and for good reason, because part of the whole objective of what we have done is recent years has been to restore parliamentary sovereignty. The danger is that that becomes restoring power to the Executive, rather than to Parliament. I say to my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches, we all know that Governments come and go, and once we set a precedent that gives sweeping powers to a Government with whom we may happen to agree, inevitably—as night follows day—there will be a day when a Government with whom we do not agree come in and use those powers in a way to which we might wish to object; it is better not to set too wide a precedent, anyway.
There is another difficulty with the powers. Clause 15 gives Ministers powers to add to excluded provisions. Not only is that extremely wide, but the clause refers to excluded provisions for “a permitted purpose”, without any further definition. In other respects, there is a test where the Minister may take any such measures in relation to the protocol as the Minister “considers appropriate”. That is an extraordinarily low test. Essentially, it lacks any kind of objectivity; it is a purely subjective test. Giving Ministers delegated powers to act in a purely subjective manner without requiring them to demonstrate the evidential basis on which they exercise those powers is a dangerous and difficult precedent to set.
In fairness, this Bill could not have been foreseen, but therefore could not be put in my party’s manifesto for the general election. It will be interesting to see—I know Ministers are well aware of this point—precisely what view the other place, which is anxious to examine the extent of delegated powers, takes on the matter. It might therefore be in the Government’s interest to progress the Bill to think about ways in which we can get a better balance, and ensure that there is a proper and proportionate hold on the powers.
I have covered the essence of what I needed to say. It comes down to whether the Government have a case—without going into the rest of the legal argument, I concede that they might be able to make that case—and whether that case might have grounds in law. I would say to my clients in the old days, “Just because it’s lawful doesn’t mean it’s a wise thing to do; just because you’ve got a case that you might argue, it might not necessarily be a good idea for you to go and argue it.” Sometimes litigation is best avoided and sometimes sweeping legislation is best avoided, if it is possible to find a better route.
It seems to me that if need be, it would not be unreasonable for the Government to come back to the House and make their case in relation to the specific items where they seek to disapply an international treaty. If they have a good enough case, the House will support them and they can get on with it; it can be done quickly and need not cause undue delay. That would at least ensure that we have acted within a reasonable and proportionate legal framework. At the same time, we could demonstrate that we are seeking, in good faith, to renegotiate. If we cannot do that, I suggest it would be prudent at the very least to invoke the article 16 safeguard provisions, either before or perhaps in parallel with those matters; we could show again that we have acted in good faith to do all that we could within the framework that exists, which is one of the important parts of a necessity test.
I hope that the Government will take on board those arguments, because they are pretty fundamental to the Bill itself and would not obstruct the objectives of the Bill—that is, getting the protocol changed or getting devolved government working in Northern Ireland, both of which we wish to see—but would enable them in a proportionate and constitutionally sound manner.
Several hon. Members rose—
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Just a gentle reminder that quite a few hon. and right hon. Members are wishing to catch my eye. I cannot impose a time limit because we are in Committee stage, but Members may like to bear that in mind.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). We have become good friends since both serving together on the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and I hold him in the highest of respect.
On behalf of my colleagues, I pay tribute to the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), who is in his place, for the work that he has done in bringing the Bill to this stage, and for the work that he did during his tenure as Secretary of State. He developed a good understanding of the difficulties in Northern Ireland with the protocol and the other issues. I know that it is his desire to move Northern Ireland to the next stage of the peace process to move towards reconciliation, but he recognised that there was a need to deal with these fundamental issues before we could get to that point. I thank him for the work that he has done in that regard. On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I extend our grateful appreciation.
I also welcome the new Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Shailesh Vara), to his place. I got to know him well when he was a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office and we look forward to working with him in the weeks ahead on the issues that confront us at this time.
I want to respond to the points that have been made in relation to amendment 1 and related amendments, to deal with the question of necessity in particular and the immediacy of the risk that has given rise to the Government introducing this legislation. I understand the points that have been made cogently here. Therefore, it is important, representing one element of the political community in Northern Ireland, to outline why we believe the Bill is necessary. We counsel against impeding the ability of the Government to press forward with this legislation.
On the risk, I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar). For us as Unionists, there is a risk to the Union in relation to how the protocol is being applied in Northern Ireland. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland have stated that the protocol subjugates article 6 of the Act of Union. That article confers on Northern Ireland citizens the right to trade freely within their own country. It states that there shall be no barrier to trade between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. No one could reasonably argue that the protocol does not put in place barriers to trade. It most certainly does and I hear that every day from my constituents, whether they are consumers or businesses, and the difficulties that they are facing in trading with the rest of the United Kingdom.
Those difficulties have led to political instability in Northern Ireland. They have had an economic impact in Northern Ireland and I would argue strongly that there is the potential for that to lead to societal problems. We on these Benches have worked hard to ensure that those problems have not arisen. When people have taken to the streets and engaged in violence, we have worked in local communities to prevent a repetition of that. That has been the case across the community. It does not mean, though, that there are not strong feelings, particularly within the Unionist community, about what this protocol means not only for trade, which is important, but for their identity and for their place in the Union. As we have seen over the years in Northern Ireland, when people feel that their identity is threatened, when they feel that their place in the United Kingdom is being undermined, that can lead to societal problems.
The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has rightly argued that, from his perspective, he is looking to see the immediacy of the risk, but I say to him that it is there, it is very real and I ask him to take on trust from my contacts within the Unionist community that it is bubbling beneath the surface and we have worked hard to try to ensure that that does not emerge.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
The right hon. Member has stated that the Union is at risk because of the protocol. I know that he is no big supporter of the Good Friday agreement, but does he not accept that very clearly written into that agreement is the principle of consent? That basically means that, no matter how much I want it, we cannot change the constitutional position of Northern Ireland until the people of Northern Ireland and the people of the Republic of Ireland vote for it.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I will come to the Good Friday agreement in my remarks, but I simply say to the hon. Member that there is a difference of view as to how we interpret what is required in terms of consent. Lord Trimble, as one of the key negotiators of the Belfast agreement, has stated very clearly that the principle of consent does not just apply to the final question as to whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom. The term “constitutional status” extends to these circumstances, where Northern Ireland’s constitutional relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom has been changed by virtue of the subjugation of the Acts of Union.
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman knows with what affection I regard him, his party and Northern Ireland, having had the privilege of being Advocate General for Northern Ireland. What he is saying is a very good case for triggering article 16, which was the entire purpose of the inclusion of article 16 in the protocol. It is not necessarily a good reason, however, for changing the entire basis of the treaty, including writing out the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and so on. How do we get from a position where we have societal impacts, with which I am perfectly willing to agree, to a position where we virtually rewrite the terms of a treaty that we solemnly signed only two and a half years ago?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I have great respect for the right hon. and learned Member, and I know of his affection for Northern Ireland. I think back to those very difficult and challenging days when this House was dealing with the pre-departure discussions about the laws that would have to be put in place around the treaty to leave the European Union. I thank him for the time that he took to understand the situation in regard to Northern Ireland.
I would say two things in response to the point that the right hon. and learned Member has, understandably, made. First, the Command Paper published by the UK Government one year ago last July set out the basis on which they believed that the conditions had been met for article 16 to be triggered. We have been very patient. We have waited and waited, and we allowed time for the negotiations with the European Union to go forward in the hope that the EU would show more flexibility. I do not doubt the integrity of Maroš Šefčovič as the lead negotiator, but the difficulty is that his negotiating remit is so constrained that his ability to deliver the change that is required to meet the need—to resolve the difficulties created by the protocol—is so limited that in the absence of a change of his remit, I do not think those negotiations will get anywhere.
Article 16 and the triggering thereof is a temporary measure; it is not a permanent solution. What I need, what Northern Ireland needs and, especially, what business in Northern Ireland needs is certainty. That is why we believe that the Government are right to bring forward proposals for a longer-term solution, and not just to go for the temporary fix—the sticking plaster—of article 16. That will create more uncertainty rather than giving us certainty, and it is certainty that we are looking for. That is why I think that what the Government have done is right in the circumstances.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I think my right hon. Friend responded fairly to the former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox), who has been a good friend to Northern Ireland over many years and knows our opposition not only to this protocol from the start, but to preceding arrangements that were proposed. Yet here we stand, with exactly the problems that we foresaw—the problems experienced by businesses, communities and consumers throughout Northern Ireland and the impact to our political arrangements—and still we hear every objection and reason why Government should not move.
Many people who now ask whether article 16 should be triggered were aghast at the notion it should be triggered a year ago. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is shaking his head, and I do not include him in that number. But at every stage, when Government have accepted, heard and acknowledged the crisis and the difficulty we have had with political and economic instability within our Province, there has been a good reason not to act, and still we remain without a solution. Does my right hon. Friend agree that now is the time to get on and provide the solution, not for us, but for everyone in Northern Ireland?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and that brings me to the heart of the issue for us—the threat to the Belfast agreement posed by the current situation.
Colum Eastwood
On the point about consent—we did get slightly distracted—I totally and absolutely disagree with the right hon. Gentleman and Lord Trimble on how they say consent works. It is not an elastic principle; it is about one thing, the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. If it is elastic, however, does it apply to Brexit, since that was a constitutional rupture for the people of Northern Ireland, and the people of Northern Ireland voted against it? If it applies to the protocol, why does it not apply to Brexit?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
Brexit did not change the constitutional status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. The protocol did that. The referendum on Brexit was a United Kingdom-wide referendum. The hon. Gentleman and I lead parties that have the word “Democratic” in their names; I accepted the democratic decision of the people of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, and I have fought ever since for the basis of that departure to ensure that Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom is respected.
That is at the heart of article 1 of the Belfast agreement. All parties to that agreement, including the Irish Government, accepted that Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom. Indeed, the Irish Government changed articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution to reflect the principle of consent and the reality that Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom. When I voted for Brexit, I certainly never voted to change the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, and that is not something the people of Northern Ireland have been asked to do.
Sammy Wilson
Does my right hon. Friend accept that Brexit was all about the United Kingdom’s relationship with Europe, not about relationships within the United Kingdom, and therefore it did not fall within the scope of the Belfast agreement? In response to the claim that article 16 is the way forward, would he accept, given the nature of the damage the protocol has caused, that even if article 16 were triggered, it is quite clear that any article 16 measures would have to be restricted in their scope and duration? We do not need a sticking-plaster; the problems that have been revealed with the protocol require long-term change. It should be changed by legislation, not by some temporary measure such as article 16 would allow.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
My right hon. Friend makes a strong point. To be clear, the greater issue for us as Unionists is our place within the United Kingdom and our ability to trade freely within that United Kingdom in accordance with our rights under the Acts of Union. That is fundamental to us as Unionists. I understand why the hon. Member for Foyle and, indeed, perhaps the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) will argue strongly that the protocol should be retained. I have heard their arguments for that, but let us be clear: the Belfast agreement respects the right of Unionists to adhere to their position and to support and uphold their position as part of the United Kingdom. It represents for us a fundamental change that that is now threatened and, unless that is corrected and resolved, it means that our confidence in the agreement itself and its ability to protect our place in the United Kingdom is fundamentally undermined.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I think we all agree on the principle of consent as set out in that agreement, but does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the one-sided approach taken by the Government and by his party is eroding support for the Union inside Northern Ireland and that, by contrast, finding a workable solution around the protocol would provide a soft landing, which might create a much longer perspective on the maintenance of the Union itself?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
The hon. Gentleman started out this journey as someone whose party advocated that the protocol should be rigorously implemented. Now he has shifted to saying that it should be rigorously retained. He cannot say that the protocol is creating problems and then not come up with viable solutions to deal with that. I have heard his solutions, but they do not have cross-community support in Northern Ireland. What we are looking to do—I believe that what the Government have proposed is capable of achieving this—is to resolve the issue in a way that meets the needs of everyone.
The Government’s proposals meet the needs of the United Kingdom, so that the integrity of our Union and of our internal market is respected. They meet the needs of the European Union, in so far as it takes measures to protect the integrity of the EU single market, to ensure that goods at risk of entering the EU are dealt with properly by this country in a way that meets its requirements. The proposals enable the restoration of the political institutions in Northern Ireland so that the Belfast agreement can continue to be the basis upon which we move forward there.
I believe that what the Government are proposing is not one-sided, but reasonable, measured and fair. There is so much focus on how the Government are doing this that we have lost sight of what they propose to do. Any objective assessment of the Government’s proposals can only conclude that they are reasonable and fair in all the circumstances and that their overriding objective is to protect the very delicate progress that has been made in Northern Ireland under the Belfast agreement.
In relation to agreement, and this is important, we have heard much about the need to ensure that the UK maintains its honour and its international reputation. However, I remind Members that the Belfast agreement is itself an international agreement, and the protocol undermines that agreement. It is an agreement whose co-signatories are the Irish and UK Governments. There was an international agreement attached to the Belfast agreement that was co-signed by those two Governments, making it an international agreement of international standing—indeed, one that has been approved in many international bodies across the globe. Therefore the protocol, in undermining that agreement, is harming an international agreement, and that needs to be addressed.
The basis on which the political institutions were restored in Northern Ireland at the beginning of 2020, after a three-year period in which Sinn Féin left Northern Ireland without a functioning Government, was the New Decade, New Approach agreement. Again, that was an agreement concluded by and involving the British and Irish Governments. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who was instrumental in bringing about that agreement, is in his place this afternoon. I remind the Committee that New Decade, New Approach—the basis on which my party committed to re-enter, and did indeed re-enter, government in Northern Ireland—included a commitment from the Government that they would protect Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market. That commitment was fundamental to my party deciding to re-enter government on the basis of that agreement, but it has not yet been delivered. Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market has not been properly restored. It is damaged by the protocol. It is impeded by the protocol. That is why in February this year I reluctantly took the decision to withdraw the First Minister from the Executive on the basis that other elements of New Decade, New Approach were being delivered, but the most fundamental element for the Unionist community was not being delivered. On that basis, we fought an Assembly election. My party obtained a mandate for the position that it has taken, and that mandate remains intact.
Sir Robert Neill
I respect what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. He referred to the importance of an objective test. Does he agree that that may not be enough for proper parliamentary scrutiny, which we must have for the regulations, and that before the Bill completes its passage in this House, the Government ought to produce the evidence base that might support the ground that he asserts—that the necessity test is met? That might make it easier for many people to accept the provisions of the Bill, rather than giving a blank cheque, which is the concern, as I am sure he will understand. That might make the passage of the Bill through the other place easier, because at the moment enactment could be a long way off. If the situation in Northern Ireland is so grave, would we wait until enactment or some other measure?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
Of course that is a matter for the Government, but I am all in favour of proper scrutiny of this Bill. That is why we welcome the fact that the Committee stage will take place over three days on the Floor of the House. I commend the Government for the way in which they have handled this. They are not running away from scrutiny. I invite the hon. Member to come to Northern Ireland, when he has time, and I will gladly introduce him to the businesses that are being harmed by the protocol. He can meet consumers who find real difficulties in purchasing goods from businesses in Great Britain. Indeed, some businesses in Great Britain—many of them, now in the hundreds—have decided no longer to trade with Northern Ireland, because it is all too difficult.
Sir William Cash
On Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman and I had an exchange on the democratic deficit. There is also the question of scrutiny. In terms of the political institutions and the voters of Northern Ireland, the situation is perfectly clear, as was indicated in the McAllister case where the judge used the word “subjugation”. The fact is that people—the voters—in Northern Ireland are being subjugated to the laws of the European Union in a manner that is inconsistent with our leaving the European Union. Does he not therefore agree that that democratic deficit is absolutely crystal clear and does not require evidence because it is so self-evident coram populo?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
That brings me to my final point, which is on the democratic deficit.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
But before addressing that I give way to the hon. Lady.
Stella Creasy
The right hon. Gentleman is talking about businesses and consumers who have been affected. Earlier on, his argument for this Bill was that it would somehow give the certainty that he says the protocol does not give to people. Can he, hand on heart, argue that he knows everything that will happen if the Government proceed with this legislation? Can he really tell his constituents that he can give them certainty in the chaos that we are talking about, which did not start with the protocol but started with Brexit? Where is his proof that this Bill provides certainty—the solution that he is missing—in comparison with what they know now? Better the devil!
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I am many things, but I am not a prophet, so I cannot say with certainty that this will happen or that will happen. But I can point to this: when the protocol, as part of the withdrawal agreement, was before this House, we warned then of the consequences of the protocol. We are not late to the table in recognising the real difficulties that the protocol would cause in Northern Ireland for businesses, consumers, and our place in the United Kingdom. I am certain that the proposals put forward by the Government in this Bill are reasonable, fair and proportionate, and will offer what business needs to continue trading within the United Kingdom and with the European Union. That is the kind of certainty that businesses are looking for.
Let me turn to the point raised by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), for whom I have great respect. This is very important. When the Government, and indeed those who supported Brexit, argued very strongly the case for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, it was about taking back control—control of our borders, our money and our laws. Yet in the part of the United Kingdom that I have had the honour and privilege of representing in this House for 25 years now, this does not apply. As he said, many regulations applying to business in Northern Ireland, and how we trade with the rest of our own country, are now being made in Brussels without any democratic input whatsoever from anyone in Northern Ireland—not from me and my colleagues as Members of Parliament, or from Members of the Legislative Assembly at Stormont.
There is a democratic deficit that means that we are having laws imposed on us over which we have no say. That is not taking back control in our part of the United Kingdom. In terms of money, our rules on VAT and on state aid, for example, are determined not by this Government—not by this place—but by the European Union. We have no input into how our VAT rules are drawn up or into the rules on state aid, which apply to support for businesses in Northern Ireland We do not have complete control of our money in Northern Ireland and we are losing out because of those restrictions. It is therefore very important for us that we get this right. I believe, as I said, that what the Government have proposed is fair and reasonable, and will restore Northern Ireland’s place fully within the UK single market.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Obviously the loss of input in being at the top table is a feature of Brexit. It is a feature of all countries that are members of the EEA single market, but not of the EU. Norway, Iceland and others do not get to make those decisions. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that he would prefer it if Northern Ireland were completely out of the single market? Being in the single market is the privilege that Northern Ireland has. It is helping its economy and it is supported by all business leaders. It was what Scotland asked for and was refused.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
We are not Norway; we are Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is not in the single market, and let us be clear about that. The protocol requires us to align our regulations on manufacturing of goods with those of the EU single market. We are out of the single market and we are out of the EU’s customs union, but we are required to abide by its rules. That is the position in which we find ourselves, and I say to the hon. Lady that the solution the Government are offering will enable businesses to continue trading with the European Union in a way that is helpful and beneficial for cross-border trade, for my farmers and for our agrifood processing industry. Things will still work for Northern Ireland, but the Bill will also ensure that we can trade freely with the rest of the United Kingdom, which we believe is fundamental to our rights as part of the Union.
In conclusion, we believe that this Bill has the potential to move us forward in resolving the problems created by the protocol. The regulations that will be put in place when this Bill is enacted are fundamentally important to delivering those solutions. The Bill will address the democratic deficit and mean that once again, all the United Kingdom has a say in how our money, our laws and our borders are controlled. Finally, it will enable us to restore political stability in Northern Ireland by seeing the political institutions back up and running again and protecting the Belfast agreement and its successor agreements, including St Andrews and New Decade, New Approach, which was the basis upon which we re-entered government. We will not re-enter government until we are clear and sure that what the Government are taking forward will deliver what we need for Northern Ireland.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)
I begin by thanking Members across the Chamber for their participation on Second Reading. I want to allow for thorough debate of the Bill in Committee, and to facilitate that, and because of the plethora of amendments and the number of people who wish to speak, I might not give way as much as I usually do. I want to facilitate the number of amendments and allow people to speak for themselves. I therefore want to make some good progress, because I am duty-bound to go through a large number of amendments in this opening speech.
As we have progressed to Committee—the House will know that the Government have generously allowed no fewer than 18 hours of debate time—it is necessary to reiterate some key points that go to the heart of why the Government have introduced this Bill. The Northern Ireland protocol, as the Committee knows, was agreed with the very best of intentions, but it is causing real problems, as has already been accepted across the House, for people and businesses in Northern Ireland, including trade disruption and diversion, significant costs and bureaucracy for traders. This legislation will fix the practical problems that the protocol has created in Northern Ireland. It will enable us to avoid a hard border, to protect the integrity of the United Kingdom and to safeguard the European Union single market.
Turning to the clauses under scrutiny today, clause 1 summarises the effect of the Bill and gives vital clarity on how it will function. The clause sets out three things: first, that the Bill provides clarity that the specific areas of the Northern Ireland protocol that are causing problems would no longer apply in domestic law; secondly, that it clarifies how other legislation, such as the Acts of Union, are affected by the Bill; and thirdly, that it provides vital clarity on the operation of the Bill and its position in relation to other domestic law.
Clause 2 underpins the essential functioning of the Bill by confirming that any part of the protocol or withdrawal agreement that has been excluded by the provisions of this Bill has no effect in domestic law. That is necessary and technical, but it is vital for the Bill to function, as without that provision, there may be a lack of clarity as to whether the existing protocol and EU law regime or the revised operation of the protocol has effect. Where this Bill or its powers do not exclude provision in the protocol or withdrawal agreement, that provision will continue to have domestic effect via the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as it does today.
Michael Ellis
I will give way in due course, if I may, because I will come on to the specific amendments, and it might be more prudent to give way at those points to the individual Members.
Clause 16 supports the functioning of the Bill by granting the power to make new arrangements in any cases where it becomes necessary to use the powers contained in clause 15. That means that new law can be made via regulations, if appropriate to do so, in relation to any element of the protocol or withdrawal agreement that has become excluded provision as provided for in the regulations made under clause 15. Clause 16 is vital to ensure the functioning of the Bill and prevent any gaps in the arrangements established underneath it. Without it, there is a risk of not being able to address properly any new issues arising from protocol provisions.
I thank Members for their contributions. The Government are committed to ensuring that the Bill goes through the appropriate scrutiny, with 18 hours set aside before the summer recess, while balancing the need for urgent action to ensure that protocol issues are rectified as soon as possible. Amendment 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), amends clause 1 and paves the way for his amendment to clause 26, which we will debate next week and which reflects a desire for Parliament to approve in a vote the provisions in this Bill before they can be commenced. I am cognisant of the fact that it was not two years ago that he famously introduced a similar amendment to another Bill, of which the Government broadly accepted the substance. However, the situation is not the same as it was two years ago.
Now, we face an urgent and grave situation in Northern Ireland, not a hypothetical one. We know that, as it stands, the EU is not prepared to change the protocol to resolve the problems we face—we have tried that repeatedly—and that there is no prospect of seeing a power-sharing Government restored in Northern Ireland if we are unable to tackle those problems. It is a simple fact. We need to be able to move swiftly, using the powers in the Bill to deliver the changes we propose and enable the protocol to operate sustainably.
Sir Robert Neill
I understand what my right hon. and learned Friend is saying, and I am grateful to him. However, if there is a need to act urgently, it is likely to be many months before the Bill completes its parliamentary passage. With respect, that is a contradiction. He is actually making a compelling case for using the article 16 safeguarding procedure.
Michael Ellis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. “Urgent” does not necessarily mean “immediate”; it means, “As soon as we can reasonably and practically do it.” I think he knows that. I will come to article 16 in due course, but we are going as fast as we can given when the House is sitting.
Additional parliamentary procedures after Royal Assent would risk delays to the regime coming into force, and undermine the certainty and clarity that we are looking to provide through the Bill. That would risk undermining the aim, which we all share, of seeing an Executive back up and running and delivering for the people of Northern Ireland, and risk real harm to businesses and citizens.
Michael Ellis
If I may, I will make some progress. The amendment is well-intentioned, but I hope the Committee will understand that our priority as a Government is to proceed in a way that best supports the functioning of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and its institutions, which in this case means giving certainty to the people of Northern Ireland that the regime we propose under the Bill will be in place as quickly as possible. That is why I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to withdraw the amendment.
Jesse Norman
Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), is the concession by the Government that “urgent does not mean immediate” not a plain acknowledgement of the fact that necessity does not apply, because it means there is no grave and immediate peril, which is one of the tests for necessity?
Michael Ellis
My right hon. Friend is conflating two issues. I will come to necessity in due course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst also mentioned article 16, and the reality is that it does not solve the problem at hand. It would only treat the symptoms without fixing the root cause of the problems. We need a comprehensive and durable solution to this urgent problem and certainty for the businesses and people of Northern Ireland.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
On durable solutions, does my right hon. Friend agree that the only durable solution is for the EU to listen to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) articulated about the needs of Unionism and for a British Prime Minister, in place from September, not to go moaning to their counterparts, as has happened over the past two years, but to grip the issue and solve it politically?
Michael Ellis
Of course, it takes two sides to discuss such matters and come to a solution. I think it has been accepted by all who have spoken so far that there has been some intransigence on the European Union’s side. That is the clear reality. For example, there have been more than 300 hours of discussions between the parties, over 26 meetings involving my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or her predecessor Lord Frost, and 17 non-papers. I am not sure how much more could be done in terms of negotiation; it does need two sides.
I will move on, as I have several amendments to address and I do not want to interfere with Members’ right to speak in due course.
On amendment 26 and new clause 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), she is right to raise the important issue of this Bill’s relationship with the UK’s international legal obligations. However, the amendment is not necessary. The Government have already published a statement setting out their legal position that the Bill is consistent with the UK’s international obligations. In line with the practice of successive Governments over several years, it summarises our position but does not set out the full detail of our legal advice. That is not something that any Government of any shade can do, and it is quite rare to give such a memorandum.
The statement makes it clear that the strain that the arrangements under the protocol are placing on institutions in Northern Ireland, and more generally on socio-political conditions, means there is no other way of safeguarding the essential interests at stake other than the Bill we propose. There is clear evidence of a state of necessity to which the Government must respond. As in other areas, it would not be prudent for the Government to publish evidence or analysis underpinning every point of legal detail—the lawyers in this House will know that that would be extremely inappropriate—particularly in advance of specific cases arising in potential future litigation. I therefore urge the hon. Lady not to move her amendment.
Layla Moran
The Minister is arguing that future litigation is why we cannot see the full legal advice, but it is precisely because future litigation is quite likely that this House deserves to see the full legal advice.
Michael Ellis
It is long-standing convention for very good reason that legal advice is not published in full. We know that, famously, from the Labour Government a couple of decades ago, when there was an enormous controversy about that. It stands as a very good reason, as I have discussed. However, we have published a memorandum on the matter that goes some way towards answering the hon. Lady’s question.
I move on to amendments 31 and 32 and new clause 10, tabled by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). The Bill is designed to bring swift solutions to the issues that the protocol has created in Northern Ireland. Those solutions are underpinned by the designation of elements of the protocol as “excluded provision”. Put simply, by excluding some elements of the protocol and withdrawal agreement in domestic law, the Bill is able to introduce, with the necessary certainty, the changes that are needed in Northern Ireland.
These amendments, through the conditions they would impose, would undermine the ability to exclude elements of the protocol and therefore undermine the entire operation of the Bill. The first condition in particular—that provision is excluded only if the EU and the UK agree to it—is obviously unworkable. Negotiations with the EU have so far been incapable of delivering the solutions that are needed, so to set that as a condition would clearly be dysfunctional. The second condition—that provision is excluded only if necessary as part of an article 16 safeguard—also fails to meet the needs of the situation. As I have said, article 16 has inherent limitations in its scope in that such safeguard measures could address some trade frictions, but not the broader identified impacts of the protocol.
In sum, the right hon. Gentleman’s amendments would unacceptably caveat the core operation of the Bill. In other words, they would be wrecking amendments preventing it from delivering the swift solutions in Northern Ireland that it is intended to provide, and that is why I ask him not to press them.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred earlier to the three bits of the protocol that the Bill specifically prevents from being excluded—namely, rights of individuals, the common travel area and other north-south co-operation—which he described as particularly sensitive. Could he explain to the Committee why he does not regard article 18 of the Northern Ireland protocol, which relates to democratic consent in Northern Ireland, as equally sensitive? Why is that not covered by the exclusion? As I read the Bill, the Government could, if they wanted to, change article 18. Is that correct?
Michael Ellis
I hope to come to the right hon. Member’s point more specifically in due course, if he will bear with me.
I want first to turn to amendment 5. We have always been serious about negotiations, and we remain so. The whole matter is sensitive and the whole issue is one that we remain serious about. Our preference remains to resolve the issues with the protocol through negotiations, and the Bill provides for this, so I welcome and endorse the sentiment underlying the amendment. It is clear, however, as I have said—I have to emphasise this, because it is not emphasised often enough in my view—that there have been over 300 hours of talks to date, in which the United Kingdom has shared 17 non-papers with our counterparts in pursuit of a solution.
Michael Ellis
I will not give way.
The European Union is not willing to entertain the changes that are necessary to fix the issues with the protocol, so the Government’s judgment is that, absent a change in stance from the European Union, we have to be realistic. Good faith negotiations to resolve the issues with the protocol have already been exhausted. As I say, there have been 26 separate meetings with the Foreign Secretary and Lord Frost.
Amendment 5 would require that this judgment be endorsed by both Houses of Parliament and, where relevant, the Northern Ireland Assembly, but this would not be appropriate.
Michael Ellis
I am not giving way, as I have indicated. I will give way in due course.
It has long been the position that the Northern Ireland protocol and negotiations regarding it are, like any other treaty, a matter for the Government, operating under the foreign affairs prerogative. The Executive must retain that prerogative for very good reasons. Because of the protocol, there is anyway no Northern Ireland Assembly currently sitting to provide the consent that this amendment would require. This Bill aims specifically to restore stability in Northern Ireland and a working Assembly—that is the very essence of it—so there is an essential flaw in the amendment’s logic in requiring the Assembly to approve the operation of the Bill. That is why I ask the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) not to press the amendment. Of course, the Government will continue to update Parliament and the Northern Ireland Executive, when they return, on the status of talks with the EU regarding the protocol, and to consult stakeholders in Northern Ireland on the operation of the Bill.
Michael Ellis
I am very conscious of the time and the number of amendments I have to get through, but I will give way again.
Julian Smith
Just on a point of clarification for the Committee, if the Northern Ireland Assembly is not up and running, the provisions in the Bill state that when the consent vote comes, the Assembly will be recalled and there will be a vote on that consent. I say that just so there is no lack of clarity for the Committee about the current provisions within the consent mechanism.
Michael Ellis
I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point.
With your permission, Dame Eleanor, I will speak to amendment 25 and new clause 7 together, which are in the name of the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry). The Bill is designed, as I have said, to bring swift solutions to the issues that the protocol has created in Northern Ireland. These solutions are underpinned by the designation of elements of the protocol as “excluded provision”. Put simply, it is by excluding some elements of the protocol and withdrawal agreement in domestic law that the Bill is able to introduce, with the necessary certainty, the changes that are needed in Northern Ireland. By requiring the prior approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the amendments would undermine the ability to exclude elements of the protocol, and therefore undermine the entire operation of the Bill. That is unworkable. Because of the protocol, no Northern Ireland Assembly is currently sitting to pass the approving resolution that the amendment would require. The Bill as introduced aims specifically to restore stability in Northern Ireland, and a working Executive and Assembly. Therefore, in requiring the Assembly to approve the operation of the Bill, there is an essential flaw in the logic of the amendment.
As the hon. Member for North Down will be aware, the Sewel convention applies to this Bill, as it does to all Bills of this Parliament that intersect with devolved competence. I confirm that in the absence of functioning institutions, senior officials in the Foreign Office have already made contact with the head of the Northern Ireland civil service regarding legislative consent, and we hope to reach a positive solution as soon as the institutions are restored. By contrast, the amendment would allow the Northern Ireland Assembly to constrain the UK Parliament’s power to legislate, even if that legislation related to a reserved matter. That, of course, is wholly inappropriate under devolution arrangements. The Government will consult stakeholders in Northern Ireland, including Members of the Assembly, on the operation of the Bill during its passage and thereafter. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Stephen Farry
The Minister has mentioned the word “logic” on several occasions and linked the necessity of the Bill to the restoration of power sharing. Does he recognise that there is a real danger in setting a precedent of linking the two together? Have the Government considered a scenario in which Sinn Féin reacts to the Bill and, very regrettably and irresponsibly, withdraws from power sharing? Where does that leave us? Are we any better off? Are we not in a different form of crisis?
Michael Ellis
I will come on to the hon. Gentleman’s question—forgive me; I was distracted. Would he reiterate his point?
Stephen Farry
I will happily do so. I am talking about a situation in which the Government have linked the passage of the Bill to the restoration of power sharing in Northern Ireland. I am asking on a point of logic: if a dangerous precedent is set by that, how do the Government respond to a situation where, as a reaction to the passage of the Bill, Sinn Féin, very irresponsibly and regrettably, walks out from power sharing devolution and leaves us no better off overall?
Michael Ellis
My understanding is that Sinn Féin is willing to go back in and has not set preconditions. That is the actuality of the position, rather than the hypothesis raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Michael Ellis
Forgive me, but may I move on to the issue of necessity, since a number of Members have mentioned that and it may be relevant? On amendment 6, I understand the desire of the hon. Member for Foyle for the Bill to be clear about the powers that it confers to the Government. However, it is essential that the Bill confers necessary powers for the Government to deliver a durable solution to the serious difficulties that the current implementation of the protocol is causing. Those include, as we know, the undermining of the functioning of institutions established by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
Amendment 6 confuses an international law concept—the doctrine of necessity, which is long established and well understood—and a domestic statutory one, which concerns the appropriate tests for Ministers exercising powers given to them by Parliament. It is essential that the Bill delivers clarity and certainty for the people of Northern Ireland, and amendment 6 would undermine that. I add the caveat that it is the responsibility of Government to deliver a durable solution to the issues the protocol is causing, in order to protect the Belfast agreement. Any unnecessary additional conditions to the exercise of the powers necessary to deliver that solution will only reduce the clarity and certainty of the Bill and what it does to provide for the people of Northern Ireland. That would undermine our ability to get the Executive back up and running, which is a desire I know we all share. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Amendments 7 and 14 were also tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle. The Bill will fix the practical problems that the protocol has created in Northern Ireland. That avoids a hard border, protects the integrity of the UK and safeguards the European Union single market. I am therefore entirely sympathetic to the sentiment behind the amendments. The Government are motivated by the same concerns that underlie them. We are moving quickly with this Bill—as quickly as possible. That is our focus, because the situation is pressing.
The power in clause 15, which among other things would allow Ministers to reduce the amount of the protocol that is excluded, is designed to ensure that we are able to get the final detailed design of the regime right. Its use is subject to a necessity test against a defined set of permitted purposes. It is essential that that power can be used quickly if needed. Amendments 7 and 14 would pre-emptively prohibit certain uses of the power, but I submit to the Committee that the proper way to scrutinise its use is in this place. All regulations are subject to scrutiny, under either the negative or the affirmative procedure, so it is not as if anything would be set aside without that scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman’s amendments would also do nothing to resolve a potential clash between the permitted and the unpermitted—for example, a security and global market access intention—so they would risk tying the Government’s hands behind their back just when they would need to be most agile. For those reasons, I ask him to withdraw amendments 7 and 14.
Sir William Cash
I am listening with great interest to the series of amendments that my right hon. and learned Friend has been dealing with and asking Members to withdraw. Has he noticed that amendment 1 is neither chicken nor egg, and that there is no reference in it to any evidence test? I am slightly surprised that at the moment, we are not quite clear as to whether it is going to be suggested that that amendment be withdrawn.
Michael Ellis
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will have heard what my hon. Friend has said.
I will now turn to amendment 27 and new clause 9, tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). The Bill is designed to provide swift solutions to the issues that the protocol has created in Northern Ireland. Those solutions are underpinned by the legal designation of elements of the protocol as excluded provision. Put simply, it is by excluding some elements of the protocol and withdrawal agreement in domestic law that the Bill can introduce the changes that are needed in Northern Ireland with the necessary certainty. Through the conditions they would impose, the hon. Lady’s amendments would undermine the ability to exclude elements of the protocol, and therefore undermine the entire operation of the Bill. I would also argue that they are unnecessary, because the actions they require are already being taken in practice during the passage of the Bill. By voting on its passage, both Houses of Parliament have an opportunity to indicate their approval for the principle of excluding elements of the protocol.
The Government have already clearly set out in the statement of 13 June that we consider the legislation to be lawful in international law. We have also already been clear on why we are not using the article 16 safeguard mechanism: it has inherent limitations on its scope, in that such safeguard measures could address some trade frictions but not the broader identified impacts of the protocol. It is therefore unnecessary to oblige the Government to repeat those statements before exercising the powers conferred by the Bill, which is why I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendments.
Stella Creasy
The Minister has said that my amendments are not necessary. That is very welcome, because new clause 9 requires the Government not just to tell us that they believe they are acting within international obligations, but to set out how, so that the House has a chance to confirm that it is not in breach of those obligations. If that is not necessary, can the Minister set out for us how he believes the legislation is in line with international obligations—not that it is, but specifically how?
Michael Ellis
I commend to the hon. Lady the legal memorandum that was published by the Government. It is, I think, only the second time that a Government of the day has published such a legal document, and it is exceptionally useful. We cannot publish the full legal advice—no Government can do that.
I will now turn to amendment 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle. I certainly sympathise with the intention of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, but I reassure him that it is also entirely unnecessary. The Government have no intention whatever to use the power in clause 15 to alter the operation of the domestic consent mechanism, which I think answers the point that was made earlier on the Opposition Benches.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Has the Minister ever heard the Opposition point out that the EU is breaking the protocol by diverting our trade and undermining the Good Friday agreement? Has he ever heard them asking to see the legal advice that the EU purports to use when it is so clearly violating the protocol?
Michael Ellis
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, as usual. I have to say that I have never heard those requests.
Amendment 10, again tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle, relates to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. They are, of course, important and well-respected institutions. They were established on the basis of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. They undertake important duties and any change to their remit should not happen arbitrarily. The Government engage regularly with the commissions and they have powers to provide advice to the Government on issues arising from article 2 of the protocol. The Government have engaged broadly on the issues created by the protocol with stakeholder groups across business and civic society in Northern Ireland, the rest of the United Kingdom and internationally. In fact, the engagement has been considerable. As the Committee will know, the Bill provides specific powers to establish a new regime in Northern Ireland which addresses the issues with the current operation of the protocol. We are consulting stakeholders on the detail of how the powers are to be used. We will give plenty of notice to those affected in due course. Therefore, amendment 10 would compel the Government to do what, in many cases, they already intend to do.
We are moving quickly with the Bill because the situation in Northern Ireland is pressing. The power in clause 15 that would, among other things, allow Ministers to reduce the amount of the protocol that is excluded is designed to ensure that we can get the final, detailed design of the regime right. Its use is subject to a necessity test against a defined set of permitted purposes. It is designed to provide stakeholders in Northern Ireland with certainty that the Government will deliver the solutions that we have outlined to the problems that the protocol is causing.
It is essential that the power can be used quickly if needed. Although, in normal cases, the Government will of course engage with stakeholder groups in Northern Ireland, there may be occasions when the urgency of a situation means that the Government need to act swiftly. This amendment risks tying the Government’s hands behind their back, and that is why I ask the hon. Member for Foyle not to press it.
Amendment 40 is in the name of the right hon. Member for Tottenham, who I do not think is in his place. This is the first of a number of amendments from him in the same vein, to which the Government have a single view. The amendment would replace the test of “appropriateness” in the use of the Bill’s delegated powers with one of “necessity”. Members should not confuse this with the international law doctrine of necessity, as the right hon. Member is doing.
The question covers well-trodden ground. Members may remember the extended debates on this topic during the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The powers there are similar to those in this Bill, the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 and the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020. I note that the House and their lordships in the other place ultimately accepted that the word “appropriateness” in this context was, in fact, appropriate.
The word “necessary”, which this amendment seeks to import, is a very strict legal test for a court to interpret. Where there are two or more choices available to Ministers as to what provision is appropriate to address the issues that the protocol has created, arguably neither one is strictly necessary, because there is an alternative. Ministers need to be able to exercise their discretion to choose the most appropriate course. That is why the word “appropriate” is the correct word.
There are clearly multiple choices in how to replace the elements of the protocol that no longer apply in our domestic law. The Government must propose that which would be the most appropriate choice. That is why we have chosen that word. I therefore ask the right hon. Member not to press his amendment.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before the Minister comes to his next point, I draw to his attention that a great many people wish to speak in the debate. A lot of people have a right to do so because they are proposing amendments to which I would like to give them time to speak. The Minister has had the floor for 41 minutes. I hope that he might soon be able to draw his remarks to a close, possibly by addressing just the essential parts without the peripheral parts. In that way, there might be enough time, as we have only an hour and a half left of the debate.
Michael Ellis
I am in full agreement with you, Dame Eleanor, and I am coming rapidly to a conclusion with my points on new clauses 1, 2 and 3, which relate to the Government’s approach to environmental protection and principles as related to the Bill. They introduce new provisions to the Bill that require Ministers of the Crown to provide statements on the environmental impacts of any powers taken under the Bill prior to being able to exercise those.
I understand the desire of the hon. Member for Foyle to ensure that our high environmental standards are upheld across the United Kingdom. In the UK, we already have some of the highest standards of environmental protection in the world. We have no intention of weakening or lowering those standards. The Government are proudly committed to enshrining better environmental protections in law to demonstrate a firm commitment to the highest environmental standards, as we did in the Environment Act 2021.
The UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive are already held to account by the independent Office for Environmental Protection, which was created under the Act and has a statutory duty to monitor and report annually on progress on improving the environment in accordance with the UK Government’s environmental improvement plans. The OEP also monitors the implementation of, or any proposed changes to, environmental law, and may hold the Government and public authorities to account for serious failures to comply with it. In addition, the Act already creates a duty on Ministers to be guided by five internationally recognised environmental principles when making policy.
In that context, new clauses 1, 2 and 3 are not necessary, as their purpose is served by existing protections, both practical and legislative. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Foyle not to press the new clauses.
May I return very briefly to the consent mechanism, which operates on an international level? We are committed to the 2024 consent vote, which was a principal goal of the Government’s negotiation, as I alluded to a short time ago.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I am grateful that you are in the Chair today, Dame Eleanor, and that I have the opportunity to speak in this debate. As the new Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Shailesh Vara), is in his place, may I start by welcoming him to the job? I hope that we will have the chance to have exchanges into the future. As I have already reassured him, when this divisive period—which includes the contents of this Bill—passes, I hope that there will be more opportunity to find common ground. His predecessor, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), was present a little earlier; that would have been a good opportunity to pass on my sincere gratitude for the way in which he dealt with me when he was in the Department.
Clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill deal with the intention and the main powers. New clause 10, which I will be pushing to a vote, attempts to inject at least some respect for the rule of law into the Bill. The Opposition are also supporting the SDLP’s amendment 8.
The Bill tells us everything we need to know about the Tory party of today, because it represents an abdication of all responsibility—the responsibility to play by the rules, the responsibility to be honest about our actions and their consequences, the responsibility to honour our commitments made on behalf of our country. On Second Reading, the Foreign Secretary declared herself a patriot. Patriotism includes our flag, of course, but it is also about our values. To me, those values should unite all democratic politicians, irrespective of political party. They include respect for the rule of law and equality before it; respect for human rights and the institutions that defend them; and respect for commitments, foreign and domestic, voluntarily entered into and collectively applied.
It says a lot that simply describing those values sounds like a criticism of the Conservative party, the current Prime Minister and almost certainly the next. It is most certainly a criticism of the Bill, which not only breaks convention—the law—but betrays our values as a Parliament and as a country. The Bill exists because the Prime Minister was not honest about the full nature of the Brexit deal. That was followed by a manifesto that promised that his deal was “oven-ready” and vowed to the public that there would be no renegotiations of it.
It is easy for Ministers to dismiss my criticisms, because they are the words of an Opposition spokesman, so how about the words of one of their leadership contenders—of someone running to be their next leader and our Prime Minister? All the contenders have trashed the Tory record in office, so let us take just the most recent example. This morning, the right hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) said:
“The British people…are fed up with us not delivering, they are fed up with unfulfilled promises”.
She is right, and the Conservative manifesto promise not to renegotiate is presumably part of the problem that she describes.
Sir William Cash
Can the hon. Gentleman explain how it is right for the voters of Northern Ireland to be subjugated to laws that are passed in the Council of Ministers behind closed doors, without even a transcript? How does he justify that? Does he not agree that that is a grave and imminent peril to the people of Northern Ireland?
Peter Kyle
The question that the hon. Gentleman is asking is three years too late. It should have been asked as the Government were negotiating, proposing and delivering the protocol in the first place. The debate here today is not about the nature of the protocol as signed into international law; it is about the way in which the Government have failed to negotiate their way forward, and seek to break the commitment that they made.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I am appealing to the hon. Member. He can use this opportunity to stand here and slag off the Government—a slagging off that they probably deserve—but that is not going to solve the problem. Can he confirm that he will support the clauses that will fix the problem?
Peter Kyle
I certainly do support the new clauses and the amendments that I am putting forward, which I believe will go some way towards fixing the problem, and of course I will, in the hon. Gentleman’s words, “slag off” the Government and the Prime Minister, because it was the Prime Minister who went to the people of Northern Ireland and promised that over his dead body would there be a border in the Irish sea, and then went home and delivered it. I will be critical of the Government who treated Northern Ireland in this manner. I accept that the Democratic Unionist party, and others in the Unionist community, opposed the protocol from the beginning, and they oppose it now. They have been consistent, while the Conservative party has not.
Peter Kyle
I certainly will not be giving way to someone who did not show the courtesy to be here for the whole debate.
Peter Kyle
No, I will not give way. If the right hon. Gentleman were really committed to this issue, he would not have walked in halfway through and started intervening on people. The time to be here was at the beginning, and then he should be here in time to make a speech.
Peter Kyle
I will give way, but then I will make some progress, because I am very keen to hear from other Members.
Dr Whitford
Is not the problem with this Bill that it will not give voice to people in Northern Ireland or their representatives? It puts all the control in the hands of a Government Minister here in Westminster.
Peter Kyle
As we have seen throughout the Government’s response to the challenges of Brexit, they have repatriated powers from the EU but have hoarded them, often not just for Whitehall but for themselves. These often end up being the powers of patronage that Ministers have wielded for their own benefit, and for the benefit of the political party that we see opposite us, rather than for the benefit of our entire country.
For 25 years, the balance between majority opinion and the power-sharing between both communities in Northern Ireland has been a delicate one, but, extraordinarily, this Bill fails on both. To gain the support of one community, they are in danger of losing another. On top of that, a majority of Assembly Members have signed a letter rejecting the Bill. The Bill might persuade some in the short term, but it will not get Northern Ireland back on track into the long term.
Peter Kyle
I will make some progress, because I know that many of the Members who are now seeking to intervene will be making speeches, and I look forward to those.
The legislation before us today flies in the face of our values as a country, and those that many of us used to associate with the Conservative party. It will break international law, and in so doing will damage our reputation with our closest allies; and for all that damage, we get so little benefit. The Bill will not move us forward one iota in addressing the long-term challenges facing the trading circumstances of Northern Ireland while respecting the unique circumstances that have delivered peace, stability and progress in the years since the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement was signed.
The Government’s stated preference is still a negotiated solution. However, at the very beginning of the Bill, clause 1(a) states:
“This Act…provides that certain specified provision of the Northern Ireland Protocol does not have effect in the United Kingdom”.
Unilaterally changing an international agreement does not further negotiations. With months of falsehoods, sleaze and squalor, the Conservative party has brought the Government into disrepute. Now they are in danger of bringing our country into disrepute as well.
Even worse, Northern Ireland is again being used as a plaything in the Conservative leadership contest. The Foreign Secretary, who is supposed to be leading negotiations with the EU, is instead parading her inability to reach agreement with it as a key reason for people to vote for her. Multiple contenders have now said that they are willing to leave the European convention on human rights, which would be a straightforward and outright breach of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement that they all claim to cherish.
Yesterday I read an extraordinary article in The Times, written by the current Attorney General. This Bill is legally contentious, and it is the Attorney General who provides the legal basis for it. Her advice is supposed to be impartial, yet she wrote:
“The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill needs to be changed so that it actually solves the problem. That means VAT, excise and medicines should be under UK law from day one—currently they are not. The bill’s ‘dual regulatory regime’ lets EU law flow into Northern Ireland in perpetuity. We need to sunset that and provide a mechanism for moving to Mutual Enforcement. Otherwise we’re giving Brussels a legislative blank cheque. These are all changes I’ve been fighting for while in government. Without them, the bill treats people living in Northern Ireland as second-class citizens.”
We have collective responsibility in this country: one Cabinet Minister speaks for all. Will the Government be taking forward the amendments that the Attorney General has suggested because she represents collective responsibility? Can publishing these views as part of a leadership pitch be reconciled with the duty to give impartial advice on this Bill? And can we trust the previous advice she has given, which seems contrary to so many expert views? These questions should all be answered before the Government proceed with this Bill.
This lamentable, unprecedented situation underscores the sheer irresponsibility of a caretaker Government proceeding with a Bill of this nature. It is contentious, it has become a political football in a surreal leadership contest and it breaks a manifesto pledge. Today marks one new low, even for this rule-breaking, convention-trashing Government.
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. I want to refer him back to the point made by the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) about the illogicality of the Government deciding that one party should go back into the Assembly. Does my hon. Friend agree that that might not stop in the future, and that another party could come to the UK government and say, “We will go back and we will want something from you.” What would the Government say then? Being bipartisan has been an important part of our history in this House, both in ignoring Northern Ireland since 1920 and then in trying to do something about it. Does my hon. Friend agree that the point about one side being adhered to was a useful one?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her thoughtful contribution; I know that she cares deeply about these issues. Since I have been in this job I have striven, as I hope my friends in the DUP will acknowledge, to take them on their own terms when they express so strongly the existential challenge they face in the protocol. I have also tried to do so for other parties representing other communities in Northern Ireland. It is a shame that, to date, the Government have not striven so hard to take other parties on their own terms and engage with them right the way through. If they had done so, I simply do not believe we would be in the position we are in today.
This afternoon we will quite simply be voting on whether to uphold the rule of law. Expecting a Government to keep their legal obligations should not be partisan. Many Members on the Conservative Benches spoke powerfully on Second Reading about the weakness of this Bill. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the former Prime Minister and former leader of the party, said the following:
“My answer to all those who question whether the Bill is legal under international law is that…it is not.”
She went on to say:
“As a patriot, I would not want to do anything to diminish this country in the eyes of the world. I have to say to the Government that this Bill is not in my view legal in international law, it will not achieve its aims and it will diminish the standing of the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world. I cannot support it.”—[Official Report, 27 June 2022; Vol. 717, c. 64.]
The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said:
“The Bill risks economically harmful retaliation and runs the risk of shredding our reputation as a guardian of international law and the rules-based system. How in the name of heaven can we expect to speak to others with authority when we ourselves shun, at a moment’s notice, our legal obligations?”—[Official Report, 27 June 2022; Vol. 717, c. 55.]
The right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) said that
“the Bill we are proposing to put through this House tonight will be a gross breach of international law if it is enacted and implemented.”—[Official Report, 27 June 2022; Vol. 717, c. 88.]
We also have the views of experts such as the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, which said:
“The Bill is in clear breach of international law as it seeks to change unilaterally the domestic effect of an international agreement that the UK has signed up to, without legal justification.”
New clause 10 is intended to prevent the Government from breaking our legal obligations by requiring either of two conditions to have been met before they can use powers to start to exclude parts of the protocol.
Peter Kyle
No, I have given way once. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to catch the Deputy Speaker’s eye, and I look forward to his contribution.
New clause 10 would ensure that all legal avenues are pursued, which I hope is entirely in line with the intervention made by the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox). He sought to clarify this point with particular reference to article 16, which I will address momentarily. I am pleased that he is still in his place.
The condition must be either the agreement condition or the article 16 condition:
“The agreement condition is that the United Kingdom and the EU have agreed following negotiations that the provision is excluded provision.
The Article 16 condition is that the United Kingdom is unilaterally taking appropriate safeguard measures, in accordance with Article 16 of the Northern Ireland Protocol”.
New clause 10 does not wreck the Bill or prevent its provisions from ever being used; it simply ensures the Government stick to our legal obligations before taking action.
It is wrong to rely on the doctrine of necessity to justify this Bill, as the Government’s legal position does. For necessity to be applicable, the Bill would have to be the only way for the UK to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent threat. Uniquely, the Government’s position is that the protocol they designed and agreed is a grave and imminent threat. By their own admission, this Bill cannot be the only way to address the protocol because Ministers still say they are seeking a negotiated solution with the EU. It just does not make sense.
Labour has been clear all along that we want the EU to show more flexibility in the negotiations. The Government must think progress is possible, too, because they are still pursuing negotiations even at this point. The agreement condition of new clause 10 recognises that, as a legitimate starting point for improving an international settlement that we have signed up to, article 13.8 states that the UK and the EU can supersede the protocol, so long as any subsequent agreement indicates the parts that will be altered—in other words, if it is negotiated. The Government should be focusing all their energies on reaching an agreement instead of wasting time on this Bill, which will do more harm than good and is never likely to make it into statute anyway.
The article 16 condition is another route the Government could take if they were going to act within the law. Negotiation should be the top priority for addressing the protocol challenges but, if the point comes where negotiation is no longer viable, safeguard clauses already exist in the protocol itself. Let me be clear that necessity cannot be relied on if the safeguard clauses have not even been attempted by this Government.
Article 16 sets out what either party can do in circumstances where one party to the protocol feels it needs to take unilateral measures to prevent serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties, or diversions of trade, that are likely to persist. It would be in compliance with international law if the Government sought to use the safeguard clauses of the agreement they signed. Instead of following the process in that agreement, however, they are unilaterally scrapping the agreement altogether.
New clause 10 would ensure that the extraordinary powers in this Bill, which will otherwise breach the terms of the protocol, are exercised only in accordance with the UK’s international obligations. All Members who respect the rule of law should vote for it.
Time and again, Labour has called for the EU and the Government to get back around the negotiating table. There are large areas of common ground that have shown that successful negotiation is possible. Indeed, this is the only negotiation in history that is failing because all sides seem to agree. The way to unlock progress on the protocol is through negotiation and leadership, the very things that Britain used to be good at.
A Labour Government would get around the negotiating table, because “negotiation” is not a dirty word—it is just statecraft, diligence and graft. Statecraft and commitment are needed to deliver for our country, alongside a determination never to be blown off course by internal partisanship. As Churchill put it, we should “put country before party.” That is not a slogan but a principle, at least on this side of the Committee. Where this Government see challenges as an opportunity to have a row, Labour sees the imperative to rebuild. While this Government walk out of negotiations, Labour will be around the table, staying the course and delivering for our country. While this Government play politics with Northern Ireland’s fragile progress, a Labour Government would engage, respect and deliver.
Sir Geoffrey Cox
How would the hon. Gentleman propose to negotiate to permit the voters of Northern Ireland to have a say in the laws that are being made for them?
Peter Kyle
It was a Labour Government who delivered the framework for the Good Friday agreement in the first place. We respect devolution to Northern Ireland. The key thing is that, yes, Northern Ireland has been suffering the existential challenges posed by the protocol, but, fundamentally, Northern Ireland has been suffering from neglect. When the Executive collapsed, there was no visit from the Prime Minister for five months; there were no multi-party talks, in Downing Street or in Belfast; there was no attempt at getting people around the table; and not a single statement was made to this House about Northern Ireland by the Northern Ireland Secretary at the time, the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary. Just imagine for one second what would happen if the Welsh Senedd or the Scottish Parliament collapsed and this House of Commons went five months before there was any action whatsoever. The only time the Prime Minister visited Northern Ireland was once the Assembly failed to be assembled, after the elections. At that point, when the difficulties in Northern Ireland became so deeply entrenched, the Prime Minister finally went over there for one quick, fleeting, in-and-out visit. That is not good enough. We know that Northern Ireland—all of Northern Ireland—deserves the full attention of the UK Government. It also needs the attention and engagement of this House, where Northern Ireland parties can have their say regularly, on an ongoing basis, not just once a month at oral questions.
Sammy Wilson
Does the shadow Secretary of State accept that if the Prime Minister had set up residence in Northern Ireland and become a member of a political party there, he still would not have been able to resolve the issue that has just been raised with the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary: that this situation is a result not of the Good Friday agreement not working, but of the protocol where laws made in Europe cannot be debated and cannot be changed, and have to be implemented, under a threat of sanction from the European Court of Justice, in Northern Ireland? That is where the democratic deficit lies; it is not because the Government paid little attention to Northern Ireland, but because they gave us a protocol which imposes EU law and has created a democratic deficit. How would he deal with that?
Peter Kyle
I suggest that had the Prime Minister gone to live in Northern Ireland and gone to camp out there—bearing in mind that he is the person who went to Northern Ireland and promised that over his dead body would there be a border in the Irish sea, and bearing in mind what we now know he has been engaging in and the squalor with which he delivered the duties of his office, based on the resignation letters of members of his own Government—he is not the person who could ever have hoped to muster the statecraft to deliver the settlement that Northern Ireland needs.
Peter Kyle
I am going to finish now, so that we can hear directly from Conservative Members. We have always to remember that the Conservative party was the one that enabled, delivered and sustained that Prime Minister in office, and all the time that was done, the politics of Northern Ireland did not just fail to move forward—it sank. So this Bill, from that Government, who their leadership candidates are only too happy to support, is an affront to the UK’s values and to our international interests, at home and abroad. This Bill will not deliver the progress that is needed in Northern Ireland and it will only harm our interests abroad.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We had three hours for this debate. The first four speeches have taken more than two hours. We have about 55 minutes left and 10 people wish to speak. I do not have the power to put on a time limit, but you all have the power to act decently, and speak for four or five minutes and no longer. I hold you all to honour. You should take four to five minutes, otherwise you are preventing other people from speaking. I call Sir Geoffrey Cox.
Sir Geoffrey Cox
I will be quick. I have listened with fascination to the contributions and speeches made this afternoon. If I thought that the Bill would produce a durable and permanent solution, I would support it, but I do not believe it will produce a durable and permanent solution. The fact is that we cannot impose on Northern Ireland, or on any other party to a treaty that we signed, unilaterally a political solution. A political solution has to be reached politically; it cannot be imposed by this House through legislation. The EU—like it or not—and the Irish Government are a party to these negotiations. Unless we are able to achieve assent to the arrangements that we propose, they will not last. It will have to be resolved ultimately by agreement. It is much the same as the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill—another attempt by the Government to impose a political solution on Northern Ireland, without first having reached the solution and then produced the legislation that works out and implements that solution. I do not believe that this legislation will produce a permanent solution.
We come to the question of necessity. I am not prepared to say that there is an impossibility that the basis of necessity could not justify the actions that the Government are taking. I have the gravest of misgivings about it, and the deepest of scepticism about whether or not it affords a proper legal basis as a matter of international law, but we have not seen the evidence. It is possible that the Government and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General have seen some evidence that we have not seen that could crystallise at least the plausible case that this action needs to be taken.
I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), but the fact of the matter is that even necessity is not a legal basis for a permanent solution. The doctrine of necessity in international law requires the measures that have been implemented as a necessity to answer the urgent and imminent peril to be removed as soon as the basis for taking action on the grounds of necessity has gone. Indeed, necessity does not even remove the breach; one is still in breach of the agreement. Necessity simply removes the wrongfulness, which further emphasises the fact that necessity cannot produce a permanent solution as a matter of international law. Only agreement—only the reaching of a political solution—can do so.
Nobody need tell me about the politically tone deaf intransigence of the European Union in negotiation. I recall vividly in my visits to Brussels in the early months of 2019, saying to Michel Barnier, “But do you not see, Michel, that this produces an anomalous situation? If a farmer in Northern Ireland wants to take up the issue of cattle tagging, to whom does he go? When the law is imposed by the European Union, the only place he can go is either to Brussels itself or to Dublin, and how will that feel for one whole section of the community of Northern Ireland?” I must tell the Committee that the European Union representatives reacted as if they had been stung by wasps. We have to understand that those at the European Union believe the protocol to be the very zenith of creative diplomacy. They cherish and prize it, as if it were their own child. But that does not mean that we do not need to engage in the patient effort—maybe it will take months, maybe years—gradually to make them see that this is an unsustainable situation.
What we should not do is reach immediately for a solution, over which there are the gravest doubts as to its efficacy as a matter of international law, over which there are the gravest doubts about the sincerity and good faith of the Government—for I take it that the Government have advanced their case on the basis of necessity sincerely. I assume that they must mean, and genuinely mean, that they genuinely believe that there is a respectable case on the basis of necessity. If they do, why should we not at least be told the evidence—the evidence! We can gist it, we can summarise it if it is security sensitive, but at least let this House acquit itself of the doubt that exists over its legal efficacy as a matter of international law. It is no light thing for this House to take a step—
Sir Geoffrey Cox
No, I will not give way. Too many need to speak.
It is no light matter for this House to take a step that is in contravention of its international obligations. The dignity of this nation rests upon its word being seen to be implemented once it is given. Therefore, I think it a small thing—a reasonable thing—that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has asked.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary talked about Members as patriots. I do not believe that there is a person in this House who is not a patriot, not a person in this House who does not believe—[Interruption.] There may be some exceptions on the Opposition Benches, but I certainly do not believe that of those on the Labour Benches. The fact is that I want to give credit and the benefit of the doubt to everybody, but patriotism can also be the belief that we should stand by our word and that we depart from it only if there is a proper legal basis for doing so.
There is plenty of precedent for the Attorney General coming to the House—I should know, I did it—to answer questions about the international law compatibility of a measure in this House. Indeed, it goes way back, I think, to either the Wilson Government or the Heath Government. Attorneys General would come to the House to answer questions on the compatibility of statutes with international law. I invite the Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), to invite the Attorney General to come and answer those questions, because, in my judgment, it is an obligation to the House. The Attorney General has a residual duty to advise the House on matters such as this.
I say to my right hon. and learned Friend that I will not be able to support this Bill—that comes as no surprise—but I sympathise with the plight in which the Government find themselves. We should all be a lot better if we united in this House to besiege the European Union with requests so that it sees that it must effect real change in this protocol. That is why I asked the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) what is his solution to the democratic deficit of which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has properly and accurately spoken.
These are really intransigent, intractable problems. It is no use sitting, as the hon. Member for Hove does, attacking those of us on the Government Benches for not having solutions if he just talks more and does not propose constructive, new replacement agreements that might fulfil the legitimate wish of the Unionist community to feel that they are not separated and segregated from the rest of the kingdom, while doing justice to the European Union’s desire to protect its single market.
Peter Kyle
New Zealand has been able to negotiate quite diligently and swiftly a veterinary agreement with the European Union. Turkey has been able to agree a customs arrangement with the EU. There has been no law breaking, no storming out of negotiations; representatives sat round the table and got it done. Why does he think that this Government have failed where other Governments have succeeded?
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman answers the question, I must say that his rhetoric is matchless, but his arithmetic is rubbish. He has held the Committee for 10 minutes with his matchless rhetoric, and I beg him to draw to a conclusion.
Sir Geoffrey Cox
Dame Eleanor, you rebuke me entirely justly. Let me see if I can answer the question. Yes, of course there are trade mitigations, and I had a sincere hope two and a half years ago that they would be resolved in the joint committee. They have not been resolved in the joint committee.
Sir Geoffrey Cox
I do not know, but it is no use the hon. Gentleman’s using the tactic of deflection to try to put me off my question to him. The democratic problem is what I put to him, and Labour has no answer to that problem. If the party is to be taken seriously, it needs concrete proposals that might work. On that note, Dame Eleanor, I will conclude.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I take this opportunity to welcome the new Secretary of State to his place; I look forward to working with him.
I rise to speak to amendments 29 and 30 on the Order Paper and to give notice to the Committee that I intend to put clause 15 to a vote, as it is the heart of the Bill. My party is opposed very much to the Bill in principle. In our view, the hard reality is that Brexit is not working for any part of the UK.
It was Brexit that created the need for a protocol, and we have been clear that within the ambit of that protocol there ought to be room for flexibility. It should be possible for a UK Government who are acting in good faith and are trusted to be able to negotiate constructively within the workings of that protocol to deliver better outcomes, which I think none of us would object to seeing.
We have seen that there is considerable overlap between the proposals of the UK Government and the European Union in terms of the opportunities presented by sanitary and phytosanitary checks and the labelling of goods to eliminate many of the checks currently causing so much difficulty and interrupting trading arrangements. However, introducing a Bill that will break international law and relies on the rather flimsy—at least in the context of the information we have—concept of necessity, is certainly not the way to go to build that trust.
The Bill will damage the UK’s standing in the world. Without a shadow of a doubt, it undermines the UK’s commitment to the rules-based international order. The Law Society of Scotland, which is not known as a revolutionary or radical organisation in such matters, has gone so far as to say that the UK Government should,
“as a matter of principle, comply with public international law and the rule of international law, pacta sunt servanda (agreements are to be kept)”.
That should be honoured. It strikes me that even citing the legal doctrine of necessity is tantamount to an admission of a potential future illegality, since the defence is only relevant when international law is being broken. On a political level, there is tremendous difficulty for the Government in seeking to put this argument across. The agreement was freely entered into, on terms that they in many respects insisted upon, which was not only lauded, but which the UK Government actively curtailed the time and opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny in respect of. That takes a considerable amount of chutzpah.
Although we do not consider it unreasonable for the UK Government, in light of experience, to seek to renegotiate the terms on which our future trading relationship with Europe is based and how that impacts Northern Ireland, we do not believe the Bill will create the conditions where such a negotiation might progress or allow the Government to act within the letter and spirit of international law. It also brings the risk of consequences, a reaction and a potential harshening of the trade situation, which would simply make matters worse for everyone right across the United Kingdom.
Dr Whitford
Is my hon. Friend not concerned that, if this Bill were successful and therefore both the European Court of Justice and the rules of the single market were set aside, untold harm would be done to the economy of Northern Ireland?
Richard Thomson
Yes, I think untold additional harms could befall Northern Ireland—and not just Northern Ireland, but all parts of the UK. That is why it is important that the Government’s stated position of preferring negotiation is the one that they pursue wholeheartedly. I am very concerned at the suggestion that there has been no direct dialogue between Her Majesty’s Government and the European Union on this since February; I sincerely hope that is not true.
Time does not permit me to speak on further amendments, but I am particularly attracted to amendment 1 tabled by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who seems to be rapidly becoming the critical friend that this Government perhaps do not deserve, and whose argument is very sound. We also fully support new clauses 7, 8 and 10.
The only way forward on this is negotiation, and the Bill will risk our ability to take that forward. I urge the Minister to accept the amendments that have been tabled in good faith but fundamentally to put the Bill on ice until the Government are back in a stable position, and then proceed on the basis of that reorganised mandate to achieve the negotiated settlement that each of us desperately needs.
Sir William Cash
Section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 includes the word “notwithstanding”. In relation to section 38(2)(b), the use of that word applies to direct effect and direct applicability. I have some experience over the past 38 years of dealing with a lot of these treaties. We have had to implement every one of them as they have gone through, much to my regret—Maastricht and so forth. If there is the necessity, to use that expression, to have to pass legislation in order to implement a treaty into domestic law, I see no reason at all why we should not introduce legislation when that treaty does not work, as in this case, to disapply it. It cuts both ways.
There is a lot of huffing and puffing over this international law business. I was shadow Attorney General during the time of the Iraq war, and I saw things going on with the then Prime Minister, now Sir Tony Blair, implementing arrangements and bringing forward the Attorney General’s opinions. In fact, it was I, on the Opposition Front Bench, who instigated the necessity for him to bring forward his truncated opinion, which was done in order to assuage Labour Back Benchers.
I do not get too worried about the idea of disavowing treaties where they necessarily have to be disavowed in the sovereign national interest of a country. There is a lot of pretty rank huffing and puffing going on about how solemn and sacred all this is. If a treaty does not do something that it is in the interests of the voters and is seen to be doing damage, it requires review. The Bill will do a great deal of good in mitigating the damage. It does not rip up the protocol; it amends it in a sensible manner.
I do not need to repeat my point about the democratic deficit. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox) for acknowledging that this point needs to be made. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) made the same point himself. He and I have had long discussions about all this. It is unanswerable, perfectly clear and self-evident. It is coram populo. It has nothing to do with an evidence base—the amendment does not even refer to one; it talks about parliamentary approval for a Bill. It is neither chicken nor egg, nor are there any feathers on the chicken. For practical purposes, with great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the amendment is not worth pursuing, but I leave it to him to make his own decision.
When I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) attack this Bill, I was reminded, because I have been watching these matters as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee for a very long time, that the Northern Ireland protocol had its origins in her Administration. Let us not think for a moment that the protocol was an invention of the Prime Minister; it was conceived of over a long time. The pass was sold during the previous Administration. That is the point I needed to make.
I have heard the condemnations from the former Prime Minister, which I find to be completely unjustified in the circumstances. I was privy to the negotiations going on when Lord David Frost and Oliver Lewis were involved. I know a little about the background, and I suspect my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox) knows a great deal more than me. I can tell the Committee that the whole thing was conceived in the previous Administration. Let us not put up too much—or at all—with criticism made of this Government, or as it proceeds, a new Administration with a new Prime Minister reasonably shortly, on the basis that they are responsible for the protocol, when it was the previous Administration in the first place.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I rise to speak to the amendments tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), in which we hope to address some of the issues around consent, protection of the Good Friday agreement, environmental protection and the economy of Northern Ireland, because those are the stated aims of the Bill. While the Social Democratic and Labour party believes that the Bill is damaging, we are in the business of finding and providing solutions, and that is what we have tried to do throughout this process. Our amendments offer a constructive way forward that is negotiated, is compatible with international law, is genuinely square with the Good Friday agreement and is in the interests of the people and the economy of Northern Ireland. Anyone who shares those aims should have no issues with the amendments.
The Minister in fact made the case for a number of our amendments by indicating that the Government have no intention of doing some of the things that we are trying to guard against. I respectfully advise him that taking assurances from this Government, who pinball about on this issue and pinball about on their legal obligations, would be, to quote the SDLP founder Paddy O’Hanlon, like asking Atilla the Hun to mind your horse. We will press ahead with our amendments to try to get some of those commitments in the Bill.
The irony will not be lost on people that in Committee of the whole House, considering a Bill that is supposed to be about stability and consent in Northern Ireland, no amendments will be entertained from elected Members for Northern Ireland. Once again, in Committee of the whole House, Members of Northern Ireland are scrambling to barrel through their points in the scraps of minutes at the end of the debate.
The recent focus on the distortion of the principle of consent in Northern Ireland has been a bit of a political earworm since supporters of the Bill picked it up a few years ago, but it was not always so. Until the plans for a very hard form of Brexit finally collided with reality, Brexit was being presented as a consent-free adventure. My party and others, in this House, in Stormont and through the courts, attempted to insert mechanisms to give a voice to the people of Northern Ireland. They were dismissed by some champions of the Bill, who were adamant that there could be, should be and needed to be no role for people in Northern Ireland and insisted that the Good Friday agreement was irrelevant to these procedures.
The SDLP is content to acknowledge the frustrations of some people, but it is annoying that some of the arguments about consent are “Now you see them, now you don’t”. People are left with the view that the consent of certain parts and certain voters are all that a party is concerned about.
The result of our efforts on consent and the belated acknowledgement of that by others in this House was the insertion of article 18 into the protocol, so it is bizarre that the Bill seeks essentially to override the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. Under our amendments, once the bulls are allowed into the china shop—as they would be with the extravagant powers that Ministers are being granted in this Bill—the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland would be protected. That would be further enhanced by our amendment 14, which would provide that a Minister cannot harm either the Good Friday agreement or the economic interests of Northern Ireland. Again, that should not pose a problem to anybody who seeks to protect those issues.
In a similar vein, amendment 10 would provide for consultation with human rights groups, business groups and other civic voices before powers are exercised. The Minister made some comments about the sociopolitical impacts and damage in Northern Ireland, and I ask him to clarify that, because bringing in those groups would in fact ensure much more consent and consensus in Northern Ireland.
In addition to consent and protecting the agreements, supporters of the Bill suggest that they seek a negotiated outcome, and we are told that the EU is engaging insufficiently. Our amendment 5 would include in the Bill the requirement that the powers can be used only after good-faith, documented negotiations that are endorsed by this House and by Stormont. It would be useful for us to see exactly what is being discussed—not just that people have tabled the same paper 17 times—and to be allowed to see past the spin to see which parties to the negotiation are in fact moving their position.
With our amendments, we are offering Members the chance to make the protection of the Good Friday agreement, in all its parts, a real and reliable standard, not a vague and variable part-time application. We offer a way to uphold international law and abide by the treaty while using the flexibilities and room for adjustment within the treaty. Instead of the destructive abandonment of the rule of the law in the Government’s clauses, we are outlining a pathway of constructive adjustment, applying both the structures of the protocol and the ethos of the Good Friday agreement.
Jesse Norman
It has been a splendid debate, and it is my happy privilege to stand as the thorn between two legal roses in my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the acuity of whose interventions has been noted by the House, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox), the former Attorney General, with his soaring rhetoric and legal genius.
I will be brief. Everyone in this House recognises, I am sure, that it is vital to make the Northern Ireland protocol work better; that the EU, as described and discussed today, has been intransigent and could do with more direct input from our friends and allied member states, France, Germany, Holland and the rest; and that we need an improved and supported political settlement and situation in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, however, for reasons contemplated and discussed today, and which I will briefly summarise, this Bill is not the answer.
It has been properly pointed out that the doctrine of necessity does not apply in anything like the way the Government describe it. I am not a lawyer, but even I can see that when the Minister concedes at the Dispatch Box that immediacy is not at stake and is not implied by the conception of urgency that the Government wish to deploy. In breaching international law, for the reasons that my right hon. and learned Friend the former Attorney General set out, the Bill breaks the general principle that promises must be kept. However, that is itself an unwritten principle of the British constitution, so this Bill is also a contravention of our constitution. Of course, it appears to breach article 5 of the withdrawal agreement, in which both the UK and EU state that they will faithfully enact the measures to fulfil their obligations arising from the new agreement. Finally, as has been pointed out, the wide powers contemplated under clause 4 are themselves are in clear conflict with the rule of law in the ministerial discretion that they confer.
In principle, this Bill is extremely unwise to say the least, but it is also, just in pragmatic terms, misguided and likely to be counterproductive. As my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned, there is no long-term solution to be reached by a unilateral attempt to impose one side’s will on a shared international treaty. Of course, there is no reason to think that this will change the EU’s behaviour in relation of Northern Ireland. Why should it? The EU’s concern is that the UK has been untrustworthy, and far from allaying that concern, the Bill actively reinforces it. If the EU made a concession in response—if by chance it struck a new agreement with the UK on the basis of the pressure supposedly conferred by this legislation—why should it believe that the UK would then abide by such an agreement? That whole rationale would already have been destroyed. Of course, for reasons already discussed today, this is merely the beginning of the potential trouble involved.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) properly talked about the integrity of the United Kingdom, and he was absolutely right to flag that up. However, another kind of integrity is at stake here: the integrity of our overall British patriotic desire to project ourselves as a nation with a historic willingness to lead in matters of reputation and international law. That integrity is being put at risk by this piece of legislation.
I am not going to support amendment 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, not because it is not a perfectly fine piece of drafting, but because this Bill is unamendably bad, in my judgment. I very much hope that this House will not see it through, and that if it does, the Bill will be rejected on Second Reading by the other Chamber.
Layla Moran
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), and I completely agree with him. I and the Liberal Democrats intend to vote against this Bill when it eventually comes to its Third Reading. I will speak today particularly to new clause 8 and its paving amendment 26.
First, however, I want to put on record my huge disappointment that the Bill is in Committee today because, since Second Reading, we have had a lame duck Prime Minister and a Foreign Secretary who cancelled her meeting with G20 leaders in Bali, where she should have been, and instead came back to start her leadership campaign. This Bill is an incredibly controversial move, and it would have been right and proper for it to have gone away for a while—under the definition of “urgent” that the Minister put forward, that would have seemed to make sense—and then come back when it is clear what direction the Government really want to take. Make no mistake, this Bill is going to affect our standing on the world stage.
My amendments relate to the release of the legal advice. It is absolutely right and proper that the Conservative leadership election has turned our eyes to honesty, integrity and, in particular, trust following what has happened with the current Prime Minister, and that is what my amendments do. They ask the Government, “What have you got to hide?” If there is nothing to hide, they should publish the full legal advice and trust this House to scrutinise it properly.
I urge Government Members to look carefully at what the Attorney General has said since giving her advice on this Bill, because she is also running to be leader of the Conservative party, and she has suggested pulling out of the European Court of Human Rights. As we know, the Court underpins the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The Attorney General does not seem to understand how that correlates with the Good Friday agreement, yet we are relying on her legal advice. I would suggest that that is nothing we can rely on. We understand from newspapers that the Government shopped around for legal advice, and reportedly they even spoke to a former adviser of President Trump. However, if they have nothing to hide, they should publish the advice.
In the Minister’s response to my question earlier, he said the Government may well go to litigation over this and may well be taken to court over the definitions in relation to the doctrine of necessity. As a reason for advice not to be published, he said:
“We know that, famously, from the Labour Government a couple of decades ago, when there was an enormous controversy about that.”
That suggests that we should not see the legal advice because of what happened following the release of the advice on the Iraq war, but we know from the inquiry that that is nonsensical because the Government in that case did have something to hide and were found out later. If this Government want to get the trust of Parliament and do not want to have egg on their face in the international courts, they should release the advice. I urge them to support amendment 26, which I hope—by your leave, Dame Eleanor—we can push to a vote later.
Stella Creasy
We are now nearly three hours into the debate and we have not named what the actual problem is. The honest truth is that the problems did not start with the protocol; the problem is Brexit and the necessity of the protocol. For the avoidance of doubt, to acknowledge that Brexit is the problem is not to say that we do not need to change the protocol, it is not to call for us to rejoin the European Union and it is not to call for a second referendum. It is to recognise that selective democratic deafness when trying to discuss what we need to do will continue to damage all our opportunities unless we recognise that there is not a protocol solution that is as perfect as the previous trading arrangements we had.
The risk is that this Bill will make a bad situation worse, like someone having a bad tattoo and taking a blowtorch to it to try to get rid of it. The Government are like the drunk at a party spilling red wine everywhere and then deciding that throwing white wine after it is the solution. That is what this Bill is, which is why Members need to stop saying, like Homer Simpson, that Brexit is a “crisotunity” and recognise that problems are coming from the opportunities they are looking for. There are problems for civil servants who have to go through 2,500 pieces of legislation, and problems for our constituents, especially if the Bill goes through and we have a trade war with Europe. That will hit everybody—not just those in Northern Ireland, but people in my constituency. There are problems caused by the fact that the EU has already launched legal action and could “restrict co-operation”, and problems for the 33% of businesses that have already given up trading with the European Union, including those mentioned by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson)—I am sorry he is not in his place to talk about these things. [Interruption.] I apologise; he has moved and I could not see him.
We knew these problems were going to happen, yet the Government have done nothing other than introduce this Bill to make things better; they look only to provoke and to make things worse. We talked about oven-ready deals, yet the Foreign Secretary says that the problems were baked in. Frankly, Mary Berry would see the Bill as having a soggy bottom because it is so rubbish.
The report by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law states clearly that the Bill is in breach of international law, and that is why I tabled new clause 7. I hope the Minister will recognise that simply repeating again and again, as the legal memorandum does, that the Government believe that the Bill meets the test of necessity under international obligations, without explaining how, is not tort, it is just a tautology. We cannot say something is necessary and not say why it is necessary, or whether the conditions might change—I agree absolutely with the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on those matters. We know there are things we could do to make that clear, and at least to take back control—after all, the Government said that Brexit was about democracy, but it is turning out to be about Downing Street instead.
New clause 10 would ensure that the Government act within international law. New clause 7 is about evidence that we are acting within international law, and about explaining to our constituents why it would be necessary to take such extreme measures. As the Hansard Society tells us, the Bill is breathtaking in the additional powers it takes and the exercise of those excessive powers, with 19 delegated powers under 26 clauses—I have never seen anything like it in this place in the past 12 years. Those powers are based on ideas that Ministers consider “appropriate”, just as they consider what is “necessary”. As we have seen today, however, they cannot really define what “urgent” means. Most people would recognise that “urgent” probably means “immediate”, rather than “sometime in the future.” Considering that any provision can be made by an Act of Parliament, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) recognised, if we allow that with the Bill, we could see it for other Bills—literally taking back control from these Benches and sending it to the road opposite.
Finally, there is no way that the Bill supports the Good Friday agreement, which, in and of itself, is an international agreement. We want to stand and challenge President Putin as he rips up the rule of law, yet we say that there are rules of law that we think no longer apply to us. How can we say that we will also guarantee the protections of the Good Friday agreement? How can we give the constituents of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley the certainty they want, and that we recognise they should have, to be able to go about their business and have peace and prosperity, if we act as if the rule of law does not matter or can be bent to shape the will of a particular political movement?
The Bill is about the Government needing Europe to be a bogeyman, and as we have seen from the leadership contest, there are bogeymen aplenty. In reality, this can do only harm. We must recognise that the problem does not start with the protocol. The problem starts with Brexit, and how we negotiate a trade agreement and deal with the problems that arise from leaving the single market and customs union. Our constituents in every part of the United Kingdom deserve that honesty. New clause 7 is about Governments being honest, and just as new clause 10 should not have needed to be tabled, nor should new clause 7, but it did need to be tabled under current circumstances. The people who rely on this place to make reasonable regulations, to admit their problems, as though they were 12-step problems, and to make amends, need and deserve nothing less.
Ian Paisley
Why is the Bill necessary? That is what the Committee has just been asked. That is the question. Well, the preamble to the protocol states clearly that its objective is to uphold the Belfast agreement. Why is its objective to uphold the Belfast agreement? Because the Belfast agreement creates something called power sharing. Power sharing has clearly broken down. Some people may not like the reasons for that, but it has broken down, therefore the Bill is necessary. It is as plain and obvious as that—perhaps we have to say it slower for some people to pick up on the reality that power sharing has broken down, and therefore the Bill is necessary. Do not take my word for it: last week in the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, two international lawyers gave us expert evidence. I think there is only one international lawyer in the Chamber today, the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox), who has stated his position. I respect those opinions, but I do not think there has been any other international law expert or practitioner in the Chamber. I can therefore only quote from experts who have given the Committee their expert opinion through the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
Hilary Benn
We clearly have a problem, the absence of the Assembly and the Executive, and the cause is the operation of the protocol. I have said many times to European colleagues I have spoken to that the Commission needs to move in the negotiations. But one of the consequences is that we now have an absolutely terrible relationship with our biggest, nearest and most important trading partners. That is one reason why this is an extremely unwise Bill.
The honest answer to some of the questions that have been put in the debate is that there is not an easy answer because of the contradictions inherent in Brexit, the point my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) made so eloquently a moment ago, although one of the consequences is that Northern Ireland, alone in the United Kingdom, has access to the single market of the European Union as well as to the market of the rest of the United Kingdom.
The reason for me why the Bill is so egregious is that the Government have chosen to pursue it when they have a means of taking the problem to the European Union in the form of article 16. One wonders what the negotiations were like when article 16 was drafted. “What if we have a disagreement about the way the protocol works? Let’s set up a mechanism for dealing with it.” Yet the Government have refused to use it. When I asked the Foreign Secretary why, she said she was a patriot and a democrat. Those are two very worthy things to be, but that is not a reason for abrogating a treaty you have negotiated and signed. It is a long time since I said this to the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox), but I agree completely with the argument he made as to why this is not something the Government should do. It is damaging our relationship and I do not think it will solve the problem.
The Bill is very clever. It is very well drafted and it is a unilateral switch that allows Ministers to turn stuff on and off. That is what it does. Clause 15, which has been part of this debate, contains, in the words of the seventh report of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulated Reform Committee
“a power of the sort we rarely see—a power that in essence allows Ministers to rip up and rewrite an Act of Parliament.”
The Government claim that is necessary because things may come along that they want then to exclude, but there is a point of principle here. If Ministers decide that an Act of Parliament is not working in the way in which it was intended, they should come back to Parliament and Parliament should look at it, rather than Ministers saying, “In that eventuality, I want to take powers to do it by delegated legislation.”
Clause 15(1) lists a series of purposes for which the powers can be used. With no irony, one of the purposes—I could not believe it when I read it—is:
“securing compliance with, or giving effect to, any international obligation or agreement to which the United Kingdom is a party”.
The Government have tried to be virtuous in writing that in, but they then say that there is one exception to that, which is the EU withdrawal agreement and the protocol.
On article 18 of the withdrawal agreement itself, I note the commitment the Minister gave from the Dispatch Box. I urge him, for the avoidance of all doubt, to write that into the three specific exceptions. He has done it for the rights of citizens and the other two, and I advise the Government to put it in there for the avoidance of all doubt.
Along with many Members, I voted against the Bill on Second Reading. I think that it is beyond repair, as has been said, but that does not mean that we should not vote for things that will make it slightly less egregious. That is why I support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and new clause 10, which was advocated for so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), who speaks for the Opposition on Northern Ireland matters.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Today in my constituency, more than 100,000 people will gather in the small, rural village of Scarva for what is the largest parade of the year and what many believe to be the biggest one-day festival in the whole of Europe. It is a fantastic day of colour, music, pageantry and tradition—a celebration of civil and religious liberty for all. I am very sorry to miss it, but I know that those gathered there will be very supportive of what I am in this place to say about the Bill and the protocol. They would want me to reiterate that the Irish sea border must go.
It has been encouraging in recent days to hear some of those who have declared that they are standing to be our next Prime Minister state that they are committed to the Bill. Furthermore, it is welcome to hear from the new Secretary of State—I wish him well in his post—that his priority is to see a Northern Ireland Executive restored. Indeed, we share that priority.
The pathway to the restoration of a fully functioning Assembly and Executive at Stormont is through the Bill, the removal of the sea border and a return to the consensus politics that has been the trademark of our political progress to date. I therefore feel compelled to draw attention to a number of amendments in the names of—but not exclusively—the hon. Members for North Down (Stephen Farry), for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) and for Foyle (Colum Eastwood). Amendments 3 to 5 and new clause 7, which move to restrict the operation of the Bill unless it is approved by the Northern Ireland Assembly, make no mention of cross-community consent, meaning that they are clearly majoritarian in outlook.
The Committee understands that, in Northern Ireland, when one community feel ignored or marginalised or that their views are downtrodden, it brings tension and instability. It is a matter of deep regret that the parties who, for years, have preached consensus and consent now appear to want to tell Unionists that their views do not matter. “We shall overcome” has become “We shall overrule”.
The consequences of such an approach will be vast and extremely damaging. I cannot be clearer on the consequences: Stormont will not come back; community relations will further deteriorate; and the progress made on the basis of consensus will be ruined. No one with a shred of political leadership or responsibility would want that. That is why the amendments that prerequisite approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly must be rejected.
In the time remaining, I turn to the amendments that suggest that EU approval ought to be secured prior to the Government acting or the article 16 provisions being followed. Are those who have tabled such amendments aware that we have reached this point because such agreement has not been possible? The EU position is crystal clear—no renegotiation—yet Members of this House, who are elected to serve the interests of this country and its people, are handing a veto to the EU.
This Government were elected on the back of wanting to “take back control”. Any Government that would accept such amendments would be doing the reverse. It is disappointing, but the amendment paper can be seen for what it is: a wreckers’ charter—to wreck not only the Bill, but our political process in Northern Ireland. I urge the Government to reject the amendments.
Jim Shannon
Thank you, Dame Eleanor, for the opportunity to speak for all of a minute or thereabouts.
The Bill is not perfect in any way, but it is the Bill before us. We have to support it, because it makes us as British as England, Scotland and Wales, which at the moment we are not. I am very mindful that Northern Ireland has been the football that everybody has kicked about, so it is important for us to see a Bill coming forward that gives us a chance to make a change. All my local businesses, or 99.9% of them, say that they are disadvantaged by what is in place. The fishing fraternity in Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel says the same thing about tariffs, bureaucracy and red tape, and so does the farming community.
Many hon. Members have said today, mischievously, that this is about Brexit. For us, it is about being British. I want to be as British as every Member on either side of the Committee who wants to be British, but it is more important for me to see a Bill coming forward that will make that happen. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to agree to go forward and support us in Northern Ireland, because this is the way to do it.
Sir Robert Neill
This has been a most useful debate. I will not press my amendment 1 to a vote tonight, because amendment 2, which is scheduled for debate on the third day of Committee proceedings, will permit the Committee to revisit the topics if matters develop.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 26, in page 1, line 3, at end insert—
“(za) requires Ministers of the Crown to set out a legal justification for altering the effect of the Northern Ireland Protocol in domestic law”.—(Layla Moran.)
This is a paving amendment for NC8.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stephen Farry
I beg to move amendment 24, page 3, line 3, leave out subsections (1) to (3).
This amendment removes the designation of Article 5(1) to (4) and Annex 2 of the Northern Ireland Protocol relating to movement of goods and customs, as excluded provision.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 34, in clause 5, page 4, line 14, leave out “the Minister considers appropriate” and insert “is necessary”.
This amendment changes the threshold for giving a Minister power to make regulations under this Clause. The threshold is amended to make it objective rather than subjective.
Clause 5 stand part.
Amendment 35, in clause 6, page 4, line 29, leave out “they consider appropriate” and insert “is necessary”.
This amendment changes the threshold for giving a Minister power to make regulations under this Clause. The threshold is amended to make it objective rather than subjective.
Clause 6 stand part.
Amendment 15, in clause 24, page 13, line 16, leave out from “to” to the end of line 22 and insert
“House of Commons draft affirmative procedure”.
This probing amendment would apply “House of Commons draft affirmative” procedure in place of regulations on tax or customs matters being subject to annulment.
Amendment 16, page 13, line 27, leave out from “procedure” to the end of line 32.
This probing amendment would prevent Henry VIII powers (amending Acts of Parliament by regulations) being made on tax or customs matters using the “made affirmative” procedure.
Amendment 17, page 13, line 34, leave out “draft affirmative procedure” and insert
“super-affirmative procedure (see section (Super-affirmative resolution procedure: general provisions))”.
This probing amendment would replace draft affirmative procedure on tax and customs matters with super-affirmative procedure (see NC5).
Amendment 18, page 13, line 36, leave out subsections (7) to (9).
This amendment is a probing amendment removing the “made affirmative” procedure on tax or customs matters.
Clause 24 stand part.
New clause 4—UK-EU Joint Committee: reduction of sanitary and phytosanitary checks—
“A Minister of the Crown may not exercise any powers conferred by this Act until a Minister of the Crown has sought an agreement at the UK-EU Joint Committee on reducing sanitary and phytosanitary checks and laid a report setting out the details of those discussions before each House of Parliament and provided a copy of that report to the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
New clause 5—Super-affirmative resolution procedure: tax or customs matters—
“(1) For the purposes of this Act the “super-affirmative resolution procedure” in relation to the making of regulations subject to the super-affirmative resolution procedure is as follows.
(2) The Treasury or HMRC must have regard to—
(a) any representations,
(b) any resolution of the House of Commons, and
(c) any recommendations of a committee of the House of Commons charged with reporting on the draft regulations, made during the 60-day period with regard to the draft regulations.
(3) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Treasury or HMRC wish to make regulations in the terms of the draft, the Treasury or HMRC must lay before the House of Commons a statement—
(a) stating whether any representations were made under subsection (2)(a); and
(b) if any representations were so made, giving details of them.
(4) The Treasury or HMRC may after the laying of such a statement make regulations in the terms of the draft if the regulations are approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
(5) However, a committee of the House of Commons charged with reporting on the draft regulations may, at any time after the laying of a statement under subsection (3) and before the draft regulations are approved by that House under subsection (4), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft regulations.
(6) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of the House of Commons under subsection (5) in relation to draft regulations, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the draft regulations in that House under subsection (4) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.
(7) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Treasury or HMRC wish to make regulations order consisting of a version of the draft regulations with material changes, the Treasury or HMRC must lay before the House of Commons—
(a) revised draft regulations; and
(b) a statement giving details of—
(i) any representations made under subsection (2)(a); and
(ii) the revisions proposed.
(8) The Treasury or HMRC may after laying revised draft regulations and a statement under subsection (7) make regulations in the terms of the revised draft regulations if the revised draft regulations are approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
(9) However, a committee of the House charged with reporting on the revised draft regulations may, at any time after the revised draft regulations are laid under subsection (7) and before the revised draft regulations are approved by that House under subsection (8), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the revised draft regulations.
(10) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of the House of Commons under subsection (9) in relation to revised draft regulations, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the revised draft regulations in that House under subsection (8) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.
(11) For the purposes of subsections (4) and (8) regulations are made in the terms of draft regulations if the regulations contain no material changes to the provisions of the draft regulations.
(12) In this section the “60-day period” means the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft regulations were laid before the House of Commons under section 24 of this Act.”
This new clause sets out the House of Commons super-affirmative procedure for tax and customs matters.
Stephen Farry
Amendment 24 would remove from clause 4 the measures that strip out the heart of the protocol, namely article 5, which relates to the management of the customs union and single market as they pertain to Northern Ireland, making it an excluded provision under domestic law. That, of course, would be a unilateral breach of the protocol, rather than working through negotiations to find durable solutions. The effect of that unilateral action would be to undermine Northern Ireland’s current unfettered access to both the single market and customs union for goods.
Fundamentally, there is no escaping the Brexit trilemma. When the Government decided to leave both the single market and the customs union, that required some form of interface to be put in place somewhere between the UK and the European Union’s economic zones, and that interface must be managed and mitigated as far as possible. The protocol offers relative opportunities for Northern Ireland compared with Great Britain, and they should be preserved and maximised. However, the protocol also poses challenges that need to be minimised.
The solutions must be mutually agreed, sustainable and legal. Northern Ireland businesses need certainty, and the only way through the process is negotiation. As someone who is at least a pragmatist or a realist on the protocol and who was a strong opponent of Brexit, I firmly believe that the European Union needs to be as flexible as possible, and that much more can be done in that regard—it is important that I put that on the record. At the same time, we must be brutally honest that the Government have been disingenuous in their approach to the negotiations over the past 12 months. Engagement has been extremely limited and, at times, counterproductive.
The Bill itself makes the prospect for negotiations even harder. Indeed, the passage of the Bill will probably make negotiations almost impossible. The European Union has been clear that it is tantamount to asking for negotiations with a metaphorical gun sitting on the table. By contrast, the key ingredients for progress are trust and partnership, but unilateral action undermines trust. Trust is central in two respects—first, to securing solutions in the first place; and, secondly, to ensuring their ongoing operation.
I want to highlight two particular solutions that are out there. A lot of Members have talked about them and, indeed, there has been a lot of commentary outside this Chamber as well. The first relates to red and green channels. On the surface, I think there is a lot of common ground between me and others from Northern Ireland, the Government and the European Union on something generally speaking along those lines. There is of course a major difference in the approach by which we get from A to B and reach such a conclusion, and I think that is the fundamental difference of opinion in relation to the Bill.
While Ministers keep saying that there is broad-based support for at least some aspects of the Bill, I am firmly opposed to achieving those through unilateral action, because that is not actually a genuine solution. We have to recognise that there may be some differences over the details of what this may look like in practice, and we need to be open, frank and honest about those. A green lane may not necessarily mean a fully open door; there may still need to be some degree of a risk-based approach to how that is managed. However, I think the essential concept remains that processed or final goods destined to remain in Northern Ireland should not be treated as something posing a risk to the EU single market or customs union.
The second aspect I want to focus on is a UK-EU veterinary agreement. It may be that we do end up with something that is very bespoke for the Irish sea interface, but I think we should focus on what should be the first preference, which is a UK-wide solution. The UK retains very high standards for agrifood, and they are de facto aligned with those of the European Union, but because the legal regimes do not align, we end up with barriers—frankly, needless barriers. That makes it much more difficult than it need be to manage movements across the Irish sea, but it also poses huge issues for the entire UK economy. In particular, the agrifood sector exports to the European Union—indeed, the European Union is by far the main export market for UK agrifood producers —and we are seeing a major shortfall in agrifood exports as a consequence of Brexit and the absence of a veterinary agreement.
People talk about what I suppose are the two polar opposite approaches to a veterinary agreement: first, there is the Swiss model, which is based on dynamic alignment; and, secondly, we have the New Zealand model, which is based on mutual recognition. The nature of New Zealand’s trade with the European Union, given the geography and a more limited range of products, will be different from that of the UK, which has its own requirements. Frankly, however, it is absurd that New Zealand has easier access to Northern Ireland for agrifood than the UK.
The Government face a choice between continuing to pursue the hardest of hard Brexits, especially on agrifood, when it makes no sense to diverge whatsoever, and being pragmatic and considering some form of veterinary agreement. That veterinary agreement may well end up being unique. It will be a UK-EU solution: it will not be the Swiss model or the New Zealand model, but something else. A veterinary agreement has the potential to reduce agrifood checks across the Irish sea by as much as 80%, and that would go a massive way to addressing the heart of the issue. Parallel movements could also address the pets issue, which has been a source of contention for many pet owners across these islands.
Tony Lloyd
On the veterinary agreement, an EU that has negotiated—in good faith, one assumes—with New Zealand and Switzerland, would negotiate in good faith with the United Kingdom. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is a real one, but for many years, both the agrifood business and farmers have worked to the same common standards in the UK and the EU. We have not diverged so far, so could that not be part of rebuilding the trust that he spoke about?
Stephen Farry
Absolutely. I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. He has been a strong advocate for a common-sense approach to agrifood movements, as have many Opposition Members as well as some Conservative Members. The Government keep telling us that there is no intention of diverging or lowering agrifood standards, so there is no benefit whatsoever to holding out against the logical solution of a veterinary agreement.
Hilary Benn
I agree with the hon. Gentleman completely about the need for a veterinary agreement. Is one advantage of an EU-UK veterinary agreement that it would deal with the objections that were raised earlier by some colleagues from Northern Ireland about Northern Ireland being a rule taker for things that it had not agreed? If an agreement is for the whole UK, and Parliament agrees to it, does it not remove that objection?
Stephen Farry
I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Our first preference in all these matters should be a UK-wide solution, and only when that is not available, for whatever reason, should we consider something more bespoke for Northern Ireland. We are discussing the protocol, and I reiterate that this issue is very much in the interests of the entire UK agrifood sector, which is an export sector. Many Members talk with great pride about different industries in their constituencies, and all of those are struggling as a consequence of the impact of Brexit. I am labouring the issue of red and green channels, and the veterinary agreement, to point out that solutions are out there and that the measures in clause 4 and elsewhere in the Bill are not necessary. Solutions are there if people have the creativity and willingness to go out and grasp them, especially when that is fundamentally in the interests of us in the UK, as well as being of benefit to the European Union.
Reference was made previously to the Acts of Union, and I wish to clarify a couple of points in that regard as the situation changes over time. The Acts of Union of 1800 were between Great Britain and Ireland, and we are now talking about Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so that is one change we have seen via the Government of Ireland Act 1920, and the more recent Good Friday agreement, the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and the principle of consent, which is the bedrock of that. That is just a precursor, and while I agree fundamentally with the point just made—that our preference should be for a UK-wide approach and solution to some of these issues where possible—we must recognise none the less that Northern Ireland has always, from its inception, done things differently from the rest of the UK in economic matters.
Northern Ireland has always had devolved powers, right from its foundation, and on matters such as employment law or other issues it has had the right to diverge. Further to that, although I am not encouraging checks down the Irish sea, for various reasons throughout our history, including in wartime and other times of stress, there have been checks on certain movements across the Irish sea, including agrifood movements. Indeed, it is accepted practice that farm equipment is inspected. Ireland only really works as a single unit in terms of animal health, and before a lot of the controversy emerged around the protocol, that was an accepted fact for people from all backgrounds in Northern Ireland, as it was the most pragmatic way of doing things. In the same way, the single electricity market on the island has not been a source of debate, although it is a reality that Northern Ireland energy issues are distinct from those in Great Britain, and happen primarily on an all-Ireland basis.
To conclude, I will stress a couple of points. First, if the will is there, the means exist to resolve these issues without going down the route of unilateral action. Under the protocol, there is scope to progress a lot of those issues, including within the current negotiating mandate for the European Commission from the European Council. The question of medicines was progressed without a change in mandate, and the European Union went ahead and legislated for change. Secondly, issues can be addressed through supplemental agreements to the trade and co-operation agreement—the veterinary agreement probably fits that category best. A specialist committee has been set up for that purpose, so a vehicle exists to progress similar issues. While the UK Government have put forward their Command Paper, the European Union put forward its own proposals in October last year, and updated proposals last month.
If clause 4 remains as currently drafted, including the excluded provision, there will be a series of consequences—indeed, there will be consequences from the Bill itself—both for the UK and, in particular, for Northern Ireland. Those will include the undermining of the rules-based international system; setting a very bad precedent by breaching international law; and the risk of a very damaging set of EU retaliations, right through to a full-on trade war. Sadly, we are already seeing the consequences for UK academics and researchers who have been excluded from Horizon Europe. Research has been a real success story for the UK, so the costs are already clear in that regard—costs that are being paid for something that is not necessary, is unworkable, and is counterproductive.
For Northern Ireland, the effects of clause 4 will be as follows: it will undermine our access to the single market and the customs union. It will create more and more uncertainty for businesses as to the legal regime under which they are operating. It will pose dilemmas to members of the Northern Ireland Executive about how they conduct their duties. Finally—I say this with a degree of trepidation—it will beg the question of how and where the interface between the UK economic zone and the European Union economic zone will be managed. The answer to that question may well pose even greater challenges and difficulties.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to follow the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry); I agree with some of what he said, if not, perhaps, some of his conclusions. I think that, of all the contents of the Bill, the Government are on the strongest ground when it comes to the clauses we are now debating, and that the EU could have found a way of agreeing with the UK Government how to fix this problem. In the protocol, it was agreed that Northern Ireland was in the UK customs territory, and only goods that were at risk of going into the single market needed to be inspected as they crossed the Irish sea. We ended up with the EU seemingly interpreting everything as possibly being at risk of going into the single market, which produced a ridiculous level of tests that would never be acceptable to the Unionist community of Northern Ireland and are doing the economic damage and causing the tensions we have seen.
It should be obvious and acceptable to both sides that it has been agreed that Northern Ireland will have a foot in both camps: a foot in the EU single market and the EU customs zone, and a foot in the UK single market and the UK customs zone. The only way to make that work is to accept that there is a porous border, where there is no way of exercising the usual level of control that the EU would insist on at its other single market borders around Europe. The key questions for everyone to focus on are these: what goods are we really worried about? What goods have a real risk of crossing that border without being checked—without having the customs declarations and the duty paid, or the various other checks that are required? Finally, how do we put in place measures that can mitigate that risk, and make people on both sides of the border happy that nothing is crossing that border that poses a real threat to the integrity of either market?
To be fair, the UK Government have been extraordinarily generous, not just at the Irish border but at the Dover-Calais border, by not introducing the checks we could have introduced and which we would expect to see at a normal border, because we largely trust goods that are in free circulation in the EU, even if they are not absolutely consistent with UK regulations, either now or in future, or perhaps there is a theoretical customs issue, even though we have a zero-tariff, zero-quota deal, and there may be some duty payable because of rules of origin. We have been extraordinarily relaxed in accepting that those risks are much lower than the risks of trying to impose the burden of huge amounts of checks.
Until we get the EU into the mindset of accepting the same position in relation to goods circulating in Northern Ireland, there is no solution, because at some point there will have to be a border with checks and processes somewhere. We know it cannot be on the island of Ireland. We accepted that trying to make the EU put the border between the European mainland and the island of Ireland would be a horrible situation that the Republic of Ireland could never accept and effectively mean that it had left the single market by mistake, which the Irish Government would never entertain. It always looked to most people that there was the prospect of a compromise by doing something down the Irish sea, where goods spend several hours on a ship allowing for inspections and for declarations to be made, but that it had to be done sensitively and only on the things that were really at risk, otherwise we would end up with the problem we have now, where the Unionist community will not accept it and there is too big a dividing line between the UK mainland and Northern Ireland.
I support what the Government are trying to do and some kind of red and green channel is the right solution. I think the problem we have is that we have extraordinarily little detail about how it will work and how we satisfy the EU that the data we think we can collect and give it is sufficient to get it in a place where it will not have some horrible overreaction. We have not managed to reach an agreement. In fact, I understand it will not even look at our database and the data we could share to see if it is enough to get it there.
We have what looks like a theoretically attractive solution that is the right end position, but we have no idea how to make it work on the ground. We are going from a position where it looked like the EU was going to accept trusted trader exemptions, where everything must be checked and declared unless we have pre-agreed that certain traders are trusted and therefore we can exempt them from it, almost to a position where, if I read red and green right, everything is exempt unless either the trader self-declares that he will go into the single market, or we presumably do some risk-based inspection and spot something that should have been in the red channel in the green channel. It is a stretch to think we will get the EU happy with that without its having serious trust in our internal identification processes.
Then there is the difficult scenario of what happens when somebody changes their mind: goods go into Northern Ireland to be sold in a Northern Ireland store, and then they get low on stock in the Republic of Ireland and decide they want to move them into the Republic. The goods will not have been checked and they will not have done the customs declarations. What will the process be? Where do they go to get the goods checked so that they can legally move them across the border? Or do they just move them, nobody ever checks it, it is all fine and that is that? Again, I would be surprised if we get the EU happy about that. We are going from a position where goods are in free circulation on the island of Ireland, to a position where goods may not be in free circulation on the island of Ireland. How do we fix that?
I urge the Government, as the Bill progresses, to publish the processes for exactly how that will work, and how we can have an effective international border and make the red and green lanes work, so that we can show we are really trying to identify the goods most at risk of cheating or abusing the rules to try to get around them. If we can do that, there is scope to negotiate with the EU and get to the end point that we will inevitably have to get to. Unless the EU wants no border at all or a border on the island of Ireland, it will have to make the system work. That has been apparent for the couple of years since we knew this was coming, but we need to have in place trust between the EU and the UK Administrations, and we need to have the working arrangements and trust between the Irish and the UK authorities in Northern Ireland, so they can work together, trust each other to do joint inspections and share information on a real-time basis—all those common working practices that we have not managed to get to, due to the tensions on both sides, and where we need to get to.
The question we have to ask is: does proceeding with the Bill help us to get towards negotiating a compromised, pragmatic end position or does it make that harder? Fundamentally, I suppose the Government’s answer will be, “We have tried to get the EU somewhere sensible on this matter for the past year or more and we have not managed it. So we will put in place these arrangements and the EU will have a choice: either come and work with us and get to the stage where you are happy with the processes that we have in place and the data we can share with you, or it is just tough—accept what we will offer you.” I sincerely hope, before we do this on a unilateral basis, that at least in this area, where it looks like a compromise should be achieved, we manage to put in place something that both sides are happy with.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to be called, Dame Rosie. We are examining clauses 4 to 6 and 24. It is hard to approach the Bill on a line-by-line or even a clause-by-clause basis, because so much of it relies on unspecified regulations that the Minister can make in future. In the words of Parliament’s Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Bill is
“a skeleton bill that confers on Ministers a licence to legislate in the widest possible terms. The Bill unilaterally departs from the Northern Ireland Protocol and enables Ministers to depart from the Protocol even further. The Bill represents as stark a transfer of power from Parliament to the Executive as we have seen throughout the Brexit process. The Bill is unprecedented in its cavalier treatment of Parliament, the EU and the Government’s international obligations.”
Clauses 4 to 6 are supposed to be the legal basis for the Government’s proposed green and red lanes for goods destined for Northern Ireland and the EU. The clauses unilaterally scrap the relevant parts of the protocol that deal with goods, movement and customs. The green and red lane proposals represent a solution that the EU should consider and, indeed, on which everyone seems to agree. Goods going from Britain to Northern Ireland that are staying in Northern Ireland should not face the same checks and paperwork as goods going into the single market. However, unilateral domestic legislation will not bring the green and red lanes into fruition, because in order to work, the proposals rely on sharing data and providing safeguards with the EU. It is inappropriate to place them in the Bill when they should be the focus of ongoing negotiations.
It is hard to understand how the Government’s proposals for green and red lanes and the EU’s proposals for express lanes cannot be reconciled. First, let us consider the Government’s proposal. They are proposing goods destined for Northern Ireland from Britain be exempt from checks and paperwork. The safeguard that the Government offer the EU is that traders will have to be registered with a trusted trader scheme and commercial data will be shared with the EU to monitor the risk of abuse. Let us now consider the EU’s proposal. It is proposing an express lane. That would reduce checks on goods staying in Northern Ireland based on a trusted trader scheme and commercial data sharing. If the prolonged uncertainty for Northern Ireland were not so damaging, the situation would be laughable.
It should not be impossible to negotiate a solution that is acceptable to both sides. The Labour party has long called for a bespoke veterinary agreement that would make the negotiations even simpler. We support amendment 24 because it would stop this unhelpful unilateral action in an area where there is a clear landing zone for a negotiated agreement. Businesses in Northern Ireland want certainty, but the Bill says practically nothing about what will replace the parts of the Northern Ireland protocol that will be excluded.
Clause 5 gives Ministers the power to make any provision that they consider appropriate in connection with any provision of the Northern Ireland protocol to which clause 4 relates. Traders and businesses will be watching this debate and wondering what on earth the details of the Government’s proposals actually mean in practice. Once again, it appears that the Government are not trying to be constructive, but are obstructing the path to a solution on the protocol. Trying to unilaterally force red and green lanes instead of finding an agreement on them is the best example of this. Negotiations are necessary and are still an option, so we simply cannot support that.
Richard Thomson
I rise to speak to amendments 15 to 18 and new clause 5. I will just have a quick canter through them, because they are quite technical.
Amendment 15 would apply House of Commons draft affirmative procedure in place of regulations on tax or customs matters being subject to annulment. Amendment 16 would prevent Henry VIII powers from being made on tax or customs matters using the made affirmative procedure. Amendment 17 would introduce the super-affirmative procedure set out in SNP new clause 5. Amendment 18 would remove the made affirmative procedure for tax and customs matters.
The SNP is proposing the super-affirmative procedure on what we regard as a point of principle: the Bill gives Ministers far, far, far too much power. Notwithstanding any of the unlawfulness inherent in it, it simply gives Ministers far too much power to act without reference back to elected Members. We think that that needs to be remedied, so under new clause 5, the super-affirmative procedure would ensure that the Treasury and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
“must have regard to…any representations…any resolution of the House of Commons, and…any recommendations of a committee of the House of Commons charged with reporting on the draft regulations”
and must give details of any representations made. The new clause would ensure that approval for the draft regulations is given by Members of this House, rather than by Ministers. There are some important issues at stake.
I turn to the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s seventh report of this Session. I have to say that the Committee’s publications are very worthy, although they are not exactly on my bedtime reading list every night. I am sure that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), would agree; his highlighter pen has clearly been over exactly the same sections of the report as mine. What it says early on bears repetition:
“The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill…confers on Ministers a licence to legislate in the widest possible terms…The Bill represents as stark a transfer of power from Parliament to the Executive as we have seen throughout the Brexit process. The Bill is unprecedented in its cavalier treatment of Parliament, the EU and the Government’s international obligations.”
Quite apart from the unlawful nature of what is being proposed, it seems undesirable, if not improper, to vest quite so much power in the hands of Ministers.
I will keep my remarks brief, but I will just briefly touch on Opposition amendments 34 and 35, which appear to have a similar ethos to ours: they would remove Ministers’ ability to act on a subjective rather than objective basis. I also commend new clause 4 and amendment 24; the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) spoke very eloquently about the benefits that could come from taking a UK-wide approach once again on these matters.
I have certainly been doing my bit, in every forum to which I have had access, to make the case for putting a sanitary and phytosanitary deal in place. Not only would that solve many of the problems inherent in the protocol, but it would make things much better for my constituents in the north-east of Scotland, the seed potato growers and those who are involved in the food and drink industry more generally. It seems such a pragmatic thing to do that it beggars belief that we have come so far down the road of the Government saying that they wish to negotiate without anything like it being concluded. It seems to me that Ministers would be knocking on an open door if they went to Brussels with it.
Sammy Wilson
The DUP has not tabled any amendments to the Bill. We do have some reservations, especially about the regulations that Ministers may introduce to give effect to measures set out in the Bill. Nevertheless, we want the Bill to go through the House intact.
Having listened to the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry), I could have understood it if his amendment had come from the Labour party. After all, we know that the Labour party really wanted to remain in the EU and would love to get back in the EU; it is pushing to keep Northern Ireland as close as possible to the EU so that it could eventually be a foot in the door for the rest of the United Kingdom. I could also have understood it if it had been a Liberal Democrat amendment. The hon. Member’s amendment, which would be similar in effect to new clause 4, tears at the very heart of the problem. Rather than addressing the problem of the protocol, it seeks to ensure that that problem remains.
The protocol has caused two issues in Northern Ireland. The first is the democratic deficit. As a result of the protocol, Northern Ireland is subject to a list of EU measures which—in annex 2 of the protocol—goes on for 82 pages. Those 82 pages do not contain the details of the law; they are merely a list of the EU laws, directives and regulations that apply to Northern Ireland. Moreover, not only the historic regulations themselves but any changes in those regulations apply, and there will be no opportunity for politicians in Northern Ireland to have any say on them. They will have no opportunity to amend them; they will not even have any say in whether they are enacted, no matter how damaging they may be to the Northern Ireland economy. That is what causes the democratic deficit, and the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Down is intended to ensure that that situation remains.
In our earlier debate, we talked about the need for consent and the need for accountability. In fact, in his own speech the hon. Gentleman talked about how terrible it would be for Ministers to take on the powers in the Bill, because that would take away the right of this Parliament to make any decisions and have any say. Yet he was quite happy to move an amendment that would remove the powers in the Bill to ensure that that list of EU regulations—82 pages of them—should no longer apply to Northern Ireland unless it is deemed necessary. He is quite happy for the Bill to be amended to leave those in place. We have elected an Assembly in Stormont. I know that people complain about the fact that it is not sitting, and of course it is not sitting because of the protocol; but even if it were up and running, it could not do anything to deal with the problems caused by the protocol, because it does not have a say on them.
That is the first problem, and stemming from it is the second: the range of issues contained in article 5, which the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Down seeks to keep in place. What is article 5 all about? It is all about the fact that laws in Northern Ireland are different from, and will become more different from, laws in the rest of the United Kingdom. Goods coming to Northern Ireland from Great Britain will have to be subject to checks either if they are made in Great Britain under different rules and regulations, or if they come from third countries into Great Britain and then into Northern Ireland, and maybe go into the Republic. If passed, the amendment would leave unaddressed both the issue of the democratic deficit and the problem of EU checks, with all the impact that that has on businesses in Northern Ireland.
It has been claimed—we have heard much about this today—that what we should be doing, instead of acting unilaterally, is negotiating. Why do the Government not negotiate on all the things that they wish to do in the Bill? Why, for example, do we not secure a veterinary agreement with the EU? Well, we have been trying to do that. Indeed, Lord Frost told the House of Lords last year:
“On the question of a SPS or veterinary agreement, we proposed in the TCA negotiations last year that there could be an equivalence arrangement between us and the EU. Unfortunately, the EU was not open to that. We continue to be open to such an equivalence arrangement, if the EU is interested in it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 March 2021; Vol. 811, c. 970.]
The EU has not shown any interest.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
My right hon. Friend is talking about misinterpretations of the protocol. There are those who repeatedly say that the protocol provides two-way trading access into the UK market and then into the Irish Republic and the EU market. Does he agree that it is not the protocol that provides that? What should provide it is, first, our membership of the United Kingdom and, secondly, our physical geographical position on the island of Ireland, with a 300-mile land border that nobody could seal to provide a hard border to prevent open access?
Sammy Wilson
That is the whole point, of course, which is one of the reasons why the border is placed down the Irish sea.
A second point that has been made is that these changes in the Bill will have detrimental effects on Northern Ireland and the people of Northern Ireland and that we will not be able to have access to the EU single market. Well, given the fact that the biggest market for Northern Ireland by far is the GB market, I would much prefer that we ensured that our access and the flow of goods between GB and Northern Ireland was maintained, rather than the flow of goods between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. But those things are not mutually exclusive anyway, because the Irish Republic relies on that trade as well.
Our farmers are an example. The Irish cheese industry—and industries involving many other dairy products—could not exist without a supply of milk from Northern Ireland. The idea that, as a result of this Bill, the EU and the Irish Government are going to say, “Let’s have a trade war with the UK” is just fantasy. They sell more goods into the UK than we sell into the EU. Are they going to harm their own manufacturers? There is an interdependency for some of those industries between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Are they going to hurt that? Of course not. The idea that there will be some detriment as a result of these measures is one of those claims that cannot be proven, and logically one would believe that this would not happen.
The last point that has been made is that, if we put this Bill through, we will lose what flexibility there might be. That was another argument made in favour of these amendments. We are told that we have to have these amendments; otherwise, the EU will get angry and not negotiate with us. We are also told that the EU would be prepared to show some flexibility if there was a willingness to co-operate. As has already been pointed out, we have tried to co-operate with the EU for ages and it has not happened. As far as flexibility is concerned, there is no sign of that, even when it comes to the minutiae of dealing with the protocol. Companies in Northern Ireland that do not have stores in the Irish Republic are still subject to the same checks.
Only last week, headlines in the Belfast Telegraph indicated that a haulage company had to send back a lorryload of goods because there were vegetarian pizzas on that lorry. I never thought that vegetarian pizzas would be subject to SPS checks, but I was wrong. Milk is used to make the pizza bases, so there has to be a certificate, which has to be signed off by a vet to say that the milk is okay.
When a Spanish vet signed off the certificate, instead of writing an i as we would write it, he wrote the i as the Spanish would write it, which is apparently upside down and looks a bit like a v. When the lorry arrived in the port of Larne, the EU inspector looked at the certificate and said there was something suspect, not with the pizzas but with the form. The i was the wrong shape, so the pizzas and the rest of the load were sent back, and for what purpose? So the vet could make the i an English i, instead of a Spanish i. There are examples of this every day.
Anyone who tells me that the EU is flexible, and that this Bill will make it less flexible, ought to look at the evidence, which shows that the Bill is necessary because the problems have been apparent for two years now. There is a democratic deficit, and there are daily problems for people in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), the leader of my party, quoted the Consumer Council saying that 60% of consumers in Northern Ireland now cannot buy goods from GB.
The Bill is necessary, which is why we support it and want to see it pass intact. If it does, we believe it will be the first step towards dealing with the problems caused by the ill-thought-out protocol.
Jim Shannon
It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and to hear his words of wisdom and his facts.
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place, and it is a pleasure to see him here. I know he has a deep interest in Northern Ireland. We very much look forward to working with him.
I am pleased to see so many Members take part and take an interest in Committee. The people of the Province are incredibly anxious that last week’s Government changes do not affect the passage of this essential Bill.
The hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) moved amendment 24 for the best reasons, but it reminds me of “Hotel California”:
“You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”
The Alliance party would have us in this forever, but we are not going to be. This time we are leaving. We are checking out and we will not be staying.
I am concerned about where we are. My party has problems with the protocol when it comes to exports and imports. Agriculture is critical to my Strangford constituency. There are some 3,500 jobs in the sector, never mind the farmers who feed into the process. Lakeland Dairies has two factories in Northern Ireland and two factories in southern Ireland. It employs people north and south, and its milk and milk powder regularly travel across the border without doing anyone any harm. It boasts the highest standards in Northern Ireland and the highest standards in the Republic, too. I am pleased the Minister is here to put the Government’s case tonight.
My concern is that Northern Ireland will, again, be used as a battering tool, which cannot be allowed to happen. I know most Members of this House, and I make it my business to be friendly to everyone. In all honesty, I look upon everyone in this House as a friend. Some are exceptional friends, but I count you all as my friends. I always seek to be supportive when I agree, and I also try to be respectful when I cannot agree. Tonight, there are some on this side of the Chamber I cannot agree with and many on the other side of the Chamber I can fully support on this occasion.
For many, the temptation exists to beat the remainer drum. Some people on this side of Chamber do that, as they cannot accept the referendum result. They cannot accept the fact that the decision was made. I see the EU as an organisation with an insatiable thirst. It is like a giant sponge. It keeps on soaking all the goodness out of all the countries. It was soaking it out of us for a number of years, and the people of this country took a decision for that not to happen.
Northern Ireland is battered and bruised from the game of political football that has taken place with us as a ball at everyone’s feet. I wish to outline some things in relation to the strikes we have had, but first I want to come at this from the point of view of my constituency, where some 99.9% of businesses are clear: they see the problems with the deal made after Brexit and the border down the Irish sea as disadvantaging them greatly. That has increased the cost of their products by at least 25% and it has reduced the number of products they are able to access. It has stopped 200 businesses being able to carry out business with businesses in my constituency in this last period. This is all down to EU intransigence and bloody-mindedness. We have the highest standards in our agricultural produce and we want to ensure that that continues.
Tension in Northern Ireland over the past year and a half has been at its highest. It has been very obvious and visual in my constituency, and across Northern Ireland. I believe that this Bill, which has won the votes so far and I hope will win them later tonight and next week, has reduced the tension. Across Northern Ireland, we can see that people see a way out of this. Again, I want to put on record my thanks to the Minister, the Government and the Prime Minister for all that.
I want to talk about some of the strikes that I referred to. I do not mean strikes as in people not working; I mean strikes that people have tried to make, be it like a bat hitting a ball or a ball hitting a bat. It was stated that there would be no Irish sea border, but there clearly is one. That is why this Bill is so important. Checks on products in the Irish sea does not affect the Good Friday agreement, but checks on land borders would. Thousands of people attending rallies has proven the threat felt by one community, the Unionist community, the one that we represent. I also represent many people who do not necessarily vote Unionist, but they have also been restricted by the problems with the Northern Ireland protocol and the border down the sea prevents them from having the lifestyle and access to products that they once had. The Unionist community feel under threat, and it is not acceptable to ignore that and behave as if all is rosy in a garden filled with kindling wood and matches.
It is stated that the checks are just an extra bit of paperwork, but for my constituents they are lot more than that. Businesses are thousands of forms behind, and mainland businesses have stopped trading in Northern Ireland due to the hassle, meaning that suppliers ordering from China, India and any other nations are paying substantially more for the same products than Members in this Chamber. The prices that my constituents and those across Northern Ireland are paying are at least 25% higher in Northern Ireland than in any other large-scale supermarket. So for us in Northern Ireland the Bill is critical and vital, and it has to go through as it is, untouched.
I want to ask the Minister about those who have been involved in the bureaucracy, red tape and paperwork—the thousands of pages of paperwork for one item. Whenever the Bill progresses and is successful here, can those who have outstanding paperwork still to be processed disregard that? It is also stated that filling out a form to buy something should not make someone less British. That one still sticks in my throat. I look forward to seeing how people in North Dorset, for example, feel when they fill out a customs form to bring home their shopping from London. I know that is a bit absurd but it perhaps illustrates how we feel in Northern Ireland at this moment in time. The fact that someone is treating you as a third country does make you less British. That is very simple, very true and very much ignored by people who are in positions to know better.
The last period of time has been about not just the attitude to where Northern Ireland is as regards the border down the Irish sea, but the attitude of international delegations that have come and called us “planters”—they called us many things, probably worse names, but that comment was from people in the States who fundraised actively for IRA-Sinn Féin to plant bombs—along with a veiled threat from a President who refers to us as “Brits” in a derogatory manner, and we all know who that is: Sleepy Joe. That was another difficult direction to navigate, yet Unionists are expected to say nothing about the Good Friday agreement.
I am very proud of being British, and I take it as a great slight when the President of the United States or anyone else thinks that British is less. I am proud to be British. I am proud to have served in uniform for Queen and country. I am proud of the blood that runs through my bones and body, which is as British as that of anybody in this Chamber. Others may not be as British as me, of course, but they have a right not be as British.
Colum Eastwood
Maybe I misheard the hon. Gentleman, but I think he referred to Congressman Richie Neal, who chairs the Ways and Means Committee in the United States—somebody who would be very important in the discussion around a trade agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States. I just want to clear up this point, because it is important to get it on the record: was the hon. Gentleman stating that Congressman Neal was raising money for people to be bombed in Ireland? That sounded very much like what he said, and it is absolutely outrageous if that is what he said. Richie Neal has been a very strong advocate for and supporter of the peace process in Capitol Hill.
Jim Shannon
If I had known the hon. Gentleman was going to say that, I would not have let him intervene. I never said that. [Interruption.] No, I did not say that. I said that international delegations come and call us “planters”, and then I referred to others who fundraised actively for IRA-Sinn Féin to plant bombs. That is those who are supporters of Sinn Féin in America; they fundraise to raise a great deal of money.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Could we please just focus on the amendments? We do not want a wider debate.
Jim Shannon
The debate was not widened by me; it was widened by somebody else.
Let me be clear: I voted against that agreement, but I listened to its proponents tell us that it protected Unionism. One of those proponents—David Trimble, who sits in the other place—well understands the issue and has outlined how the Northern Ireland protocol has adversely impacted the Good Friday agreement, but we are asked to sit in silence when our economy, our buying power and our very identity is decimated by the protocol.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) had the opportunity to visit my constituency and understands the importance of fishing there. The Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation and the Irish Fish Producers Organisation are clear that the Bill will do away with the tariffs and red tape. How can it be right for a fishing boat to leave Portavogie, Ardglass or Kilkeel, get out of the harbour and get 2 miles off the shore, and pay a tariff on anything it brings back? The Bill will stop that. For those in Portavogie in my constituency of Strangford, and for those in Ardglass, Kilkeel and other places, I look forward to the days whenever we can grow our fishing sector, and create more jobs, opportunities and prosperity.
As the House discusses this legislation to begin the process to rectify the gross betrayal of Northern Ireland to get Brexit done, I ask Members please to remember the truths of where we are. I understand that there are those who did not want the referendum result. I understand that some want to remain tied to the EU. I understand the threats that are coming from Europe and latterly from the US. But the question is easy: are we a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? If so, the protocol must go. The Bill does not satisfy all that I want to see, but it does begin the journey. I am asking the Committee to travel with us, not against us: to call time on the kicking we have gotten as a political football between the EU and the UK. The EU has not negotiated common sense after 300 hours of discussions; it was never going to, or it would have happened already.
The reason we are here today is the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which was put forward by the Government and which my party fully supports. We need to make the changes. It is time to legislate this common sense to allow us all to move on together. The quicker that happens, the better. The people of Strangford want it and I want it, being British. I think all the people of Northern Ireland here are British, but even those who are not want it as well.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)
I wish to begin by thanking all Members who took part in the debate on Second Reading as well as in the debate in Committee that preceded this one. As we progress to the second day of the Committee stage, I want to reiterate some of the key points that go to the heart of why the Government have introduced this Bill.
The Northern Ireland protocol was agreed with the best of intentions. However, as the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) has passionately set out, reinforced by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), unfortunately it is causing real tensions and problems for the businesses and people of Northern Ireland, including trade disruption and diversion, costs and bureaucracy. This legislation will fix the practical problems that the protocol has created in Northern Ireland. It will enable us to avoid a hard border, protect the integrity of the UK and safeguard the EU single market.
Let me address the clauses in turn. The Government’s intention is to introduce a new and different regime, including a green lane for goods remaining in the UK and a red lane for those destined for the EU. Clause 4 will allow the UK Government to implement such a regime for goods remaining in the UK and entering Northern Ireland. The clause, therefore, disapplies in domestic law certain EU law requirements and, with clauses 5 and 6, provides the powers for Government to remove many of the burdens currently placed on businesses by the extensive customs and regulatory processes that are required under the existing Northern Ireland protocol.
Clause 4 also defines “qualifying movements” that will be able to enter our proposed green lane. The subsections remove current burdensome processes for prescribed qualifying movements of UK or non-EU destined goods, and there is a power to define UK or non-EU destined goods. Clause 4 is central to our intention to rationalise the processes for goods moving into Northern Ireland. We have been clear that we do not believe it is appropriate to continue to require full customs and regulatory processes when goods are not even destined for the EU. This clause is part of what will allow us to put in place a more sensible and proportionate regime.
Our green lane and red lane proposals will form the basis of that regime. Engagement with businesses on the detail of the regime is already under way. We know that it is important that we listen carefully. It is the powers in clauses 4, 5 and 6 that will allow us to put it in place.
Hilary Benn
In respect of supermarket deliveries to Northern Ireland, it is really dead simple: those supermarkets sell only in Northern Ireland, so they would, of course, be appropriate for the green lane. But given the very large number of other businesses that send goods across to Northern Ireland, how do the Government propose to identify those businesses that are sending goods that are destined for the Republic and those that are sending them into Northern Ireland where they may be processed and then moved on to the Republic of Ireland? How will that work in practice?
Lucy Frazer
Obviously, this is a matter that the Government have been considering very carefully. There are goods, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that will obviously be going to Northern Ireland. Businesses will also know that there is a significant category of goods that will not, and then there are the goods that may not be certain at all. That is something that the Government will be discussing with businesses during the consultation over the summer period, and it will be set out how those goods are dealt with. The hon. Member for Strangford asked us about reducing paperwork, and I can say that, of course, that is the intention of the future regime.
Clause 5 ensures that a Minister of the Crown has the power to make regulations in relation to any provisions to which clause 4 relates, with the exception of customs matters, which are dealt with in clause 6. Clause 5 is essential in enabling a Minister of the Crown to deliver the UK’s proposals for a new green and red lane regime. Taking a power to provide for the regime is required, and the precise detail of the regime will be guided by consultation with stakeholders.
Clause 6 ensures that the Treasury or Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs can make regulations in respect of customs matters. It will ensure that, once this Bill gains Royal Assent, the Departments can put in place the arrangements needed to operate a coherent customs regime.
Clause 24 sets out the Parliamentary procedure to be followed in respect of the exercise of regulation-making powers related to tax and customs matters in this Bill. The clause provides that regulations making provision in relation to tax and customs matters are to be made by statutory instrument. Regulations would be subject to the affirmative or negative procedure, depending on their effect. These statutory instruments would come before the House of Commons only in line with the exercise of Commons financial privilege, usually given to tax matters.
Before I turn to the amendments, I will touch on a number of points that have been made by hon. Members across the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) rightly said that the Government have been very generous and practical in our approach to border checks, not only in relation to Northern Ireland, but more broadly. He is also right to say that we have tried to negotiate a way forward with the EU. We have spent 18 months doing that. We have spent hundreds of millions of pounds on the trader support service, we have spent 300 hours in negotiations and we have shared 17 non-papers. Unfortunately, the EU has not come to an arrangement with us, and that is why I stand at this Dispatch Box today.
I dispute what the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) says, that it is clear that the two positions can be reconciled. It is clear that they cannot. We have tried to do that, but we have not succeeded. The Foreign Secretary invited Vice-President Šefčovič to the Joint Committee when we announced this legislation. However, the EU proposals do not go forwards; they go backwards. Under the EU’s suggestions, sending a parcel will involve completing a form with more than 50 data fields. A grandmother who wants to send a gift to her daughter in Belfast will need to complete a customs declaration and a pet owner will have to pay £280 for a certificate to take their pet. I welcome the support for this Bill from the right hon. Member for East Antrim and the hon. Member for Strangford.
Dealing now with the amendments, I will first respond to amendment 24, tabled by the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry). I appreciate the intention of his amendment. However, it would be contrary to one of the core purposes of the Bill, which is to disapply in domestic law those parts of the Northern Ireland protocol that require goods remaining in the UK or not destined for the EU to complete burdensome processes.
The amendment would also mean that the “at risk” test would be left in place, which would mean that some businesses moving goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland would still be required to pay customs duty even when those goods remained in the UK. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Government’s intention is to put in place a different regime, one that is more proportionate and would remove the unnecessary burdens on business created by the protocol. I hope he will therefore withdraw his amendment.
On the points the hon. Gentleman made about the vet agreement, the UK remains open to a negotiated solution. We have put forward a number of practical solutions to resolve outstanding issues on SPS, but the UK has also been clear that we will not commit to dynamic alignment, which would compromise our sovereignty.
I turn now to amendments 34 and 35 in the name of the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) . The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), addressed this issue briefly in the previous debate, so I will not labour the point. Replacing the requirement for a Minister to consider that regulations are “appropriate” in the use of the Bill’s delegated powers with a test of necessity risks our ability to put in place the right solutions to the problems the protocol is causing. In these clauses, that would potentially circumscribe the ability to design a green lane that will preserve the unity of the UK internal market. I expect the right hon. Gentleman will not agree with me, but I ask him to withdraw his amendments.
Amendments 15 to 18 and new clause 5, tabled by the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), would remove the Government’s proposed parliamentary procedures for statutory instruments under the Bill relating to tax and customs matters. The amendments attempt, in some cases, to replace them with a new, so-called super-affirmative procedure. In other cases, the amendments attempt to limit them to the draft affirmative procedure, removing the possibility of the made affirmative procedure in cases of urgency.
The drafting of these amendments is defective, making it unclear precisely what procedure is intended to apply to different categories of regulations. However, I will address the principle behind them. As Members will know, true super-affirmative procedures for statutory instruments are vanishingly rare. The normal affirmative and negative procedures for SIs provide effective scrutiny for the House. The hon. Member’s proposed procedure is long, requiring months of consultation on draft SIs, and procedurally complex, but ultimately does little more than envisage a Committee of the House making recommendations and preventing an SI coming into force pending a vote by this House. The amendments would require the Treasury or HMRC to make statements about any representation they have received on the draft recommendations.
I hope I can reassure the hon. Member that the Government intend to consult on the policy—indeed, work is under way—and the usual tools of parliamentary scrutiny will allow him to seek answers about this from me and my ministerial colleagues. His amendments would simply slow down solving the problems facing the people of Northern Ireland and create a muddling precedent on perfectly effective parliamentary procedures. I therefore urge him to withdraw his amendments.
New clause 4, tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), would prevent the exercising of powers in this Bill until an agreement has been sought on reducing sanitary and phytosanitary checks in the EU-UK Joint Committee—the joint decision-making forum overseeing implementation of the UK-EU withdrawal agreement. In many ways, I agree with the spirit of what the new clause seeks to achieve, but where we differ is that I recognise that we have already exhausted this option. The Government have engaged extensively with the EU on reducing the burden of sanitary and phytosanitary checks both through the Joint Committee and through official-level channels. As I mentioned, we have had over 300 hours of ministerial and official discussions and spent a significant amount of money. Nevertheless, we were still prepared to get round the table with the EU, and we held further talks through the autumn to the turn of the year.
However, as we set out in the statement by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 17 May, the EU has simply shown insufficient flexibility. Although the EU published proposals in a non-paper on SPS in October 2021 that claims that checks carried out on SPS goods moving from GB to NI will be reduced by 80%, our own analysis and business feedback shows that this would not be the case in practice, and that a large volume of SPS goods staying in Northern Ireland will still face documentary, identity and physical checks. I understand why the new clause has been tabled, but regrettably we have had to conclude that the solutions put forward by the EU are not sufficient. It is for the EU to come back to the negotiating table or for the UK Government to get on with the job. I invite the hon. Member to withdraw his new clause.
The Bill provides a comprehensive and durable solution to the existing problems with the Northern Ireland protocol. As I said, the protocol was agreed with absolutely the best of intentions, but it is creating real problems on the ground for people and businesses in Northern Ireland. It is creating trade disruption and diversion, and increasing costs and bureaucracy for traders. The Bill will fix those practical problems. It will enable us to avoid a hard border and it will safeguard the EU single market. I therefore recommend that the clauses in this group stand part of the Bill.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill
Tuesday 19th July 2022
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022-23 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 19 July 2022 - (19 Jul 2022)
16:18 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 201 / Noes: 293 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:33 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 205 / Noes: 293 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:47 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 204 / Noes: 292 - Question accordingly negatived.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 7, page 5, line 5 insert—
“(1A) This section applies only if the following conditions have been met.
(1B) The first condition is that a Minister of the Crown has consulted appropriately with representatives of Northern Ireland business organisations on the option to choose between dual routes.
(1C) The second condition is that a Minister of the Crown has reached an agreement with the European Union on the option to choose between dual routes.
(1D) The third condition is that the Northern Ireland Assembly has approved by resolution the option to choose between dual routes.”
This amendment would impose conditions before the option to choose between dual routes could be implemented.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 45, in clause 8, page 5, line 24, at end insert—
“only if the conditions in subsection 7(1A) to (1D) have been met.”
This amendment is linked to Amendment 44.
Clause 8 stand part.
Amendment 36, in clause 9, page 5, line 27, leave out “the Minister considers appropriate” and insert “is necessary”.
This amendment changes the threshold for giving a Minister power to make regulations under this Clause. The threshold is amended to make it objective rather than subjective.
Amendment 28, page 5, line 34, at end insert—
“(3) Before making regulations under this section, a Minister of the Crown must carry out an economic impact assessment of the proposed regulations, and conduct a consultation on the proposed regulations with any stakeholders whom the Minister of the Crown considers appropriate.
(4) The Minister of the Crown making regulations under this section must lay before each House of Parliament with a copy or draft of the regulations a copy of the relevant economic impact assessment and a report of the relevant consultation.”
This amendment would require an economic impact assessment to be carried out before a Minister could make any provisions for the dual regulatory regime.
Clause 9 stand part.
Clauses 10 and 11 stand part.
New clause 13—Report on dual access—
“A Minister of the Crown must, at least once in every three months from the day on which this Act is passed, lay before each House of Parliament a report stating what, if any, steps are being taken by Her Majesty’s Government to promote, uphold, support and facilitate dual access to the British market and European markets for Northern Ireland businesses either as a consequence of the exercise of the powers conferred by this Act or by alternative means.”
This new clause requires a Minister of the Crown to lay a report before each House of Parliament stating what, if any, steps the Government is taking to promote, uphold, support and facilitate access to both British and European markets for Northern Ireland businesses, pursuant to the powers conferred by this Act and any other powers.
New clause 14—UK-EU Joint Committee: duty to give primary regard to North-South proposals—
“A Minister of the Crown must respect, reflect and support in UK-EU Joint Committee meeting proposals relating to the regulation of goods made by the North-South Ministerial Council and other North-South Implementation bodies to the Specialised Committee on the implementation of the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland pursuant to Article 14(b) of the Northern Ireland Protocol.”
This new clause seeks to require a Minister of the Crown representing the United Kingdom in UK-EU Joint Committee meetings to respect, reflect and support proposals made by the Strand Two Belfast/Good Friday Agreement bodies acting in their capacity as set out in Article 14(b) of the Northern Ireland Protocol.
New clause 15—UK-EU Joint Committee: report to Parliament—
“(1) When the UK-EU Joint Committee has discussed regulation of goods in connection with the Northern Ireland Protocol, a Minister of the Crown must lay a report before each House of Parliament detailing those discussions within 21 days of the meeting of the UK-EU Joint Committee at which those matters were discussed.
(2) Each such report must include information on how UK representatives adhered to and sought agreement with representatives of the European Union on relevant proposals—
(a) agreed by the Northern Ireland Executive or endorsed by the Northern Ireland Assembly, or both, and promoted by the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly, or
(b) agreed by the North-South Ministerial Council or North-South Implementation bodies and made to the Specialised Committee, pursuant to Article 14 (b) of the Northern Ireland Protocol.”
This new clause would require a Minister of the Crown to report to each House of Parliament on meetings between the UK and EU in the Joint Committee within 21 days of each meeting and to include information on the regard afforded to any submissions from the Strand One and Strand Two institutions of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement by UK and EU respectively.
Stephen Farry
Earlier in the debate on this Bill, we discussed solutions on which I think it is fair to say that there was some common ground, such as the idea of red and green channels. The problem was the means of getting there: threats or unilateral action from the Government, versus building trust and using negotiation. Never mind the means, however; dual regulation is fundamentally a very bad idea. The business community in Northern Ireland has expressed significant concerns about this aspect of the Bill. Notably, this includes the Dairy Council for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Meat Exporters Association, the Northern Ireland Food and Drink Association, and Manufacturing Northern Ireland.
There are many motivations behind the Bill. However, the claim that it responds to the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland or the interests of the business community in Northern Ireland does not stand up to scrutiny. I remain very critical of the so-called engagement process from both the Foreign and Commonwealth and Development Office and the Northern Ireland Office. They have sought an echo chamber to reinforce their own agenda rather than consulting widely.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for tabling amendments so that the issue can be debated properly and thoroughly, but this is where I start to disagree with him. One of the conditions laid down in amendment 44 is
“that a Minister of the Crown has reached an agreement with the European Union on the option to choose between dual routes.”
Does he seriously suggest that a Minister of the Crown—of Her Majesty’s Government—must seek the permission of the European Union on how we should trade within the boundaries of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? That is effectively what is being asked for.
Stephen Farry
Indeed. Unfortunately this is the outworkings of Brexit, which the hon. Member pursued. We have a protocol in place to manage the fall-out from that decision, and a whole host of implications will flow from it. I am very sceptical, as indeed is the business community, about the notion of dual routes, but if that were to be conceded in relation to any one set of products or commodities, it would have to be by negotiation with the European Union. If not, that flow of trade would not have recognition and it would not work for the business sector in question.
On consultation, I want to highlight the current run of propaganda videos coming from the Northern Ireland Office. We are joined by the new Secretary of State, whom I welcome to his place. Those videos focus very heavily on haulage, which of course does have some particular concerns, but that comes at the expense of other interest groups in the business community where there is a very different narrative. Of course businesses recognise the need for some modifications to the protocol, but more and more say that the protocol is working for them and they do not want those aspects to be compromised, undermined or ditched. Those are the voices that the Government are not listening to, never mind seeking to promote.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On the programme “Countryfile” on Sunday night, a farmer from my constituency, Sam McChesney, outlined very clearly that the Northern Ireland protocol is affecting him, and his lamb and beef. He cannot sell beef cattle across the water to the mainland in the way that he once did. He said that he wants to see changes to the nitty-gritty of the bureaucracy, red tape and small print that is affecting his business, and that if this continues as it is, he will not be in business. Will the hon. Member take a deep breath and think about what Sam McChesney said, and then he will think the same as us and ask for the changes that he wants to see?
Stephen Farry
I advise the hon. Gentleman to reflect on some of the things that the Ulster Farmers Union has been saying about this aspect of the Bill. He should listen to what the Northern Ireland Meat Exporters Association is saying—so if the gentleman he mentions is exporting meat, that is what his trade body is saying. Of course there should be no obstacle for anyone in Northern Ireland selling into Great Britain, but we are in danger of losing the ability for meat producers in Northern Ireland to sell into the Republic of Ireland and onwards into the European Union. [Interruption.] I will come to that in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to have some degree of patience.
We will also talk about the interests of the dairy sector in Northern Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman wants to reflect the views of his constituents, he will be aware that one of the major employers in his constituency is Lakeland Dairies, which, along with the wider dairy sector, is extremely exercised about this aspect of the Bill.
Jim Shannon
I have met the chief executive of Lakeland Dairies on a number of occasions, and I do so regularly, because it is a major employer in my constituency. He says that he can work with this process, and if changes to the Bill come through, he can also work with that. There are factories south of the border and north of the border. Lakeland Dairies wants a workable system and says that it can work with this. I am not sure who the hon. Member is talking to, but I talk to the chief executive regularly and he tells me that he can deal with the system and with the issues as they come forward.
Stephen Farry
We will talk about the dairy sector in much greater detail shortly. Indeed, it has given significant evidence to Committees in this Parliament. Whenever we talk about the dairy sector, it is important to bear in mind that this idea of the hon. Gentleman’s that we will end up with segregated production, north versus south, is not feasible. If that was to be introduced, the lead-in time would potentially be two to three years, and the costs would be between £200 million and £250 million, so the notion that this is an easy option is a major fallacy. Indeed, the notion that we want to spend extra money to reorientate an industry that works quite successfully at the moment is for the birds.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. Does he agree with me and with Mike Johnston, the chief executive of the Dairy Council for Northern Ireland, that the Bill risks making rural areas poorer by cutting off £600 million of trade?
Stephen Farry
Indeed, and the dairy sector in Northern Ireland is absolutely clear. The provisions in this Bill are an existential threat to their business model, and we will come shortly to the consequences of that.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way; he has been quite generous, but it is important that we scrutinise the amendment. Will he explain to me how the dairy sector, or whatever other sector wished to trade with the Irish Republic, would be disadvantaged if it agreed to dual regulation—in other words, if it complied with EU regulations for the products that it wished to trade with the Irish Republic? Is the EU going to say, “We will not accept your goods, even though you’ve accepted all our regulations, you’re applying those regulations and your goods are safe to enter the EU”?
Stephen Farry
I strongly encourage the right hon. Gentleman to engage with the Dairy Council and listen directly to what it is saying. The issues and complications are manifold in this respect. They come, first of all, from the inputs to the dairy sector—we are talking about the grain, the veterinary medicines—
Stephen Farry
Let me finish the first point and then someone else can come in.
If those inputs are not compliant with EU regulations, the raw milk that is then produced cannot be accepted or certified by Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs vets as complying with annex 2 to the protocol, which sets out the various regulations that apply in that regard. Therefore, raw milk from Northern Ireland will not and cannot be accepted for processing in the rest of Ireland. A third of the milk produced in Northern Ireland currently goes south for processing, and that will be dropped.
Ian Paisley
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I should just put on the record that I represent one of the largest farming constituencies in Northern Ireland; I was previously the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Agriculture and Rural Development Committee in Stormont; I have been one of the longest serving members of the British Veterinary Association in Northern Ireland; and, for the record, my son-in-law is one of Northern Ireland’s largest dairy farmers, so I have some knowledge of the agricultural sector.
The hon. Member has touched on the issue of veterinary products for Northern Ireland. Is it not the case that the European Union has strategically blocked the sales and advantage that would come to Northern Ireland as a result of Brexit, because it does not want Northern Ireland agriculture to be a success? Northern Ireland agricultural businesses are in direct competition with businesses in the Irish Republic, and up to 40% to 50% of all agri-medicines for veterinary products, agricultural use and pet use will be blocked at the end of this year, because the European Union wants to block it. The EU is not interested in talking or making a deal with Britain on this matter. In fact, the representative agency, the National Office of Animal Health, has said that more time is no longer required. We need this Bill to solve these matters with regard to veterinary science.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I want to establish right from the outset that interventions should be brief by their very nature, not speeches in themselves. Mr Paisley, that was longer than some of the speeches I have made in this place.
Stephen Farry
I will briefly respond, and then hopefully I will make some progress. What the hon. Member has said is utter nonsense. The notion that there is some sort of conspiracy or plot to undermine the Northern Ireland agriculture sector is for the birds. The threat actually comes from this Bill and from Brexit. It does not come from the protocol; it comes from the notion of scrapping some provisions in the protocol, which are working on behalf of the sector. The sector is diverse and some people may have a different perspective on it, but I urge Members to listen to the representative business organisations that reflect the views of their members. The Dairy Council is adamant and very vocal in this regard.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making a very good speech. It is not the EU that wants to change the rules; rather, we hear from some contenders for the Conservative leadership that they want to change the rules. They want to strip away regulation, as indeed do some members of the DUP. Is that not a concern for the agricultural sector?
Stephen Farry
Absolutely; I concur very much with what the hon. Member says. Regulation sometimes has a negative connotation, but it is there to protect everyone’s interests and it is there for often very good and valid reasons. It is noticeable that we do not have the Foreign Secretary with us today—or indeed for any stage of the Bill, apart from the first hour—even though she has been very keen to promote it, for whatever agenda she has.
Stephen Farry
If I can make some progress, clause 7 essentially introduces a dual regulatory system for regulated classes of goods to which any provision of annexe 2 to the Northern Ireland protocol applies, including manufactured goods, medicines and agri-food. It envisages businesses having a choice over the regulatory route between UK requirements and EU requirements, or both.
On the surface, that sounds benign, but it is in fact unworkable. To be clear, there is an implicit element of acceptance that there will be different regulatory regimes, and maybe standards, in the concept of a red-green lane for Northern Ireland customer final destination goods that pose no threat to the single market. It is important to acknowledge that subtlety, but we are focusing in this debate on dual regulation that covers ingredients, components and goods that may enter the single market via further processing or as a final good. More and more businesses in Northern Ireland are exporting to the Republic of Ireland and the rest of the European Union. Since Brexit, this trade has grown significantly. That is market forces in operation, reacting to changing conditions. There is nothing malign about it whatsoever.
If this dual regulation were implemented, it would have major consequences. It would create chaos in many sectors of the Northern Ireland economy and increase the risk of economic crime, including smuggling. Even the Bill itself entails uncertainty for investment decisions, never mind the implications of its full application. It would mean Northern Ireland losing access to the single market for goods, both in practice, as companies in the Republic of Ireland or the rest of the EU would see Northern Ireland products as risky, and as a matter of law.
Such moves would threaten the comparative advantage that Northern Ireland goods currently have from unfettered access to both the Great Britain market and the EU single market. More widely, they raise the question as to how and where the interface between the UK economic zone and the EU single market will be managed. There is a commonality of consequences from the Government unilaterally trying to impose dual regulation, alongside similar measures to disapply article 5 of the protocol and annexe 2 to the protocol, and also the marginalisation of the European Court of Justice, which we will talk about tomorrow.
No doubt the Government and others will argue that GB and EU regulations will in practice be the same, just as they argued that their version of the management of movements between GB and Northern Ireland would protect the EU single market, but this neglects the fundamental point, which relates to the legal regime, in which there has to be either dynamic alignment or mutual recognition. That can be created and maintained only via negotiation, with an agreed means of enforcement. Many sectors of the Northern Ireland economy have both supply chains and sales that operate on both an east-west and a north-south basis. That can only be managed with one set of regulations.
Let us explore one particular sector in depth, the dairy sector, which a number of Members have already drawn me on. The dairy sector is heavily integrated across the island of Ireland. That reflects specialisation and economies of scale. It is an entirely sensible set of arrangements. Every year, about 800 million litres of raw milk, about a third of the entire output, goes to the Republic of Ireland for processing. There is full traceability of that milk. The milk is then often mixed with raw milk from south of the border. It can be mixed, as both Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland milk is produced to the common EU standards and, crucially, recognised as such. It then goes in to final products, or sometimes into intermediate products that come back to Northern Ireland for final processing, for example at Lakeland Dairies in the neighbouring constituency of Strangford.
Ian Paisley
Can the hon. Member perhaps explain how the mixing of that milk will be changed by this Bill?
Stephen Farry
The mixing of the milk will not happen, because milk from Northern Ireland will not be accepted for mixing, because—
Stephen Farry
It is not unreasonable. It is basically common sense, because the milk cannot be certified as being in compliance with EU regulations, and therefore it will not be accepted.
Ian Paisley
But it’s coming from the same cows, being milked by the same machines.
Stephen Farry
The hon. Member may say it is coming from the same cows and the same machines. The issue here is that—
The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. The same noise is coming from the same mouth, as well—let us stop that, please.
Stephen Farry
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to refer to the time when his father famously said that the people of Northern Ireland may well be British,
“but our cows are Irish”,
which recognised the integration of animal health and agriculture on the island of Ireland. It was certainly a wise comment from the hon. Gentleman’s father.
Final products go right across these islands, into the European Union and further afield. The Bill is a threat to the sector in that it would allow products to enter Northern Ireland that are not produced to EU standards. The biggest issue relates to grain, around 400,000 tonnes of which are imported in Northern Ireland annually, but seeds and veterinary medicines may also cause complications. Even if the imported grain, seeds and veterinary medicines are in practice produced to the same standards as the European Union, that still misses the point in terms of the legal regime.
According to the Dairy Council, if any of those inputs were used in the production of milk, it would mean that the raw milk could not be supplied to customers in the EU, as Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs vets would not be able to sign the necessary certificates to demonstrate that the milk had been produced in accordance with EU regulations and standards. Such an outcome would pose an existential threat to the Northern Ireland dairy industry.
The notion of trying to segregate inputs such as grain or milk produced to different standards or under different legal regimes is simply not realistic. Segregation would involve separate production, storage and cleaning. Tankers may collect milk from five to 10 farms into one tanker. The sector is already very efficient and works to very tight margins of 3% to 4%. It cannot absorb the additional costs of managing such segregation, and to do so would anyway make no sense. Indeed, it would involve substantially more paperwork and red tape, something I understood Brexit was designed to cut back on.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
I have listened intently to the hon. Member and I am left confused by what he has to say. As I understand it, the dual regulatory system is a voluntary one, so what is to stop the co-operatives, which dairy farmers are part of, voluntarily agreeing to follow EU regulations under this system and abide by EU rules? The farmers are sending the milk in tankers to be processed in Monaghan, so it is processed within EU territory. What happens between the milk’s leaving the farm and its arriving at the processing centre in Monaghan that makes that milk incompatible with EU standards?
Stephen Farry
I think perhaps the right hon. Member was not listening fully. The point relates to the inputs in terms of grain, seeds and veterinary medicines. That is where the particular issue is. My point is that, if people decide not to do that, the scale of the segregation that would be involved in trying to accommodate that choice would lead to costs that the sector simply cannot afford.
Stephen Farry
No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will have a chance to speak shortly.
The outcomes here will pose an existential threat to the Northern Ireland dairy sector. We are talking about potentially 800 million litres of milk that need to be accommodated somehow. The cows, of course, still need to be milked, and that begs the question as to where the surplus milk will go; that could pose considerable environmental challenges. It is simply not sustainable for farmers to retain animals that no longer have an economic purpose, so we could face a brutal cull of healthy cows. It would cost between £200 million and £250 million to create alternative processing capacity in Northern Ireland, and could take three years. Even if it made any sense to do so, by then the markets for Northern Ireland products would be long gone.
It is worth stressing that the island of Ireland has always been treated as a single unit for animal health. That makes huge sense, but dual regulation undermines it; there has not been dual regulation in the recent past. The same dynamic that applies to the dairy sector also applies to other aspects of agrifood, such as Northern Ireland’s very successful meat exporting industry. Any dual regulation in relation to feedstuffs and medicines undermines the ability to access the European Union in accordance with EU regulations.
Again, it is not realistic to segregate certain fields or farms for domestic Northern Ireland or Great Britain markets from those for EU markets, because—this may address the point by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson)—we will not have a situation where one farm says, “We’re only going to do Northern Ireland and Great Britain forever.”, and one says, “We are going to do the European Union.”
Stephen Farry
Because in a free market situation, businesses want to maximise their sales. No business wants to shut off one half of a market when it does not need to.
Overall, the Northern Ireland Food and Drink Association estimates that agrifood provides £4.9 billion in terms of value added to the Northern Ireland economy and supports more than 100,000 jobs. Agrifood may be a small aspect of the economy across the United Kingdom, but it is massive in Northern Ireland, and it is worth noting that, if this Bill destroys the business model for many, there will be few alternatives for employment in many rural areas.
The same dynamic applies to manufacturing. Very few manufacturers seek to service a domestic market only. Any components in goods that are manufactured or processed in Northern Ireland that do not comply with the relevant parts of EU law will not be certified for export into the EU either for further processing or for final sale. Dual regulation may make things easier for suppliers in Great Britain supplying Northern Ireland. However, the needs of Great Britain’s suppliers would be better addressed via improved information and guidance, and of course the delivery of sustainable solutions around the red and green channel and a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement—or, even better, a full UK-EU veterinary agreement.
There are strong reservations, through to outright opposition, to this proposal for dual regulation within the Northern Ireland business community, and I urge hon. Members to listen to them. The amendment therefore provides significant safeguards against dual regulation in broad terms, but also the potential to facilitate dual regulation for any set of products or sectors where it makes sense. Consultation with the Northern Ireland business community is vital, as it has the expertise and on-the-ground knowledge. Agreement with the EU is necessary, as without a proper legal regime it would not work and indeed would be self-defeating. So is the agreement of the Northern Ireland Assembly, since this is notionally for the good of Northern Ireland and the Assembly represents a much more balanced perspective of the political views of the people of Northern Ireland.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Second Deputy Chairman
Just to remind everybody, if you were not here from the very beginning I am afraid you cannot make an independent speech, but you are able to intervene on others. We have a list of everybody who is here. Just before I call Mr Ellis, can I ask hon. Members who wish to contribute on this first group to indicate their intention by standing up, so we can get a general idea? Thank you very much. That will be very useful.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)
I begin by thanking hon. Members for their participation in the debate so far. I remind them that, while the Northern Ireland protocol was agreed with the best of intentions, it is causing real problems for people and businesses in Northern Ireland, and this legislation will fix the practical problems that the protocol has created.
On the clauses under scrutiny today, clause 7 makes it clear that businesses will have a choice which regulatory route to follow when supplying goods to the market in Northern Ireland. It introduces a dual regulatory regime in Northern Ireland for regulated classes of goods to which any provision of annexe 2 to the protocol applies. That will create a new option to meet UK rules, compared with the existing protocol arrangements, whereby goods are required to comply with the relevant EU rules. Where the relevant requirements allow, it will also be possible for the same product to simultaneously comply with both UK and EU sets of requirements. Current traders have no choice but to meet EU rules when supplying goods in or to Northern Ireland. This obviously deters some companies, especially those trading exclusively within the United Kingdom. We have seen numerous examples of that already. It deters them from serving Northern Ireland due to the costs and administrative burdens of meeting this EU law such as retesting, re-marking and relabelling of goods, all of which are expensive, as well as the appointment of a representative to undertake administrative duties. All that bureaucracy comes at a cost, which is unnecessary for goods that are to remain on the UK’s market.
The dual regulatory regime provides businesses across the United Kingdom with choice. If a Northern Ireland business trades north-south in the island of Ireland, it can continue to follow EU rules if it wishes and sell its products in the EU and across the UK, because the Government have a commitment to unfettered access. However, if the model of a business is UK-focused, it can choose to follow UK rules and avoid the additional cost and burden currently applied to intra-UK trade.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend is right to highlight the significant frictions on trade within the UK that the protocol has caused. That has led the courts to conclude that there is a partial suspension of the 1801 articles of the Act of Union. Will the Bill fix that problem and ensure that the Act of Union remains fully on our statute book?
Michael Ellis
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful and valid point. The Bill will ameliorate a plethora of problems that have been caused by the protocol.
As my right hon. Friend knows, by providing an alternative UK rules route to market in Northern Ireland, clause 7 protects the integrity of the UK’s internal market. Clause 8 ensures that the protocol no longer prevents a dual regime such as that introduced by clause 7. It makes provision to exclude EU law where it would prevent goods made to UK rules from being placed on the market in Northern Ireland in accordance with clause 7. It means that goods made to UK rules can be supplied in Northern Ireland in accordance with clause 7 to enable the functioning of this dual regulatory regime.
Clause 9 provides a Minister with the powers to make provisions through secondary legislation to ensure the effective working of the dual regulatory routes in Northern Ireland. The dual regulatory regime will need to take into account the results of engagement with business, which we have already undertaken and will undertake much more of, and it will need to be able to evolve over time as UK and EU regulatory regimes change. The default dual regulatory regime may also need to be amended to ensure that it works effectively for different types of goods—for example, should it be required to ensure that specific highly regulated goods regimes can function effectively. So clause 9 is needed to ensure that goods are compliant throughout the supply chain for traders operating under this dual regulatory regime, whichever route is chosen, and it will therefore safeguard the interests of consumer safety and biosecurity arrangements and maintain appropriate public health standards. The clause is essential to ensure the effective working of the dual regulatory routes and protects the integrity of the UK’s internal markets as well as the EU’s single market.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm what the default position will be if a business has not made an election? Will it operate under EU law unless it positively chooses to use UK regulations? What will the process be for making this choice? Will someone have to file a document with an authority to say that they intend to use UK regulations when they make goods in Northern Ireland? Will there be a public register? Will it be an entirely private choice for a business? Will no one know publicly what they are doing?
Michael Ellis
The first thing to state clearly is that no business will be forced to do anything. They will not be obliged to choose one over the other. It will be up to businesses to do that. One power we will give to Ministers in due course, when the Bill has passed, is to make regulations that will fit in most neatly with businesses’ wishes and desires.
Michael Ellis
If I may, I will make a little more progress.
Clause 9 provides a Minister with the powers to make provisions through secondary legislation to ensure the effective working of the dual regulatory routes in Northern Ireland.
I will move on to clause 10, conscious as I am of the Second Deputy Chairman’s admonition about speed. The clause defines the types of regulatory activity covered by the dual regulatory regime established in the Bill. This provides clarity on interpretation of the Bill’s provisions in relation to the dual regulatory regime and makes the scope of that regime clear.
Clause 10(4) provides that a Minister of the Crown may, by regulations, make provision about the meaning of “regulation of goods” in this Bill, and that includes changing the effect of other provisions of the clause. We want to ensure that the sale of goods made to UK rules in Northern Ireland is not prohibited due to a particular aspect of regulation falling outside the meaning of “regulation of goods” in clause 7. So the power ensures that goods will be able to benefit from the dual regulatory regime.
Ian Paisley
This issue is very important because, before January 2021, goods travelling from GB to Northern Ireland had to fulfil four criteria to be loaded on to a lorry and transported to shops or outlets in Northern Ireland. Since January 2021 there are 15 compliance points, including heavy paperwork responsibilities. Is the point not that those matters will now be removed and we will be back to where we were in 2021—with frictionless trade in the UK?
Michael Ellis
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful and succinct point.
Clause 11 gives Ministers appropriate powers to ensure that the regulatory regime in Northern Ireland operates for goods in any given sector, ranging from ball bearings and ice cream to lamp posts, gas cookers and children’s toys—myriad different items, but also intermediate goods such as chemicals. All are regulated in different fashions. We want to ensure that they can all operate effectively. So the powers in clause 11, which I know are controversial in the eyes of some hon. Members, allow a Minister to prescribe a single regulatory route for specific sectors, including a UK-only route with no application of EU law, for example. This can also apply to part or all of a category of goods or to some or all of a regulatory route. We consider the clause vital in ensuring that the dual regulatory regime can be tailored to the needs of industry and ensure the smooth running of the new regime for all sectors.
Michael Ellis
I will give way, but I am just about to come on to the amendments, so the right hon. Gentleman may wish to wait.
Hilary Benn
It is on the point that the Minister just raised. If I heard him correctly, he just said that the Government were taking a power to prescribe which regulatory route should be chosen. Earlier, he said that it would be entirely a matter for businesses to determine which they chose. Just so the House is clear, the Minister is saying that it is a free choice unless the Government decide that it is not a free choice.
Michael Ellis
No. Businesses will not be obliged to follow any particular route. They will not be forced to follow either UK or EU regulations. It is a choice, and I should be able to expand on that later.
Amendments 44 and 45 are in the name of the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry). As I have said before, the Government are engaging broadly on the issues created by the protocol with stakeholder groups across business and civic society in Northern Ireland, in the rest of the UK and internationally. I have been to Belfast in recent weeks to discuss this with some industries. We will give plenty of notice to those affected. The clauses need to provide stakeholders with certainty that the Government will swiftly deliver the solutions that we have outlined to the problems that the protocol is causing.
Our preference remains to reach a negotiated outcome with the EU. I emphasise that our door remains open. We need a lasting solution to these issues to restore stability in Northern Ireland and a working Northern Ireland Assembly based on the consent of the communities. Her Majesty’s Government have made proposals that would address the issues with the protocol. So far, I am sorry to say, the European Union has not been willing to agree to those, but there is no reason why it could not do so. We hope that it changes its mind. We are always open to discussions, and we want a shared solution—I cannot be clearer than that. However, amendments 44 and 45 risk tying the Government’s hands behind their back. On consent, I respectfully point out that the Northern Ireland Assembly is not sitting at the moment. It is exactly because of the breakdown of the institutions in Northern Ireland that this Bill is needed. We need to see the restoration of the institutions as quickly as possible. Further to that, I confirmed previously to the House that we hope the institutions will be restored soon and that it will be possible for the Northern Ireland Executive to bring forward, for example, a legislative consent motion. I therefore ask the hon. Member for North Down to withdraw the amendments.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
We have been spun the narrative that this is about the consent and the engagement of Northern Ireland. Although, of course, businesses are up for ways to ease the frictions imposed by Brexit, these provisions are far in excess of anything that anybody has asked for.
On the specific issue of restoring the Assembly, it is very vague as to what it will take for the Democratic Unionist party to go back in. Has the Minister any understanding of what the bottom line is for those people who walk around with scarves around their faces and create the protests that the Northern Ireland Office seems so engaged in? Do we think that they will happily accept green and red lanes, or will that be the next problem?
Michael Ellis
May I put it this way? The Sewel convention applies to this Bill, as it does to all Bills of the UK Parliament which intersect with devolved competence. I respectfully point out that the Northern Ireland Assembly is not sitting at the moment. It is exactly because of the breakdown of the institutions in Northern Ireland that we are where we are right now and this Bill is actually needed. We need to see the restoration of the institutions as soon as possible. I hope that goes some way towards answering the hon. Lady’s question.
Michael Ellis
Forgive me, but I must make some progress. I am sure that there will be another opportunity to intervene.
Let me turn to amendment 36, in the name of the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). I addressed this point previously, so I shall be brief. It would potentially circumscribe the ability to design dual regulatory routes under clause 9 to preserve the unity of the UK’s internal market. Given that there are more than 200 pieces of goods regulation applied by the protocol, those powers are needed to ensure that the regime can function effectively in practice for each class of goods. The dual regulatory regime is necessary to remedy disruption to GB-NI trade, which will only worsen as the EU and UK rules diverge over the course of time. The arrangements will also need to be updated over time to reflect changes in UK and EU regulations, so Ministers will need appropriate discretion to make policy decisions in doing so. The right hon. Gentleman may well not agree with me, but I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
I turn to amendment 28, also tabled by the right hon. Member for Tottenham, who I do not think is in his place. The Government have engaged broadly on the issues created by the protocol with stakeholder groups across business and civic society in Northern Ireland, as well in the rest of the UK and internationally. As the House will know, the Bill provides specific powers to establish a new regime in Northern Ireland, which addresses the issues with the current operation of the protocol. We are engaging with stakeholders on the detail of how those powers are to be used and will give plenty of notice to those affected.
The Government have already begun a detailed programme of engagement to inform the specific design of the regime in Northern Ireland that will be created by this Bill. Furthermore, clause 9 is designed to provide stakeholders in Northern Ireland with certainty that the Government will deliver the solutions that we have outlined to the problems the protocol is causing. It is essential that this power can be used quickly if needed. Although in normal cases the Government will engage with stakeholder groups in Northern Ireland, and already are engaging with them, there may be occasions when the urgency of a situation means that the Government need to act swiftly. The amendment risks tying the Government’s hands behind their back.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the Minister note that, while the Opposition are now asking for an economic assessment of the protocol Bill, they did not seek any such economic assessment before they voted for the protocol? Even when the economic consequences were evident, they then still pursued the path of supporting the protocol. It does seem a bit hypocritical to ask for an economic assessment of this Bill while ignoring the economic impact of the protocol, which they support.
Michael Ellis
The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, and it is one with which I tend to agree.
The full details of the new regime will be set out in and alongside regulations made under the Bill, and that includes economic impacts where appropriate. The regulations will be the product of engagement with business. We are going to talk to people to ensure that the detail of the new regime is as smooth and as operable as possible. That is what we are getting on with now. The House will have the opportunity to scrutinise these regulations in the usual fashion, under the normal parliamentary procedures. An additional requirement for the Government to lay an assessment and a report each time, which is what this amendment asks for, would clearly not be necessary. That is why I ask the right hon. Member not to press the amendment.
Let me move on to new clause 13 in the name the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood). I argue that this new clause is unnecessary. The hon. Gentleman’s new clause would create a statutory obligation for the UK Government to publish, at least quarterly, what steps are being taken by Her Majesty’s Government to promote, uphold, support and facilitate dual access to the British market and European markets. The Government already publish a host of information on trade, and it is not necessary, in my submission, to duplicate existing publications on a quarterly basis and lay them before Parliament. The dual regulatory regime provides businesses across the UK with choice. If a Northern Ireland-based business trades north-south on the island of Ireland, then they can continue, as now, to follow EU rules and sell their products in the EU and across the UK, because of the Government’s commitment to unfettered access. But if their business model is UK-focused, they can choose to follow UK rules and benefit from the opportunities afforded there. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman not to press his new clause.
Finally, let me turn to new clauses 14 and 15 in the name of the hon. Member for Foyle. These new clauses are, in some aspects, unnecessary, and, in other aspects, inappropriate. As the hon. Gentleman knows, article 14(b) of the protocol already requires the specialised committee to
“examine proposals concerning the implementation and application of this Protocol from the North-South Ministerial Council and North-South Implementation bodies set up under the 1998 Agreement”.
That is an entirely appropriate and valuable role. The hon. Gentleman’s new clauses, by contrast, would create a statutory obligation for the UK Government to “support” proposals relating to the regulation of goods made by the North-South Ministerial Council and other North-South Implementation bodies.
That would cede control over the UK Government’s stance in the Joint Committee to a council on which the Irish Government—the Government of an EU member state—sits. The hon. Member can surely see that this would be wholly inappropriate. In any case, as part of our “New Decade, New Approach” commitments, the Government already ensure that representatives from the Northern Ireland Executive are invited to meetings of the Joint Committee, which discusses Northern Ireland specific matters, and these are also attended by the Irish Government.
Claire Hanna
Does the Minister agree that the North-South Ministerial Council and other architecture of the Good Friday agreement provide solutions to addressing some of the issues around democratic deficit and input of civic society? Does he acknowledge that the North-South Ministerial Council is not currently operating because strand one and strand two of the agreement are being held to ransom by the DUP?
Michael Ellis
I do not accept the characterisation of the hon. Lady’s point.
The aspects of new clauses 14 and 15 obliging the Government to lay reports before Parliament are also unnecessary. The Government have already committed to—and do—lay written ministerial statements in Parliament before and after each meeting of the Joint Committee. We also provide explanatory memorandums on matters to be discussed at Joint Committee meetings. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Foyle not to press new clauses 14 and 15.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) asked in an intervention about businesses having a choice. Businesses will, of course, have a choice by default. He asked about processes. We are engaging with businesses. We may need to tailor regulatory routes in some cases, but businesses will have a choice by default.
To conclude, the Bill on which this honourable House is spending up to 18 hours in Committee provides a comprehensive and durable solution to the existing problems with the Northern Ireland protocol by giving businesses a choice over which regulatory route to follow when placing goods on the market in Northern Ireland. I therefore recommend that the clauses under consideration stand part of the Bill.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship once again, Mr Evans.
I shall start by responding to a point made by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). To clarify, the Labour party and I voted against the protocol when it was before the House. In fact, we walked through the Lobbies together on this issue. I am surprised he does not remember such a memorable occasion—it is quite a rarity, it must be admitted. I hope that when he comes to speak, he will correct the record, because we have a good relationship. It is one that I value and that I hope will continue.
Sammy Wilson
For the record, will the hon. Gentleman tell us the stance of his party on the protocol today?
Peter Kyle
First, I am slightly disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman did not take the opportunity to correct the record from his previous intervention.
My stance and that of the Labour party on the protocol is very clear: it needs to evolve, to change and to be improved, and that should be done by all lawful means. This Bill is not lawful. Of course, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the former Prime Minister, said on the Floor of the House just a few days ago that in her opinion it was unlawful. We heard from a former Attorney General in the last day of debate that he felt it was unlawful.
For that reason, the Labour party believes that although we voted against the protocol in the first place, now that it is in domestic statute and part of an international treaty, the responsible thing to do is to negotiate a way forward. What we cannot do is repeat the debates of previous days. We need to stick to the clauses before us. Today, we are talking about—
Peter Kyle
Of course I will give way, but I will not rehearse the debates of the previous two days.
Ian Paisley
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s giving way. The issue of lawfulness, which he put on the agenda today, has to be addressed. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is the only Committee to have taken evidence on the lawfulness, or otherwise, of the protocol under international law. For the record, it was stated:
“no, it does not violate international law. It does not violate the protocol.”
I have heard people who should know better saying that it does, but I am afraid they are wrong. They are obviously not international lawyers. The evidence given to this House by the emeritus professor of public international law at the University of Edinburgh, who advises the Government and the Opposition, says that it does not break the law. Why does the hon. Gentleman persist with this inaccurate point?
Peter Kyle
Again, I will not repeat the debate from the first day of Committee, when all those issues were explored in detail. It is a shame to hear the hon. Gentleman say that of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead, whom I know he respects. She said in the House that she asked herself three questions:
“First, do I consider it to be legal… Secondly, will it achieve its aims? Thirdly, does it…maintain the standing of the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world? My answer to all three questions is no.”—[Official Report, 27 June 2022; Vol. 717, c. 63.]
Peter Kyle
I am going to move on, because we need to stick to the clauses before us. I will give way once, but I promise, Mr Evans, that I will then crack on with the business before us.
Stephen Farry
Hopefully it will be a very helpful intervention. Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that it is important for Members to reflect fully on the evidence that was given to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee? The last time the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) made reference to it, at least one of the people who gave evidence expressed concern, along with other international lawyers, that what was said did not fully reflect the subtlety of the arguments put before the Committee, which were not as simplistic as the hon. Gentleman said.
Peter Kyle
I am very grateful for that intervention. For the record, I think that all the interventions I receive here are helpful. They are certainly in the spirit of the debate that this place exists for. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is right, and I am grateful to him for setting the record straight so that we can move forward.
Today, we are considering clauses 7 to 11, which deal with the dual regulatory regime the Government want to set up for Northern Ireland. Amendment 28 would require a Minister to carry out an economic impact assessment and a consultation before making any regulations for a dual regulatory regime. Some parts of the Bill indicate that the Government have been listening to problems that businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland are facing. In those areas, the Labour party is clear that the EU must show more flexibility to deliver the progress that businesses in Northern Ireland need.
However, in proceeding with the dual regulatory regime, the Government demonstrate that they are ignoring the voices of most businesses. We saw that in the Government’s press release about Second Reading. It revealed, alarmingly, that the Government had only just begun
“a series of structured engagements with the business community, to discuss and gather views on the detailed implementation of the Bill.”
That had happened in recent days—not recent weeks, months or years, but in recent days. Businesses I know that are taking part in the process have asked for a commitment from the Government that they will publish the results in a report. I hope that the Minister will give that assurance from the Dispatch Box today.
Instead of taking the time to develop a policy that works for businesses, the Foreign Secretary is doing what the Government have done from the start: they have been so preoccupied negotiating with the various factions in their own party that they neglect to engage meaningfully with the stakeholders and partners who are the only ones able to unlock the progress our country needs.
Declan Billington, the chief executive of John Thompson and Sons animal feed manufacturers and co-chair of the Northern Ireland Food and Drink Association, said, when asked for his assessment of the proposals,
“I cannot actually answer the question because when I say, ‘Lift the bonnet under the bill and show me the detailed policies that we can engage with,’ I hear conversations about co-design and, therefore, I cannot benchmark.”
This is absurd. Instead of coming up with serious proposals, the Government are simply asking businesses to do the hard graft for them. In a damning assessment, the trade expert Sam Lowe described the proposed dual regulatory regime as
“a solution looking for a problem: it is near-impossible to find a business in Northern Ireland advocating for it.”
There are many reasons businesses are not calling for a dual regulatory system. High on the list is the shift in the burden of responsibility for ensuring that goods do not enter the EU off the Government agencies and on to the 75,000 individual Northern Ireland businesses. That might work for retailers, but exporters and businesses with highly integrated all-island supply chains see it as an almost existential threat. Again, the Government have been clear that their preferred outcome for the protocol is a negotiated solution. Such unserious proposals undermine the common ground in other areas.
The dissent in Tory ranks complicates the situation further. Several prominent Conservatives, including the Attorney General, have said that they want the dual regulatory regime to be scrapped in favour of mutual enforcement down the line. The irony of asking for mutual enforcement is that it requires absolute trust between the UK and the EU. It would take serious negotiation and deep good faith to achieve it. It is pure fantasy to think that we can get there with this Bill, which unilaterally rewrites the agreement we have.
Hilary Benn
The dual regulatory regime raises more questions than it answers. If I understand the Government’s position correctly, a firm can decide to operate under one regime or the other. Say, for the sake of argument, that UK regulation banned a particular ingredient for a food product, but it was not banned by the EU. Is it my hon. Friend’s understanding of the Government’s proposals that it would be legal for a firm in Northern Ireland to sell that product with the banned ingredient in the rest of the UK, so long as the company claimed it was operating under EU rules?
Peter Kyle
I am always very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his interventions in these debates; they always add a great deal. He has, with his forensic mind, picked a situation that shows one of the many absurdities thrown up by this Bill. It will, in practice, mean a huge amount of complexity for businesses across Northern Ireland and elsewhere. Some businesses will find it impossible to answer the questions he has raised, and will be deterred from trading on current terms, simply because they are worried about infractions from one of the markets or the other, or indeed about how the two interact. That is an area that I will move on to.
Peter Kyle
After I have made this point, I will, because I am always interested in the hon. Member’s views on this issue.
What the Government are proposing would impose additional layers of bureaucracy to prove that every step of the milk processing complied with EU standards. This would be disastrous for the dairy industry; it would require segregation of milk at every stage and push the sector into negative growth in Northern Ireland.
Ian Paisley
On that technical point, as the hon. Member will accept, the protocol is an example of red tape being used to tie up commerce. Given what he has just said, does he accept that a commercial opportunity is being set aside, and farmers are not being allowed to take it?
Peter Kyle
The hon. Member talks about what I said, but all I did was quote the words of the Dairy Council for Northern Ireland; I was not expressing my views. When I talk about an industry in Northern Ireland, I of course try extremely hard to listen to the people on the frontline who represent that industry. Of course I take into consideration his experience, and the frontline experiences of his family.
My amendment 28 says, “Let’s listen to those on the frontline and get the Government to do an assessment before we do something that could have radical consequences for the sector.” I understand that the hon. Member has first-hand experience of talking to people, and of living in a family of people, who are affected by this. Expert opinion fed to me contradicts that view. What is the logical conclusion? Before we move forward with a set of regulations that could ride roughshod over the dairy industry in Northern Ireland, let us take the time to make an assessment. We should have an impact assessment, lay it before the House, and debate it before we pass a law that could radically impact the industry.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Member has to be very careful in listening to bodies that claim to be representative of an industry; those at the top of the body very often have their own agenda. Let us look at the logic of his argument. A third of Northern Ireland’s milk goes for processing in the Irish Republic. In other words, some businesses in the Irish Republic are dependent on an awful lot of milk, which they cannot produce in their country, from Northern Ireland. If we have a system of dual regulation that ensures that the milk is as safe tomorrow as it was yesterday, and as safe after the Bill goes through as it was before the Bill, does he not think that businesses and Government in the Irish Republic will accept that Northern Ireland milk is essential for those industries, and so would not seek to put a barrier in its way?
Peter Kyle
The point I am making is quite clear. There is a difference of opinion here, and I think it is unwise to reject out of hand the representative body for the dairy sector in Northern Ireland. Let us engage with that. I have been very respectful of the right hon. Gentleman’s view, but I make the point that that was the second intervention from him, and I did ask him to correct the record in relation to his previous intervention, when he said something that was categorically untrue about my voting in the past. I hope that when he makes his next intervention he will do the right and honourable thing, which is to correct the record unequivocally and recognise that I voted in the polar opposite way to the way that he said I did.
The best way for us to resolve these issues is to have an independent assessment of the impact on different sectors that might be negatively affected—or certainly affected—by the legislation. It would be irresponsible not to, because there is such a difference of opinion.
Stephen Farry
Talking of putting things on the record, would the shadow Secretary of State join me in standing up for the credibility of Mike Johnston, who leads the Dairy Council for Northern Ireland? I stress that no one here has any evidence whatsoever that he has any motivation other than standing up for the interests of his industry.
Peter Kyle
I am certainly very grateful for the intervention, and to the witness for giving the benefit of his insight, wisdom and experience to a Select Committee of the House—insight gained from his membership of his organisation. All submissions to this place are welcome, and must be received in the spirit in which they were given to the House. However, it is the role of Government to deliver, and I urge the Government and Ministers to deliver in the way that has the least chance of negatively impacting a sector as important as the dairy sector in Northern Ireland. We are talking about the dairy sector, but it is just one of many sectors that could be negatively impacted if the Government get the implementation of the Bill wrong.
The Dairy Council for Northern Ireland estimates that processing all the milk that Northern Ireland produces would take three years and up to £250 million of investment. Let us be clear that we are debating a proposal that would cripple a part of the economy that supplies basic consumer goods and is working well. The proposals would take a wrecking ball to this key sector in the middle of a cost of living crisis, wreaking havoc on businesses and driving up prices. It would be a different debate if the Government were saying that they are introducing a dual regulatory regime because they do not want Northern Ireland to have dual market access any more, and this was the first step towards that, but that is not what Ministers are saying.
On Second Reading, the Foreign Secretary said that this regime
“cuts the processes that drive up cost for business”—[Official Report, 27 June 2022; Vol. 717, c. 40-41]
and allows business to choose which market they want to use. That is the exact opposite of what businesses are saying that a dual regulatory regime would achieve in practice. It is self-explanatory that moving to a dual regime would lead to more administration. The clue is in the name: dual regulation, under a dual regime, means double the number of processes that a business could encounter.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I fear the shadow Secretary of State is approaching this on the premise that the dual regulatory system will be compulsory. As I understand the Government’s proposal, it is for each business—and sector, indeed, if it so wishes—to decide whether it wants to opt in or opt out of this system. Businesses and sectors could decide to opt into the UK system only or the EU system only, or both. The idea that every business and sector will have to adopt both sets of regulations is simply not true.
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for the intervention. I make two simple points: first, I used the word “could” encounter, not “would” or “be compelled” to encounter. Secondly, let us take a business that might be operating in both markets. It would be forced to undertake the bureaucracy required by both markets. He says that is optional. Of course it is, but it is not optimal if a business that is operating perfectly contently and successfully—perhaps even growing, and creating more wealth, opportunity and jobs in Northern Ireland—wants to withdraw from one of the markets just to avoid the paperwork. It would not be forced; I understand that. It would be voluntary, but let us not kid ourselves that withdrawing from one of the markets simply to avoid bureaucracy or red tape would not have any impact on jobs, prosperity and wealth in Northern Ireland.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
Northern Ireland does not operate in a vacuum. A business in my constituency is no different from a business in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. If a business in his constituency wants to sell goods in the EU single market, is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that that business can apply British standards, even if they are different from EU standards, and sell those goods in the EU without complying with EU standards? Of course not. Businesses in Northern Ireland have to make commercial decisions. If they want to sell goods to the EU, they must comply with EU standards. If they want to sell goods in the UK, they must comply with British standards. That is the way the commercial world works. That is the way it is regulated. Let us not pretend that we are creating a new regime here for Northern Ireland businesses, and that if we want to sell goods both in the UK and the EU, we need only one set of standards. That is not the case.
Peter Kyle
I am not quite sure where to start with that intervention. The right hon. Gentleman suggests we take the instance of my community in Hove and Portslade, on the sunny Sussex coastline. If businesses there are exporting to the EU, then of course they have to do all the additional red tape that has been imposed by the particular Brexit deal negotiated by this Government, but they do not have to do so if they are selling locally. This is the problem we have at the moment: we are suggesting a dual regime for the domestic Northern Ireland market, so it is not the same. Those who trade within Sussex—there is such fantastic produce grown, compiled, sold and retailed there—would not expect to have two regulatory regimes forced on them in Sussex. I do not think we should conflate exporters with those who produce for the domestic market. That is the problem we face in Northern Ireland; producers there are certainly being forced, in that situation, to make a choice. I am not suggesting that anybody is being forced to trade under both regimes. They can unilaterally decide to withdraw from one of the markets and perhaps downscale their business. But let us move on.
Hilary Benn
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; he is being most generous. The argument has been put by the Minister and others in the Chamber that businesses in Northern Ireland would be entirely free to choose whether they use one regulatory system or the other, but according to the explanatory notes, clause 11
“allows a Minister to prescribe whether the dual regime should no longer apply to a specific class of regulated goods. It also provides a power for a Minister of the Crown to modify the different regulatory routes available in Northern Ireland.”
In other words, the Government are taking for themselves the power to turn off the choice that they advocated that businesses should have, as an argument for voting for the proposals.
Peter Kyle
Again, my right hon. Friend makes a fundamental point about the weakness of the Bill. It is basically a one-sentence Bill. Paragraph (a) in clause 1 states that the Bill
“provides that certain specified provision of the Northern Ireland Protocol does not have effect in the United Kingdom”.
That is the heart of the Bill. The rest of the Bill is, as he says, powers for Ministers to act as they will into the future. That is a fundamental problem. We have heard time and again throughout the passage of the Bill that it repatriates the most enormous powers not to British traders and not to the regions of Britain and Northern Ireland, but to Ministers directly. It creates huge uncertainty. As I said earlier, businesses recognise that they cannot prepare, because they do not know how Ministers will implement the powers they have into the future. At the moment, all they are saying is that they want those powers to make use of as they see fit.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I rise to speak to, or at least draw attention to, amendments 19 and 22 in my name, and to speak to the other amendments that have been discussed.
On amendments 19 and 22, I do not intend to rehearse in any depth the arguments I put forward on day one, except to say that even if the Bill was not at risk of being in breach of international law, in our view it still gives Ministers far too much power to proceed without adequate reference back to this place and opportunities for scrutiny by Members. I make that point again for the consideration of the Treasury Bench; no doubt they will instantly dispose of it, but nobody can accuse me of not having made it again.
On amendments 44 and 45, it seems to me entirely reasonable that Ministers should be required to consult appropriately on the impact of dual routes, and to make sure there is an agreement with the EU and the option to choose between dual routes so that the dual routes procedure can operate as intended. It also seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to refer back to the directly elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland in the Assembly on how they might wish such a mechanism to go ahead or to work, so we are supportive of amendments 44 and 45.
On amendment 28, ensuring that an economic impact assessment is carried out before proceeding with a dual regulatory regime seems to me to be the very essence of common sense. If only we had carried out a thorough economic assessment before stepping into this morass in the first place, it might have given people some pause for thought.
Finally—I said I would be brief—new clause 15 would require the House to be informed timeously of the details of discussions in the UK-EU Joint Committee when they involved regulation of goods in connection with the protocol, and to be given details of the regard that has been offered to the strand 1 and strand 2 arrangements. That seems a perfectly sensible way to ensure that consent is in place and that the views of all relevant stakeholders have been properly taken into consideration before such a momentous step is taken.
We entirely support those provisions and, if they are selected for separate decision, we intend to walk through the Lobby in support of them.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the various amendments. I say to my honourable friends and colleagues from the Alliance party and the Social Democratic and Labour party that, in all their contributions to debates on the Bill, I have yet to hear once any acknowledgment of the impact of the protocol on the Unionist community in Northern Ireland and its sense of identity, including its sense of identity within the United Kingdom. There has been no recognition from either party of the importance of these issues for the people I represent and how that has contributed significantly to the breakdown of power sharing in Northern Ireland and the breakdown of the North South Ministerial Council. If we are going to find a solution, I have to say, with respect to my colleagues, that simply focusing in on what I accept are important points while ignoring the elephant in the room will not take us anywhere close to finding a solution that restores political stability in Northern Ireland.
Claire Hanna
I think Members across the Chamber would concur, and Hansard will certainly show, that I and others are acutely aware of the discombobulating and disturbing impact on many of a Unionist background. We have put on record many times our concerns about the symbolic effect of borders, which is why we worked so hard and for so many years to ensure that there is a borderless solution. We regret that not all parties joined us in that fight. Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that many of us are concerned that his party, in legitimate pursuit of the rights of those with a strong Unionist identity, utterly ignores the majority of people who support the protocol in some form and is disregarding the majority of people in Northern Ireland—a comfortable majority—who wish the Northern Ireland Assembly to be up and running and who wish MLAs, MPs and others to find a negotiated, not a unilateral, solution to this impasse?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I welcome the intervention from the hon. Member, for whom who I have a high regard. It is important that she placed on record a recognition of the concerns of Unionists, but she mentioned the word “majority” at least twice, and I find that interesting. She will no doubt scold me for quoting John Hume, as she did my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), who is with us this afternoon. I have said on the record that even though I would have had many differences with John Hume, I came to respect and understand his very clear view that in a divided society such as Northern Ireland, consensus, not majority rule, is the way forward. As a Unionist, I accepted that any political institutions that were to operate in Northern Ireland and that could command broad support had to operate on the basis of that consensus. The consensus has broken down because of the protocol’s impact on the Unionist community.
Claire Hanna
Does the right hon. Member acknowledge that it feels duplicitous to many people for him and his colleagues to say repeatedly that the protocol requires cross-community consent but that Brexit does not—that the protocol means that this Bill is fine because it has a Unionist party’s consent, even though all the other parties, representing a number of other traditions, do not support it? Does he acknowledge that there is a bit of give and take? Many Unionists would like this argument to end, but does he understand that you cannot in the same breath make the argument for consensus while completely discounting every single elected representative of a nationalist or other identity?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I have no desire whatever to replace Unionist discontentment with nationalist discontentment in Northern Ireland. I recognise that a solution to these issues must be capable of commanding broad support and of dealing with the concerns that arise, not just for Unionists. If, for a moment, we can set aside the process—I think that is what incurs the wrath of some about how the Government are going about this—and look the Government’s proposed solution, I believe we will see that it is capable of addressing the concerns of the European Union and its need to protect the single market and its integrity. What it does for Unionists, however, is to respect the integrity of the UK internal market.
When I hear the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) explaining his opposition to the Bill—I use this only as an example; I am not saying that it is the totality of his opposition—by saying that because one third of milk production in Northern Ireland crosses the border to be processed, we cannot find a solution that respects the integrity of the UK internal market, I am simply at a loss to understand the logic of that argument, because it completely ignores the right of this United Kingdom to regulate its own market. We do have that right, as a nation. We took that right upon ourselves when, in a referendum, the majority in this country voted to leave the European Union. I understand the point that the hon. Member for Belfast South makes. If we could turn the clock back, she would argue, no doubt, that in such a referendum there should be a need for cross-community consent in Northern Ireland, but the fact is that that did not exist—it was not argued for at the time—and the result of the referendum stands.
Therefore, we must make the best of this, but the best of it is not the protocol, because the protocol seriously inhibits the ability of the United Kingdom to regulate its internal market. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), made the point that it goes beyond that: it actually undermines the Union itself. In respect of article 6 of the Acts of Union, which gives every citizen in this United Kingdom the right to trade freely within our own country, stating that there shall be no barriers to trade between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, the protocol undermines the Union. It undermines Northern Ireland’s ability, as part of the United Kingdom, to trade freely with the rest of our own country.
Claire Hanna
The SDLP is acutely aware of the sensitivity of people’s identity, but does the right hon. Member agree that having customs checks
“doesn’t mean that you change the constitutional status of a part of the United Kingdom,”
and does he agree that he said that on 3 March 2020?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
Absolutely. The customs checks I was referring to were in the context of proposals that the Government had introduced in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill—and that they proposed to introduce in the Finance Bill—which would have removed the need for customs checks on goods circulating within the United Kingdom. My point to the BBC at the time was that customs checks on goods moving into the EU do not represent constitutional change, but what does represent constitutional change, as confirmed by the High Court and the Court of Appeal, is placing those checks on goods staying within the United Kingdom.
My party and I have been consistent on this point. If the hon. Lady refers back to the speeches made when the protocol was debated in this House, she will see that the view of the Democratic Unionist party has been clear from the outset that the protocol, if unchanged, would threaten Northern Ireland’s place within the UK and impact our ability to trade with the rest of our country, and that we opposed the notion that we could have customs checks on goods moving within the UK internal market. That has consistently been our position, because that alters our constitutional status as part of the United Kingdom.
I believe that what the Government propose is a serious endeavour to correct that problem and address that difficulty, to ensure that we can regulate our own internal market and that where goods are moving within the United Kingdom and staying within the United Kingdom, they are not subject to customs checks, which, in our opinion, are unnecessary.
As the Minister rightly indicated, clause 7 introduces a system of dual regulation in Northern Ireland. I will not repeat what I said to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), but I listened very carefully to what he had to say. If a business in his constituency wants to export goods to the United States of America, it must comply with US standards. It is the same for businesses in any part of the United Kingdom wanting to export to the EU: they must comply with EU standards.
I will use the example of the dairy sector to set out what is different for Northern Ireland. Farmers in my constituency who are part of the Lakeland Dairies co-operative have their milk collected in tankers at their farms in County Down and County Antrim and driven to the processing plant across the border. Very often, that milk comes back to Northern Ireland and is sold on our supermarket shelves, so we need a bespoke solution for the dairy sector. Dual regulation does not prevent that from happening. In fact, it enables it, because although one third of milk crosses the border, two thirds of it remains in Northern Ireland for processing. It is as if we are ignoring the reality that the majority of farmers in Northern Ireland do not send their milk across the border to be processed; it stays in Northern Ireland, and much of it is sold in Great Britain. No provision has been made for that.
Colum Eastwood
If the right hon. Member agrees that the North South Ministerial Council would be a good forum for discussing some of these issues, maybe he would allow it to meet.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I am as anxious as anyone to get back to having those discussions, and once the confidence of the Unionist community has been restored—the Bill has the potential to help us to do that—we will be back in our place. I simply say to the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), as I said to the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), that we must recognise that this is not just about the practicalities of trade; for Unionists it goes much deeper than that, and we need to address this. We need to find a solution to this that rebuilds confidence and restores the need for consensus in our politics, and that applies to the North South Ministerial Council. What I cannot accept, and what my party would not agree to, is giving the North South Ministerial Council a veto over what the UK can do to regulate its internal market. I do not think that is right or appropriate. It would have an impact on the delicate constitutional balances that are part of the Belfast agreement.
Colum Eastwood
The right hon. Member makes an interesting point, and I think he is right when he says that it is not just the practicalities of trade that are damaging confidence within the Unionist population, but does he believe that this will be enough to keep those people who are out on the streets happy? There will still be checks, and that constitutional issue that he has will not go away as a result of this Bill.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
We are seeking to find a solution that works for everyone, and we are listening to what business is saying, just as the hon. Member for North Down and the SDLP are rightly doing. I accept that there will not be a solution that everyone in Northern Ireland will agree with.
I do not believe that accommodating checks on goods moving from the UK to the EU represents a constitutional change to our status as part of the United Kingdom, but I do believe that carrying out customs checks on goods travelling from GB to Northern Ireland and staying within the United Kingdom does have a constitutional impact on our position within the United Kingdom. I make a distinction in that respect. The question then is where and how you do those checks. We are prepared to look at what the Government are proposing, which is why I asked them to publish as soon as possible their proposals for the so-called green lane and red lane approach so we can see what that means in practice and how it might work, and to consult the Northern Ireland political parties and the business community on the practicalities of all this. But, in my opinion, removing the bureaucracy, the checks and the restrictions on the movement of goods within the UK internal market answers the question raised by the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet: this will resolve the issue around article 6 of the Act of Union, which says there should be no barriers to trade within the United Kingdom itself.
Although I understand the concerns that have been raised about the practical workings of this Bill, I believe it offers a potential solution that addresses the real and genuine concerns of not only Unionists in Northern Ireland but many in the business community. Yes, some in the business community say that the protocol works for them, but many say the opposite.
We are looking for an outcome that respects Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom, that respects the core principles of the Belfast agreement, including the need for consensus, that removes the barriers to trade within the United Kingdom, that offers a practical solution to goods crossing into the European Union and protects the integrity of the EU’s single market, and that enables business to have a real say in how those solutions are designed.
We will not be supporting the amendments because we do not believe they are necessary to achieve the required objectives.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of amendment 28.
It is frustrating and worrying that, yet again, we are debating legislation that will violate an international agreement under a Government who have an alarming disregard for the rule of law. For the second time in the space of a few weeks, the Government are attempting to force a Northern Ireland Bill through this House against the express wishes of many people in the north.
The contempt in which this Government hold the views of people in the north of Ireland has become increasingly clear. They are simply pawns in this Government’s political games, yet the decisions taken today and tomorrow will have a massive impact on the lives of ordinary people across the Irish sea. Given that the Government forced through the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill just the other week, despite being opposed by every party in the Northern Ireland Assembly, it is a shameless act of hypocrisy that they are now using the lack of cross-community support for the protocol as an excuse for scrapping it, especially when the majority of MLAs have written to the Prime Minister opposing these plans, branding them “reckless”, and rejecting the Government’s
“claim to be protecting the Good Friday Agreement as your Government works to destabilise our region. To complain the protocol lacks cross-community consent, while ignoring the fact that Brexit itself—let alone hard Brexit—lacks even basic majority consent here, is a grotesque act of political distortion.”
Cross-community support has real meaning in Northern Ireland, and it is so poor that the Government are seeking to portray themselves as champions of bridging the divide when, just the other week, they were dismissing its importance out of hand. It is absolutely clear that the majority of legislators in the north believe that the measures in this Bill will come at a clear economic cost to Northern Ireland and that the protocol represents the only available protection for Northern Ireland from the worst impacts of that hard Brexit. It is therefore scandalous that this dying Government are dedicating their final days to riding roughshod over the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland in the name of policies that could have a detrimental impact on the local economy.
That is why I will be supporting amendment 28, as it would prevent the Government from making regulations relating to the dual regulatory regime until an economic impact assessment of the proposed changes has been carried out. The Prime Minister negotiated, signed off and campaigned on this protocol, which he promised to deliver—one of the many promises on which he has reneged. Now, in the death throes of his term in office, he is forcing through this Bill, damaging the credibility of GB. As he leaves office, his legacy remains a complete lack of respect for the rule of law, for international agreements and for the people of Northern Ireland. Sadly, the people of Northern Ireland will be poorer for it.
Sammy Wilson
First, as the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), seems to be very sensitive about any comments I make about his past voting behaviour, may I confirm that yes, of course, he walked through the Lobby with us in opposition to the withdrawal agreement? I am not so sure that his main motive was his objection to the Northern Ireland protocol. I suspect that the evidence since that date, the full support the Labour party has given to the protocol and its ignoring of many of the concerns that Unionists have probably confirm my view, and that of most people in Northern Ireland, that regardless of the initial trip through the Lobby in this House, the Labour party supports the protocol. Indeed, its amendments today would seem to indicate that it opposes any attempts to do away with the protocol. I hope that that is a sufficient assurance to him as to my position on his stance.
I want to deal with the three main amendments that have been debated today. The first is amendment 44 to clause 7, in the name of the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry). It is, no doubt, an attempt to ensure that the process and the concept of dual regulation never takes place. Yet what is the purpose of clause 7? It is threefold. First, it is to ensure that the democratic deficit that exists in Northern Ireland is wiped out. That deficit relates to the EU regulations and laws currently on the statute book as a result of annexe 2 of the protocol and the prospect of any of those 82 pages of laws being changed in the future. Those changes would apply to Northern Ireland without any say from this House, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the business community in Northern Ireland, whether they were detrimental or not.
For the life of me, I cannot see how the continued imposition of that part of the protocol is to the advantage of Northern Ireland. Indeed, I note that some who are opposing the Bill are doing so on the basis that the regulations provided for in the Bill would be implemented by Ministers here, without reference, they say, to the Northern Ireland Executive or Assembly. It seems okay for EU laws to be imposed upon Northern Ireland without any say, but it is an “affront to democracy” when UK Ministers impose regulations on their own country. One has to look at the motives of those who are opposing this clause and ask: are they and do they continue to be the agents of the EU, wishing that we could remain in the EU, even knowing that the people have voted not to remain in the EU? They are trying to circumvent the wishes of the people of the United Kingdom.
Secondly, these regulations apply by and large to firms that will never trade with the EU. Some 95% of firms in Northern Ireland do not do any trade with the EU, yet they are required under the protocol to abide by EU regulations. This Bill genuinely gives the best of both worlds to firms in Northern Ireland, because those that do not trade with the EU will now be freed from having to abide by costly EU regulations, which may even be detrimental to their business.
At the same time, those that wish to trade with the EU will be able to volunteer to accept EU laws, even though those EU laws have not passed through the Northern Ireland Assembly or been subject to scrutiny. Regardless of the fact that those laws have not been scrutinised, or that they may have detrimental effects, they will volunteer to comply with the regulations. If that is the case, that addresses the concern expressed by the hon. Member for North Down and others—here again, the hon. Member for Hove is wrong—[Interruption.] I think the record will show that the hon. Member did say that businesses would be forced to adopt those regulations. No one will be forced to adopt them. They will make a commercial decision: do I wish to trade with the EU? If I do, I will volunteer to comply with the regulations.
One of my arguments about the Bill is that the clause on dual regulation is probably unnecessary. If a firm decides to trade with another nation, by definition it will have to apply the regulations that are required to sell goods in that country. There is no need for a firm such as Caterpillar in my constituency, which sells generators to Africa, China and America, to adopt dual regulation with the countries to which it sells the generators. It simply makes sure that it adopts and includes the relevant regulations when producing its products, because otherwise it could not sell in those countries. Nevertheless, the Government have decided to include this measure, to give an assurance to the EU that firms that trade from Northern Ireland into the European Union via the Irish Republic will be compliant with EU regulations. They will make that decision. People talk about the Government not honouring the protocol, but this is another way in which they have sought to honour an objective of the protocol, namely that the EU single market will be safeguarded. It will be safeguarded because firms will make a conscious decision to abide by the regulations, whether they are manufacturing chairs, sofas, beds or milk.
I am very touched by the concern that the hon. Member for North Down has for the agriculture industry. I wish he would transfer that concern to some of the climate zealots in his own party, who are demanding that we stop eating beef, drinking milk and using dairy products, and that laws are passed to ensure that people cannot enjoy the kind of sunny day we are experiencing today. I wish only that his concern for the farming industry in Northern Ireland was as consistent as he claims it to be, because I do not think it is. Indeed, some of the climate policies that his party has been promoting in Stormont would have devastated the beef industry, the pig industry, the sheep industry, and the dairy industry in Northern Ireland.
Amendment 13 would require a report on dual access. Substantial information is produced on trade across the border. That is why we know that only 0.4% of EU trade comes through Northern Ireland—we have the statistics. That is how we know that only 5% of businesses sell to the Irish Republic, and that five times more of our exports go to GB than to the Irish Republic. There is already extensive reporting, so I do not know why there is any need for further reports. There also seems to be concern about the impact that the measure would have on the European market. Well, I think the role of this Government is to protect the UK market, not to have concerns about what happens in the EU market. The EU can look after its own market—we have left it—and decide what is good or bad for it. This Government do not have a job to promote the EU market; they do have a job to protect and promote the UK market.
Amendment 14 would require that the North South Ministerial Council debate the regulations and come to a conclusion, and then that that conclusion be reflected and supported by the UK Government and the Joint Committee. There are two fundamental flaws in this. First, the North South Ministerial Council does not have a role in dealing with issues that are reserved matters here at Westminster; it only has a role in dealing with those aspects that are under the remit of the devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland and the Irish Government. So this would extend the role and the remit of the North South Ministerial Council by allowing and requiring it to comment on issues that are reserved to the United Kingdom Government. Secondly, the United Kingdom would then be required to reflect and support the view of the North South Ministerial Council. Let us not forget that although people talk about the all-Ireland economy, the Irish Government are in competition with the Northern Ireland economy and with the UK economy. How can we reasonably expect something that may be agreed at the North South Ministerial Council that may be detrimental to the UK economy to be supported by UK Ministers?
Claire Hanna
Does the Member acknowledge that the North South Ministerial Council, when it is not being held to ransom, is already a consensus-based forum, and that our amendment speaks to proposals agreed there that would therefore be agreed by his party? Does he not understand how hollow the words about respecting the Good Friday agreement in all its parts sound when a vital part of it, strand 2, is denigrated in this way? Does he further acknowledge, as his party leaders have done, that there are potential mechanisms within strand 2 of the agreement and within the North South Ministerial Council that can give voice to Northern Irish interests?
Sammy Wilson
That brings me to my next point—that introducing reserved matters to the North South Ministerial Council would mean that the controversies that have currently stopped it working, and stopped the Northern Ireland Assembly working, would be imported into the North South Ministerial Council so that we would not get the kind of agreement that the Member talks about. Amendment 14 would reinforce the impact that the protocol has had on the current institutions of the Belfast agreement and bring them into the remit of the North South Ministerial Council in future.
New clause 15 goes down the same route of introducing an input for the North South Ministerial Council, and another barrier to the introduction of dual regulation in the Bill, by requiring that the Executive endorse the arrangements—and in a way that, as we have heard, would exclude Unionists because the SDLP has now adopted majoritarianism with regard to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
A comparison was made with Brexit. Brexit was a majority decision. It was not a majority decision in Northern Ireland; it was a majority decision of the people of the United Kingdom as a whole. A referendum was held across the whole of the United Kingdom and it was binding in all parts of the United Kingdom, regardless of pockets where there was a majority for Brexit or a majority against it. If we had gone down the route of consensus on a referendum as suggested by the SDLP—which would of course be impossible—then what would we have done about London or other pockets across the United Kingdom? We cannot make that comparison between the dealings of this Bill regarding the arrangements within the Assembly and a referendum vote.
I hope that the Committee will accept the points I have made and will not vote in favour of those amendments.
Ian Paisley
It is an honour to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson).
There is no doubt that the Bill before us is a repair job, because Brexit was not completely done. It was not properly done in Northern Ireland, where we were left with a protocol that has caused untold problems, hence why we are back here today. People can say, “Oh, there isn’t really a problem with the protocol. Just get on with it.” However, we have now had I-don’t-know-how-many hours of debate because the protocol is not working. It has broken down and needs to be replaced, and that is the fact of the matter.
Stephen Farry
I am glad the hon. Gentleman is paying respect to Mike Johnston and his integrity. It was the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) who alluded to ulterior motives behind some of the people fronting some of those organisations and suggested that they were not representing their members. I am not here to twist the Dairy Council to fit a particular narrative; both I and the shadow Secretary of State were simply reflecting what has been said by the sector to Parliament. It is important that we listen to those voices. On the subject of representing people, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made reference to Lakeland Dairies’ somehow being out of sync with the Dairy Council, so I will put on the record that during the course of this debate, I have had a message to say that Lakeland Dairies is in fact very much aligned with the position of the Dairy Council.
Ian Paisley
I thank the hon. Member for that point, but I want to make it clear that I listened to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim, who works with and knows Mike Johnston as well as I do, and he did not make any detrimental comment about Mike himself in any of the comments he made. He referred to other members and other motives, but he did not make any reference, derogatory or otherwise, about Mike Johnston. I think that is very clear. It is unfair to cast those aspersions.
It is not for us as politicians to say, “Oh, we’ll parade this body in front of Parliament; they’re for us.” That goes back to the zero-sum game of politics. Parading the Ulster Farmers Union and saying, “They’re on our side on this point,” is a cop-out of our political responsibilities. We have a duty as politicians to solve this political problem. The protocol is not a dairy milk problem; it has an impact on the dairy milk sector, but the protocol is a political problem that has caused these problems in the sector. We have a responsibility as politicians to solve the problem and to pull together to try to fix it, because it affects Protestant farmers, Catholic farmers and farmers of no religion the same way. It damages the potential for their business, and we should be pulling together to try to fix it. If this Bill does one thing to try to fix it, I will support that as a step in the right direction.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he is certainly in full flow. It is important to strip this debate back to the businesses currently impacted by the protocol. We cannot look ahead of ourselves. Wilson’s Country and Glens of Antrim Potatoes cannot bring seed potatoes in to Northern Ireland from Scotland, and that will ultimately damage the potato industry in Northern Ireland in future years. AJ Power in my own constituency has said that the increase in costs is sixfold and is likely to be more when the UK Government input reduces. My hon. Friend makes an important point that those issues are impacting businesses now, and therefore we need this Bill to resolve some of them.
Ian Paisley
The point about seed potatoes is particularly interesting, because that represents the entire community in Northern Ireland—companies that employ right across the community and farms from across the community are all being detrimentally impacted in the same way as a result of the protocol. That is why it needs to be fixed.
We have heard some scaremongering about a mass cull of cows and suddenly milk in Northern Ireland becomes different milk because of paperwork, when the milk is being produced in the same way and the same green grass is being used to feed the cows to produce it. Not only is the milk being produced normally, but the same seeds and crops are brought in to feed the cattle, and it is very clear that none of that will change.
The commercial issues that I referred to and that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim touched on are very interesting: I think there are more dairy cows in County Cork than there are in the whole of Northern Ireland, yet County Cork and the Republic of Ireland still cannot produce enough milk. Therefore, they need a commercial relationship with Northern Ireland dairy farms to help them and to increase and encourage their businesses. The commercial reality is that we have to do business across the island. The idea that suddenly people will be able to say to farms in Northern Ireland, “Well, you can’t do business with us in the Republic of Ireland.”, when Republic of Ireland companies need Northern Ireland farm produce, highlights the commercial reality in all this.
Again, I go back to this point: the protocol is a political problem that is interfering in commercial and farming activity, and we have to pull it away from that and solve the politics around this.
The Bill does not change the cows, as the hon. Member for North Down seemed to imply. It does not change the grass that the cows are fed on. It does not change how the cows are milked, what lorries the produce goes into or what factories the milk is processed in. No, this is about Eurocrats stopping trade, not because the standard of the food has changed but because the paperwork might change. That is not a good basis on which to run any business, to run cross-border activity or to run cross-national frontier businesses. It is not. That is why the protocol should be changed and why the European Union should be ashamed of itself when it refuses to change some of the aspects of the protocol and to try to fix these matters.
The hon. Member for North Down has mentioned on many occasions the issue relating to veterinary products, pharmaceutical products and so on. A solution was agreed for human products, but the EU has blocked that solution for animals and animal welfare. It did so in such a manner that in a matter of months 50% of all veterinary products will be prevented from going to Northern Ireland. That will have a detrimental impact on farming, and the commercial aspect of that, on pets and on our income and our economy.
If ever there was a threat to cattle, it comes from the EU blocking veterinary products coming into Northern Ireland. That is the damage to our business. Do not take my word for it. Take the words of the National Office of Animal Health. It has been campaigning for this change and it has written to all the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive and told us that this has to be changed. But there is no appetite in the EU to change it. NOAH says clearly that this is not about getting more time to negotiate. Time is over; time has run out. Indeed, the Government’s position is that they have been talking for a year and a half to try to fix this. Time is now over. Time is called on this matter. We have to have it resolved urgently and immediately.
Some references have also been made to manufacturing. I am proud to have one of Northern Ireland’s largest and most obvious manufacturing businesses—a world business in fact—in Ballymena, a part of my North Antrim constituency. Wrightbus has traded both before we were in the EU—before 1973— for 40 years after joining the EU, and since leaving the EU. It has been a successful world business. Why? Because of EU regulations? No. Because of British regulations? No. Because it makes the best product, and the best product sells. When it made poor products they did not sell. So because it makes the best product, it has at its feet a world market. It has been able to trade in the United States, all over Malaysia, in the middle east and in other parts of the world as well as the EU.
The idea that suddenly the protocol is making life easier or better for Wrightbus is wrong. The evidence from Wrightbus has been that, yes, it is getting good trade deals both inside the EU—in Germany and the Republic of Ireland—and outside the EU—in Australia, New Zealand and the United States. That is because of its product, but its product has been made costly to produce due to the impact of the protocol. It has made it more costly to get aluminium and other components into Northern Ireland from Great Britain. That adds to the manufacturing time, and time equals money. There is an impact on its product. While it is a market leader at present, as soon as it is challenged in that market lead, we will soon find out the pressure that that industry will be under.
It is very clear to me that in the Republic of Ireland there is a commercial interest in having some damage done to Northern Ireland’s trade. People do not like that being said, but it is a fact. The Republic of Ireland has breached regulations time and again. It is being investigated for a £200 million loan to Aer Lingus, which was brought to our attention in April. Since Brexit, I understand that the UK Government have set up an EU subsidy monitoring unit, which has asked for that £200 million loan to be investigated. It is causing commercial differences on the island of Ireland, to the point that the arm of Aer Lingus that operates out of Northern Ireland airports is being damaged by the grants and loans being given to its commercial arm in the Republic of Ireland.
Michael Ellis
I am grateful to all the participants in this important debate. Very briefly, I would like to reiterate the following points. No business, including in the dairy sector—I recently visited Lakeland Dairies in Belfast—will be worse off as a result of UK action. The Bill will force no change on any sector, but it will allow Ministers to respond to specific asks from each sector, if appropriate. I have heard strong views about the thoughts of sectors of the Northern Ireland economy, particularly dairy. Understanding such concerns is at the heart of our work; that is why we have been engaging with stakeholders, and will continue to.
May I place on the record my appreciation for the work of the business representative organisations in Northern Ireland, which are doing, and will no doubt continue to do, an important, worthy job on behalf of their members?
While the Northern Ireland protocol was, as we know, agreed with the best of intentions, it is causing real problems for people and businesses in Northern Ireland. This legislation will fix the practical problems that the protocol has created in Northern Ireland.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Peter Kyle
I beg to move amendment 37, page 7, line 10, leave out “the Minister considers appropriate” and insert “is necessary”.
This amendment changes the threshold for giving a Minister power to make regulations under this Clause. The threshold is amended to make it objective rather than subjective.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 41, in clause 17, page 9, line 40, leave out “they consider appropriate” and insert “is necessary”.
This amendment changes the threshold for giving a Minister power to make regulations under this Clause. The threshold is amended to make it objective rather than subjective.
Clause 17 stand part.
Peter Kyle
Thank you Dame Eleanor; it is a privilege to serve under your chairship this afternoon.
We are now covering clauses 12 and 17, which deal with subsidies and VAT. These are complex areas of the legislation that speak to a lack of detail in the Bill and about what the Government will actually do in these areas, should the Bill proceed to statute. Clause 12 excludes article 10 and annexes 5 and 6 of the protocol. These are the EU state aid rules relating to goods and wholesale electricity trade between Northern Ireland and the EU. We can immediately see that there is an added complexity to this part of the protocol due to the fact that the electricity industry operates a single wholesale market across the whole island of Ireland. I am not aware that the Government want to try to unpick that—I do not want to give them any ideas—but it illustrates the tangled web that Ministers are creating with this Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman how impressed I am by that.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I welcome the notion of measures that restore our control over VAT and subsidies in Northern Ireland. It is entirely within the spirit and the text of the protocol, which says that both parties will respect the internal market of the United Kingdom. How can we have a proper functioning internal market if we have to have rates of VAT in Northern Ireland that are different from the rest of our internal market? And how can we claim that our country’s sovereignty is respected by this part of the agreement, as the EU originally said it would be, if we are not sovereign to change VAT in an important part of the United Kingdom? It is right that we legislate on this issue, because we took back control and we wish to restore the sovereignty of this Parliament. How can we say that we have a sovereign Parliament properly restored if our Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot change VAT in part of the UK? It is right and it is legal that we legislate within the terms of the protocol and the agreement, and it is essential that we do so. Those who favour a negotiated solution with the EU should recognise that a huge amount of time and talent has been put into negotiating with the EU in recent years on these matters, and it has been unwilling to be reasonable or to respect the spirit and even the letter of the protocol itself. It is time to legislate.
I say to those who favour a negotiated solution and still have this idea that the EU will, in due course, negotiate properly over one that it is far more likely to negotiate in a more sympathetic and realistic spirit if it knows that we have the firm backstop of clear legislation, which means we will do the right thing by Northern Ireland and the whole UK if the EU cannot be bothered to meet us and understand what it means for the communities in Northern Ireland.
The EU should also take on board the good advice from the Democratic Unionist party and other members of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. The whole fabric of the Good Friday agreement rests upon the consent of both communities. The EU says it fully signs up to that and sees it as of prior importance to the protocol, so the EU has to understand that there is no cross-community consent for the current position. The sooner we legislate to sort that out, the better.
Sammy Wilson
Although the proposer of the amendments, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), has said that these are complex issues, for people in Northern Ireland they are very simple. First, simply the inclusion of Northern Ireland under the VAT regime of the EU means that when there are tax changes that can apply to the rest of the UK, they cannot apply to Northern Ireland. I know that he has placed considerable faith in the willingness and ability of the EU to negotiate its way around some of these obstacles, but the fact of the matter is that despite two years of negotiations, these obstacles have not been removed. When it comes to the kinds of things that the Government may wish to do, and which he would like the Government to do, for example, on VAT on electricity bills, the action required is not something to be done some time in the distance future; it is something that is essential now, because people are facing the high fuel and energy bills now. Frankly, many people in Northern Ireland, where fuel poverty is higher than it is in most parts of the UK, would find themselves disadvantaged for not weeks or months but perhaps even years while negotiations went on as to whether or not the EU would be prepared to permit the UK Government to exercise the fiscal freedoms that we thought we had obtained when we left the EU and to apply them to Northern Ireland.
I believe that this Bill and this clause are necessary. I also believe that the wording is correct, with the Government deeming the issue “appropriate” rather than “necessary”, because it could be argued that in some instances although it might be good to change the VAT rate, it is not necessary to do so; it could be argued that it is not necessary to keep in line with the rest of the UK and that particular circumstances pertain in Northern Ireland that do not make it necessary. That is why I believe the threshold of appropriateness is correct.
When it comes to state aid, the issues are also not complex—they are very simple. They have implications for the constituents of all Members of this House, because let us not forget that the state aid provisions refer to any state aid and any support that the Government may give to industries or firms anywhere in the UK if it impacts on trade between Northern Ireland and the EU. That is what article 10 says about any respective measures that affect trade between Northern Ireland and the Union, and that are subject to the protocol. Annexes 2 and 5 of the protocol contain lists of the kinds of sectors that would be impacted by that.
That means that the Government are always looking over their shoulder when they seek to give support to businesses. That support may be peripheral—for example, if the Government decide, as they have done, to support the production of batteries for motor cars in a factory in GB. If those cars are selling in Northern Ireland and, as a result of the subsidy and support, cars made in GB would have an advantage on the Northern Ireland market—compared with French cars, for example—that could be an area where the EU Commission would say that state aid rules apply, and the Commission and European Court would make a decision on that.
That is why it is appropriate that the Government have such a provision, because we cannot define or be sure at what stage the EU may say, “The support you have given that industry will impact on and give a Northern Ireland seller an advantage on the EU market, and therefore we wish to interfere in the support that you give to industry.” That is not just about Northern Ireland, because state aid provisions do not just apply specifically to Northern Ireland firms; they apply to those firms that may sell in Northern Ireland and get support elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That is why it is correct that Ministers have the ability to make a decision on whether something is appropriate.
Secondly, Ministers should have the flexibility to consider circumstances and issues that may emerge, and actions that the EU may wish to take. Those actions cannot be foreseen now, but we might have to act on them quickly in future. For that reason, I hope the amendments will not be pushed to a vote, and that Labour Members will see that rather than being complex, these are simple issues that require the kinds of actions already included in the Bill.
Stephen Farry
I will be brief, as I have just a few short points. First, I recognise that there are genuine concerns about state aid and VAT. We want to see those issues resolved, but that resolution has to be via negotiation with the European Union. On state aid, it is worth reflecting that companies will be operating across the service and goods sectors, and this is where things become incredibly complex, given the different nature of the regimes and how that applies to the European Union. State aid rules are not an absolute barrier, and prior to leaving the European Union, all parts of the UK would routinely apply to the European Commission for permission in that respect.
We should desire a situation where there are reduced rates of VAT in line with wider UK policy, and allow various incentives for people to do activities or help people with bills. We have the option of negotiating again with the European Union. Application to Northern Ireland is not barred under the protocol, but it does involve the UK Government making an application to the Commission. I have spoken to Maroš Šefčovič in that regard, and the door is open for those discussions.
There was a lot of cynicism about what was announced by the Chancellor in his spring statement on VAT and renewables, and this was seen as a major cause célèbre for why the protocol had to be addressed and fixed. In practice, the actual value of that measure to Northern Ireland per annum, based on the Treasury’s figures, was only £1 million, yet a huge drama was built up around it. Of course it was open to the Government to talk to the European Commission about the measure’s application in Northern Ireland. I asked the Treasury a question towards the end of April, and the answer was, “We’ve had no such discussions with the European Union in that regard”, and that it would be part of wider discussions on the Northern Ireland protocol. Rather than actually addressing the issue when a solution was readily available, the Government were more interested in using it as something with which to bash the European Union about the head, and to create a narrative of crisis.
Ian Paisley
Last autumn, the Chancellor announced several VAT changes and confirmed that he had to speak to the EU to make those changes. There have been talks with the EU, but those changes are still not in place. Does the hon. Member not agree that it is wrong that all our constituents to have to wait for the EU to go through its machinations before VAT changes can be effected in Northern Ireland? On the point about there being only £1 million of benefit from the subsidy in the spring statement, if the benefit is so minor, why does it take so long to make the change?
Stephen Farry
There are two points to raise on that. The first is about the practicalities. My understanding is that discussions have not been taking place between the Treasury and the European Union to get these issues resolved, particularly on the situation with renewables, but the door is open. The amount may be £1 million, but we will get that as a Barnett consequential anyway. The solution is available. Across the European Union, rates of VAT, or its equivalents, are being reduced to support renewables and to help people with energy bills, so we are not asking the impossible.
The wider point is why on earth we have to go through this process in any event. The answer is probably the same one that we give on countless occasions: this is the outworking of the protocol, and the protocol is the outworking of Brexit. Decisions made about the nature of Brexit subsequent to the introduction of the protocol had to be put in place, and these are the issues that have to be managed as a consequence. We have to own the decisions taken by the Government and this Parliament, and work through them to find the best outcomes, which I believe are achievable only through negotiation.
I am not denying that there are issues on state aid and VAT, but unilateral action will not provide a long-term outcome; in fact, it will make things more difficult. We can achieve outcomes through negotiation, and I believe that the door is open for that if the Government choose to walk through it, rather than standing back, and using the issue as an excuse and a reason to construct a narrative as to why this Bill is required.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I heard your positive assent, Dame Eleanor, when the shadow Secretary of State sat down, and you were rather impressed when the usual channels inquired of us how long we would take and we indicated that we would be brief. We were asked whether we would be about 20 minutes, and I aim to please, Dame Eleanor.
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry), who in many ways makes a great argument, but not, I think, the one he intended to make. What he outlined highlights starkly not just the practical application of state aid policy, subsidy policy and VAT policy, but the interface between that practical application and the constitutionally injurious position that we are left in because of the protocol. Whether the differential between VAT on solar panels and renewables was £1 million or £100 billion, the issue is not the scale of the sum; it is why this sovereign Parliament is constrained in setting VAT rules for the nation. That is the nub of it. People say that there is no constitutional harm with the protocol, and when we highlight the constitutional damage that has been done, they rubbish it and wish it away, but here is the outworking of that; one part of our country is unable to benefit from VAT rates set nationally by this Parliament.
The fact that there are two probing—and, I respectfully suggest, rather superficial—amendments before us from across the political spectrum highlights that not only is there a problem with VAT rates, subsidies and state aid under the protocol, but that a resolution is required. Why should we have to negotiate that agreed solution or outcome? It is because we have ceded sovereignty in a way that constitutionally impinges on article 6 of the Acts of Union. That is why we are in this position. If that had not been impliedly repealed, as the Government lawyers state in our High Court in Belfast, we would not have these challenges.
The Joint Committee has summarily failed in many aspects of what it was tasked to do under the Northern Ireland protocol. It did not designate anywhere near enough goods as goods that could come from GB to Northern Ireland without risk of onward transit into the single market. We raised the issue of the VAT margin on the sale of second-hand cars, for example, for which there should have been a quick fix, but there was not. Whereas a second-hand car salesman in England pays VAT only on the profit from the sale of the car, in Northern Ireland they have to pay VAT on the entirety of the sale. Why? Because of the Northern Ireland protocol. The solution is very simple, but it took months and months of painstaking negotiation, and that is but one example from scores of issues that pervade industry and business in Northern Ireland.
That was the VAT margins; then there are the importation tariffs that our businesses in Northern Ireland had to pay in importing steel, a raw product, from GB to Northern Ireland. There should not be any tariffs at all within our own country. That highlights the practical application of the constitutional harm. Again, it took month upon month of painstaking work to get agreement through the Joint Committee, but when we were on the cusp of agreeing a solution for steel, I said, “Hang on a second. I have an aircraft manufacturer in Belfast East that uses aluminium. What about tariffs on aluminium?” It remains the case that a tariff is applied to any aluminium, a raw product, coming from GB to Northern Ireland, and a further tariff is applied to anything fabricated in Northern Ireland as a result of that raw product going back to GB for further integration—a tariff on the movement of a material from one part of our country to another, and back again.
Gavin Robinson
Civil aviation parts are tariff-free internationally anyway, and large manufacturers such as Spirit Aerosystems in my constituency have an agreed workaround and are exempt, but many in the supply chain do not, including some engineers in the hon. Member’s constituency.
Stephen Farry
Indeed, and I am having dinner later tonight with representatives from an esteemed local company in the aerospace sector. Does the hon. Member recognise that his very valid points about tariffs point to an issue not with the protocol, but with the trade and co-operation agreement, and the gap that was rather, shall we say, irresponsibly left by the lead negotiator, Lord Frost?
Gavin Robinson
No, I would not agree at all with that, because the tariffs came long before the TCA and arise from the protocol. I heard the hon. Member’s suggestion that people were making a mountain out of molehill in relation to VAT on renewables; with respect to him, I think that was a bit of a stretch. I do not agree with him on that, but the tariffs on raw materials coming from one part of our country to another are unnecessary. They are a breach of article 6 of the Act of Union. That breach is constitutional harm arising from the practical application of a protocol that was, I recognise, agreed by this Parliament, but not without warning from us.
Dame Eleanor, you will recognise that none of these contributions is going into extraordinary detail on the issue. There is a complexity to it, but in the real world of politics, consumers and the businesses that we represent, we need a practical solution. Given how limited the amendments in this group are, it is fair to say not only that is it accepted that there needs to be a practical solution, but that this Bill takes us far along that path.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
Being named after another esteemed Member of this House is, I am sure, a fitting tribute, but thank you, Dame Eleanor, for the opportunity to say a few words in this debate.
The Chairman
I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman; I have just realised that I called him by the wrong name—it is 41° C outside.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
Robinson is quite a popular name in the Democratic Unionist party. I am honoured to join my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who has that assignation.
I listened very carefully to the comments that the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) made about VAT, and particularly the difficulties that arose from the Chancellor’s announcement of a VAT relief on certain energy products that are designed to make homes more energy-efficient. He made the point, and I am sure it is accurate, that according to Treasury figures, Northern Ireland would stand to benefit by an amount in the region of £1 million. However, that highlights the failure of the Alliance party to recognise that for us it is not a matter of the sum involved; it is the principle—the fact that Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, as is recognised in the Belfast agreement, in the constitution of the Republic of Ireland and by this Government, cannot benefit from a scheme designed to benefit all our country because the rules of an external body prevent the Treasury from applying that benefit to all the United Kingdom.
Sammy Wilson
Does my right hon. Friend accept that this is an issue not just for us Unionists? It should be an issue for the whole House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot apply his or her decisions to the whole United Kingdom, which this Government are supposed to have gained sovereignty over. That should be a concern for everybody who is elected to this House and believes that this House is the body that makes decisions for the United Kingdom.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
My right hon. Friend is right, of course. That goes to the heart of what Brexit is about. The mantra was “Taking back control.” That meant taking back control of our borders, our money and our laws. Her Majesty’s Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot apply a benefit designed for the whole United Kingdom to one part of it, Northern Ireland. That highlights a flaw in the final Brexit arrangements: in respect of Northern Ireland, we do not have control over our money, our laws or, sadly, our border. That is a fundamental point.
I respect the fact that the hon. Member for North Down speaks from a particular perspective, and I in no way mean to diminish its validity, but many of his constituents are solid Unionists. I have been in North Down since becoming leader of my party and have met many of those Unionists, who are affronted that their sense of identity and of belonging to the United Kingdom is undermined by the protocol, and that there is no proper recognition of that reality. That goes to the heart of why we have the current political problems and instability, and why our political institutions are not functioning properly.
Sammy Wilson
There is the argument that says, “Well, you could negotiate this. We should go back to the EU and negotiate to allow the VAT reduction to be applied to Northern Ireland.” Does my right hon. Friend accept that that is even more demeaning? The Government claim to have taken back control; the argument is that they should go cap in hand to a body that we left because we no longer wanted it to have control over decisions made in the United Kingdom, and ask, “Please can we apply tax changes that we made for England, Scotland and Wales to Northern Ireland?” That is even more demeaning than saying, “At least we’ve got back control for the rest of the UK.”
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
My right hon. Friend makes a valid point, but the matter goes further than that. It is not just that our Government cannot apply their own policies and economic and financial initiatives to Northern Ireland in the same way that they can to the rest of the United Kingdom; it is that those restrictions imposed by the European Union are restrictions over which none of us on the DUP side has any control. They are regulations and rules on VAT brought forward by the European Union, on which we have no say whatsoever.
Stephen Farry
It may surprise the right hon. Gentleman that I have quite a lot of sympathy with what he is saying on VAT. Perhaps it is for this reason. A lot of the issues relating to regulation of goods relate to the devolved competencies of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Obviously, we are talking here about UK-wide macroeconomic tax policy. That is a different issue. I do not want to get into the whole background of Brexit and the protocol during this Committee stage, except to say that the reason for the differential relates to the fact that, in order to avoid a land border on the island of Ireland, certain decisions were taken, and one of those was that Northern Ireland should retain access to the single market for goods. The VAT rules are linked to that. While I acknowledge that there is some validity in the right hon. Gentleman’s argument, it is important to acknowledge the background, and the only way to address it is through negotiation.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but negotiations have taken place and all these issues have been well aired with the European Union. When I met Maroš Šefčovič, I pointed out the real and practical impacts of the protocol not only on businesses in Northern Ireland but on consumers. More fundamentally, I pointed out the impact on our identity and sense of our place within the United Kingdom—the relationship of Northern Ireland with the rest of our home country.
I simply wanted to rise to make this point again this afternoon, Dame Eleanor, and to reaffirm a point that is fundamentally important. Let us not lose sight of the main objective of the Bill. While the Bill seeks to create a framework within which we can find practical solutions to the problems created by the protocol, more fundamentally the Bill is about addressing the concerns that have given rise to the political instability in Northern Ireland. It is about protecting the Good Friday or Belfast agreement, protecting the political institutions, protecting the delicate constitutional balance that is at the heart of that agreement, and resetting it in a way that achieves the consensus that is the absolute engine that drives power sharing in Northern Ireland.
I fear at times that some fellow Members of this Committee get so into the weeds of the detail that they lose sight of the bigger picture, which we believe is fundamental for the delivery of the Bill.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General for opening the debate this afternoon, and I thank hon. Members across the Committee who have contributed to it.
There has been a lot of talk this afternoon about negotiation. The Government have consistently said that it is our preference to resolve the issues through negotiation. Our door remains open, but the EU has so far not been willing to make changes to the protocol that deliver the solutions Northern Ireland needs. In that context, the Government are acting now to provide the solutions, to be implemented through this legislation, including for fiscal policy.
The reality is that businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland are not currently afforded the same UK tax breaks as those in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is preventing them from reaping the full benefits of this Government’s policies, and this simply cannot continue to be the case. The clauses we are discussing today will enable us to remedy these discrepancies, by paving the way for Northern Ireland to benefit from VAT, excise and subsidy control regimes consistent with those in place in Great Britain.
Let me begin by addressing clause 12. The hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) said that the clause was complicated. It provides the basis for a single UK-wide subsidy control policy rather than the two separate regimes currently existing under the Northern Ireland protocol. The clause will provide legal certainty, and therefore confidence, about the extent to which businesses will be able to receive subsidies. It will provide clarity in domestic law that article 10 is disapplied, meaning that any subsidies that would previously have been notifiable to the EU under article 10 will no longer need to be notified. The clause will also amend section 48(3) of the Subsidy Control Act 2022 so that UK subsidy control requirements will apply to all UK subsidies, including those in Northern Ireland. Clause 12(3) provides powers for a Minister to make appropriate provision regarding any part of the Northern Ireland protocol to which the clause relates.
The protocol creates a two-tier system in the UK under which people and businesses in Northern Ireland are at risk of losing out in comparison with the rest of the UK. EU state aid rules have limited the level of support that may be granted in Northern Ireland without approval from the EU. With the covid-19 recovery loan scheme, for example, there were more limitations on who was eligible for the loans in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain. The Bill will remove that uncertainty for businesses and bring about parity between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.
Clause 17 provides Ministers with the ability to ensure that VAT, excise and other relevant tax policy is consistent across the whole UK, including Northern Ireland. That means that people in Northern Ireland will benefit from the same policies as people in Great Britain where it is beneficial for them to do so—as, of course, they should. I would like to explain why that is important. The EU has set rigid limits on VAT and excise rates and reliefs in Northern Ireland, meaning that even if UK policy changes would have no impact at all on the EU, they may not currently apply in Northern Ireland. That is why, as hon. Members across the Committee have mentioned, we still have not been able to introduce the new temporary zero rate for energy saving materials in Northern Ireland, as we have done in Great Britain.
Stephen Farry
Will the Financial Secretary clarify whether the Treasury has made any approach to the European Commission to seek the flexibility to have the same rate? Whenever she wrote to me at the end of April, she said that no discussions whatever had taken place since the Chancellor’s spring statement.
Lucy Frazer
As the hon. Member will know, because the point has been raised across the Committee over the past few days, negotiations have been taking place for almost two years. There have been 300 hours of negotiations with our EU counterparts, UK officials have shared 17 further non-papers with the European Commission, and we have been attempting to find common ground across these areas. Since the date that the hon. Member mentioned, the Foreign Secretary invited Vice-President Šefčovič to a joint committee meeting, where she announced our intention to table legislation. We would like to resolve the issue through negotiation, but it simply has not been possible.
In future, businesses in Northern Ireland will be subject to new EU VAT, excise and energy tax directives even where they are inappropriate and burdensome for Northern Ireland. That includes forthcoming changes to the application of the EU VAT registration thresholds, which could have a significant administrative impact on businesses in Northern Ireland. Under the Bill, however, we will be able to introduce targeted reliefs to support individuals with the cost of living crisis and achieve net zero, in addition to being able to reform our complicated alcohol duty system, bringing our tax system into the modern era and benefiting the entire UK.
It is not right that there should be unnecessary tax discrepancies between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Clause 17 will enable the Government to lessen or eliminate those discrepancies.
John Redwood
Will the Financial Secretary confirm that the Treasury will never use the argument that we must not press ahead with the very necessary VAT cut on energy in the cost of living crisis because we cannot apply it in Northern Ireland? It could damage GB as well as NI if that argument were used. Will she promise that the Government will energetically pursue complete sovereignty over VAT?
Lucy Frazer
After this legislation has passed, we will be able to introduce VAT legislation across the UK in the interests of both GB and Northern Ireland. I can assure my right hon. Friend that the Treasury consistently looks at tax policies, including VAT, and the benefits and disbenefits of bringing in changes.
I turn now to amendments 37 and 41 in the name of the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). I should note that this issue was addressed in a previous debate, so, in the interests of time, I shall aim to be brief. The amendments would restrict the use of the Bill’s powers to only make provision that is “necessary” rather than to make provision that the Minister considers is “appropriate”.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and I have said previously, “necessary” is a very strict legal test. The amendments would therefore remove the policy discretion for the exercise of these powers, potentially limiting Ministers’ choice of the right solutions to the problems caused by the protocol. Changing the test to an objective one will provide additional uncertainty to businesses and consumers and it would severely limit the ability to facilitate consistent VAT, excise and other relevant tax policies between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, as well as a domestic subsidy control regime that applies to the whole of the UK.
I want to comment on how that was expressed by the hon. Member for Hove, who suggested that Ministers could make changes on a whim. That is simply not the case and is a misrepresentation of the position that is clearly set out in the legislation. Clause 12(3) clearly states:
“A Minister of the Crown may, by regulations, make any provision which the Minister considers appropriate in connection with any provision”.
Therefore, he or she would need to consider those matters very carefully, as Ministers from across the House would do. The amendments might also prohibit the Government from responding in a flexible way to issues facing Northern Ireland. That, in turn, will have a negative impact on Northern Irish businesses and individuals, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Many hon. Members discussed the negotiations, and I hope that I have answered those points in my response to the intervention from the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry), The hon. Member for Hove talked about the single electricity market. The right thing to do is not to impact the single electricity market. As the Foreign Secretary has said, we want to cement the provisions in the protocol that are working, including the single electricity market. That is why this Bill does not seek to exclude article 9 or annex 4, which maintain the single electricity market. The Government are committed to preserving it and the benefits that it provides to UK citizens in Northern Ireland.
For those reasons, taken together, these clauses will ensure that the Government can set UK-wide policies on subsidy control and VAT, ensuring that those in Northern Ireland can benefit from the same level of support as those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Peter Kyle
The Minister has clarified that the Government would not act on a whim. However, she did so by saying, in essence, that they would not act on a whim, but they had the power to do so. That is the worry that we have before us. None the less, I will withdraw our amendment, because I hope that the other place will have more time to ventilate these arguments, go into them in more detail and return with some more credible amendments for us to consider in this place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Resolved,
To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—(Julie Marson.)
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again tomorrow.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Peter Bone)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought it might be appropriate to draw the House’s attention to a small adjustment to the business tomorrow. Given the progress of the Committee of the whole House, we will now take Third Reading of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill tomorrow. A supplementary programme motion will be tabled tonight to provide an extra hour of debate tomorrow.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I will take any points of order further to that point of order. I see that there are none. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It is very useful for the House to know of the change that will be made to tomorrow’s Order Paper.
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill
Wednesday 20th July 2022
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022-23 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 20 July 2022 - (20 Jul 2022)
16:52 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 197 / Noes: 277 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:07 - divided: - Ayes: 196 / Noes: 278 - Question accordingly negatived.
00:00 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 194 / Noes: 275 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:05 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 192 / Noes: 273 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:48 - The House divided: - Ayes: 267 / Noes: 195 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 38, page 7, line 27, leave out “the Minister considers appropriate” and insert “is necessary”.
This amendment changes the threshold for giving a Minister power to make regulations under this Clause. The threshold is amended to make it objective rather than subjective.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 39, in clause 14, page 8, line 22, leave out “the Minister considers appropriate” and insert “is necessary”.
This amendment changes the threshold for giving a Minister power to make regulations under this Clause. The threshold is amended to make it objective rather than subjective.
Clause 14 stand part.
Amendment 12, in clause 18, page 10, line 9, leave out subsection (1).
This amendment would remove the Minister’s power to engage in any conduct in relation to any matter dealt with in the Northern Ireland Protocol, not otherwise authorised by this Act, if the Minister considers it appropriate to do so.
Amendment 42, page 10, line 11, leave out
“the Minister of the Crown considers it appropriate”
and insert “it is necessary”.
This amendment changes the threshold for giving a Minister power to make regulations under this Clause. The threshold is amended to make it objective rather than subjective.
Amendment 48, page 10, line 12, after “this Act” insert
“and a motion approving the conduct has been passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
This amendment would subject the exercise of the Minister’s power to engage in conduct in relation to any matter dealt with in the Northern Ireland Protocol that is not otherwise authorised by the Act to a motion approving the conduct in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Amendment 49, page 10, line 15, at end insert—
“(3) Each Minister of the Crown must have due regard for the principle that the Belfast Agreement, including its subsequent implementation agreements and arrangements, should be protected in all its parts.”
This amendment is based on the fourth point in the Preamble to Northern Ireland Protocol.
Clause 18 stand part.
Amendment 46, in clause 20, page 10, line 32, at end insert—
“But this section may not be brought into force unless it has previously been approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
This amendment would prevent the Bill’s proposed departure from the terms of the Northern Ireland Protocol, or from any related provision of the EU withdrawal agreement, in respect of the previously agreed role of the European Court (CJEU) unless clause 20 had first been approved by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Amendment 13, page 10, line 37, leave out subsection (2)(b).
This amendment would remove the prohibition on a court or tribunal referring any matter to the European Court, where the matter relates to the Northern Ireland Protocol or any related provision of the EU Withdrawal Agreement, or domestic law relating to the Northern Ireland Protocol or any related provision of the EU Withdrawal Agreement, given that subsection (4) would give ministers the power to make regulations regarding references on a question of interpretation of EU law to be made by Courts and Tribunals.
Amendment 43, page 10, line 38, leave out “the Minister considers appropriate” and insert “is necessary”.
This amendment changes the threshold for giving a Minister power to make regulations under this Clause. The threshold is amended to make it objective rather than subjective.
Clause 20 stand part.
Stephen Doughty
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair today, Dame Eleanor, as we enter the third day of Committee on the Bill. As we do so, it is evident that instead of working to fix the genuine challenges that the protocol poses, the Government continue to push forward with a Bill that disregards the UK’s international legal obligations and threatens to throw Britain’s global reputation into disrepute, and which also—we shall discuss this today—gives them sweeping powers without restriction. Tearing up binding agreements, threatening to break international law and walking away from the table are not the composites of a good negotiating strategy; they are the hallmarks of a zombie Government, out of steam—a Government who have constantly put their own party squabbles and obsessions before the interests of the people of the UK, and indeed the people of Northern Ireland.
Tragically, they also risk dividing the UK and the European Union when we should be standing shoulder to shoulder in opposing Putin’s barbaric war in Ukraine, and in finding ways to make Brexit work in a spirit of trust and co-operation. This is not how a responsible Government should behave, and many Members across the House know that. What we need is cool heads, statesmanlike behaviour and a search for long-term solutions.
On the Opposition Benches, we feel that the Bill is counterproductive, but that solutions are there if the Government are prepared to seek them. That requires compromise, hard work, and flexibility on all sides, including of course the EU, not knee-jerk reactions. I have listened to the very many genuine concerns that have been voiced about the functioning of the protocol. I have the pleasure of being a member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly in addition to my shadow Front Bench role. I have listened to businesses. I have been in Dublin and Belfast. I have listened to people on all sides and have heard genuine concerns, including from those in the Unionist community.
For months, Labour has called on the Government to do the responsible thing—get back around the table to do what we have always done, and what any Government worth its salt would do, which is to negotiate, in the interests of finding workable, practical and technocratic solutions that command the consent and support of all communities in Northern Ireland, and have the means to bring back power sharing in a meaningful and lasting way. In that spirit, we have offered amendments to the Bill today in good faith, to begin to correct the issues that are manifest across this legislation—starting today with the Henry VIII clauses that we have heard about, and which the amendment that we have tabled in this group address.
As the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), set out during Second Reading, 15 of the 26 clauses included in the Bill confer powers directly on UK Ministers. Those include the power to use secondary legislation to amend or modify Acts of Parliament—Acts that have been subject to the full scrutiny of this House. As the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law sets out, the Henry VIII powers given to Ministers in the Bill
“are numerous, extensive and subject to very low hurdles before those powers may be exercised.”
Indeed, Professor Catherine Barnard of Cambridge University has called these powers “eye wateringly broad”. The Hansard Society, deeply respected on both sides of the House, describes them as “breath-taking”. And we should not just take their word for it. The Chair of the Justice Select Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), last week put it perfectly when he said,
“there are Henry VIII powers and Henry VIII powers; and this is Henry VIII, the six wives, Cardinal Wolsey and Thomas Cromwell all thrown in together.”
He went on to describe the Henry VIII powers as
“almost Shakespearean or Wagnerian in their scope and breadth.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2022; Vol. 718, c. 370.]
Awarding Ministers these enormous powers is not a strategy, and the people of Northern Ireland will see it for what it is—a blatant power grab.
The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst identified one of the key problems with these powers when he explained that the test that Ministers must meet before using these powers is “extraordinarily low”. I agree. As the Bill currently stands, in many cases Ministers may use these powers merely if they consider it “appropriate” to do so. That is simply not good enough. Not only is that a woefully low threshold, but it lacks any kind of objectivity. We cannot have a situation where Ministers can make sweeping changes that are not necessarily in the interests of all communities of Northern Ireland, and without proper scrutiny and process; and those of us on the Opposition Benches are extremely concerned about what Ministers may deem appropriate in the future.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I have just one point to add. Does he agree that there is a certain irony in the fact that probably large numbers of the 52% who voted for Brexit voted to strengthen, solidify and consolidate parliamentary sovereignty, but these Henry VIII powers are strengthening the hand of Government and weakening the hand of Parliament? Does not that seem to run directly counter to what many people who voted for Brexit were voting for?
Stephen Doughty
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed the Bill not only takes powers away from this place, but takes on powers without the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
Further to that point, I do not understand why the official Opposition don’t get it. There is a democratic deficit as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol. The hon. Member bemoans the fact that Parliament might lose some powers to the Government, but in Northern Ireland we today are faced with the imposition of regulations—hundreds and hundreds of them—over which neither Parliament nor the Government have any say, nor the Northern Ireland Assembly or Executive, yet I hear nothing from the Opposition Benches about that democratic deficit. At least the Government are attempting to address it. What do the official Opposition intend to do about it?
Stephen Doughty
I always listen with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman. He talks about a democratic deficit. The Government, of course, negotiated the protocol. He has been consistent in his criticisms of it. The Government knew that when they negotiated it. They knew there were issues that needed to be addressed. It seems to me very odd that the Government are proposing to take a huge amount of powers that would have no scrutiny in this place and no scrutiny in Northern Ireland.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
We hear a lot about the egregious use of powers and regulations being imposed, but we hear very little about what specific powers people do not want to have. I think they are about the volume of lawnmowers and other such crucial things. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is more damaging to democracy to withhold the Northern Ireland Assembly, in which elected Members are supposed to address wider issues around health, education, the economy and everyday issues for Northern Ireland? The Assembly being withheld creates a far wider democratic deficit.
Stephen Doughty
Indeed. The point I have made is that the powers the Government are taking remove responsibilities from the Northern Ireland Assembly. We want all communities to have a say on matters that affect them going forward. I am sure we will come on to a number of those amendments in due course.
In the same vein, we would support amendment 12, which relates to clause 18, tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), were he to press it to a Division. As the Hansard Society points out, clause 18 would give Ministers the power to “engage in conduct” relevant to the Northern Ireland protocol if they consider it—again this word—“appropriate” in connection with one or more of the purposes of the Bill. However, the Bill provides no elaboration on what type of activities that “conduct” could involve. Nor have the Government given a justification for why the additional power is needed. Indeed, the former head of the Government Legal Service, Sir Jonathan Jones QC, someone who has said a lot about the legality of the Bill, described this as a
“do whatever you like power”.
Given that the Government can provide no assurances on what types of “conduct” the power will be restricted to and that we have no justification for why it is even needed, this is not something we can support. That is why we support amendment 12, tabled by my right hon. Friend. The Government are in no position to expand their powers to such a degree, particularly in areas so sensitive. Not only are they a gross overreach of power, but they are also disrespectful to the constitutional role of this House.
I turn to some of the amendments that have been tabled. Labour has been clear, since the Bill was first introduced, that the way to solve the problems before us is to negotiate, and to do so in good faith. We recognise that the operation of the protocol has created genuine tensions that need to be addressed, but that is best done by all sides listening to each other and acting in good faith, and with the Belfast/Good Friday agreement at the heart of those discussions. I contend that the Bill simply does not do that. It is not an act of good faith for Westminster to unilaterally impose a solution, not least across Northern Ireland, and nor, tragically, will the solution proposed achieve its ultimate objectives. Only an agreement which delivers for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland, and respects the wishes of those on all sides and all communities, will provide a long-term and sustainable solution to this problem. That is why we support amendment 49, which references the fourth point in the protocol and the importance of protecting the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its parts, if it were to be pressed to a Division. Unilateralism is not the way forward on matters of such sensitivity.
I do not want to detain the Committee further at this stage. We have many amendments to get through today. To conclude, Labour’s amendments will prevent handing the Government overreaching powers that they are simply not fit to hold. Our amendments will protect the much-valued scrutinising and functioning of this House, and give a voice in this hugely delicate and important process to the people of Northern Ireland.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)
Allow me, Dame Eleanor, for I think the penultimate time, to thank hon. Members who have spoken in Committee. I would like to turn to the clauses under discussion in this debate. With the leave of the Committee, I will deal with some of the amendments very briefly.
Clause 13 outlines the exclusions that seek to redress the feeling that there is a democratic deficit created by the arrangements for the implementation and enforcement of the protocol. The present role of the Court of Justice of the European Union clearly causes Unionists to feel less connected to, and part of, the United Kingdom. That was reflected in the September 2021 joint statement by all Unionist parties on the protocol. Clause 13 provides that any provision of the protocol that confers jurisdiction on the CJEU over arrangements in Northern Ireland is excluded provision. That means that CJEU decisions, including infractions, will no longer have effect in domestic law across the entire protocol.
I confirm to the Committee that the Bill does not disapply the withdrawal agreement’s arbitration process, which would be convened at the international level in the event of a dispute. It simply affirms that the arbitration provisions in the withdrawal agreement do not have effect in our domestic law, and that is normal for international treaties. It then helps to restore the UK Government’s sole oversight of arrangements on the ground in Northern Ireland, providing that the provisions relating to the powers and presence of EU representatives are excluded. Finally, via subsections (4) and (5), clause 13 allows for the establishment of new arrangements for co-operation with EU authorities to monitor the trade boundary regime, and enables us to implement robust data sharing on the operation of the trusted trader scheme and on all goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That will support assurance processes to uphold our commitment to protect both the UK internal market and the EU’s single market.
Clause 14 supports the coherent functioning of the Bill by fully insulating any excluded provision from being brought back into our domestic law as a result of obligations arising from other provisions of the protocol and withdrawal agreement. If needs be, regulations under subsection (4) can be used to make appropriate provision in connection with any provision of the protocol or withdrawal agreement to which this clause relates. The clause provides important clarity on the interaction between excluded provision and any wider provisions in the protocol or withdrawal agreement related to it.
Clause 18 provides a power for a Minister to engage in non-legislative conduct where they consider it appropriate in connection with one or more of the purposes in the Bill. The clause also clarifies the relationship between powers to make secondary legislation under the Bill and those arising by virtue of the royal prerogative. The clause will ensure that actions not requiring legislation, such as issuing guidance to industry or providing direction to officials, can be taken in a timely manner by a Minister of the Crown. It is not, as I think has been misconstrued in some quarters, an extraordinary power. It simply makes clear, as would normally be taken for granted, that Ministers will be acting lawfully when they go about their ministerial duties in support of this legislation.
Clause 20 allows for the proper functioning of domestic court proceedings following the removal of the domestic effect of CJEU jurisdiction. That means that domestic courts would no longer be bound by CJEU principles or decisions when considering matters relating to the protocol. The clause provides a power to make related new provision. Regulations made under the power could, for example, provide for a procedure to refer questions of interpretation of EU law to the CJEU if a domestic court considered it necessary to conclude its proceedings.
Michael Ellis
If the hon. Member would not mind, I will give way to him when I come on to his amendment specifically. I would be very grateful if he would give me that indulgence.
Clause 20 is important to the functioning of the Bill to allow domestic courts to consider proceedings relating to the protocol without being subject to CJEU jurisdiction, in line with the general principles of the Bill.
I now move on to the amendments in order. Some, with the leave of the House, I can deal with very briefly. Amendments 38, 39, 42 and 43, in the name of the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), would, as has previously been explained regarding similar amendments, in our view wrongly apply a necessity test for the use of such powers. Parliament has previously determined, for example in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, that “appropriateness” is the appropriate word. That is my response to that series of amendments.
Amendment 12 in the name of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) would remove the power for Ministers to engage in conduct in relation to the protocol which is normally within the Executive’s competence but not otherwise authorised by the Bill. As I explained a short while ago, this provision simply makes it clear that, as would normally be taken for granted, Ministers of the Crown would be acting lawfully when they go about their ministerial duties—for example providing instruction to civil servants or guidance to industry—in support of this legislation. It is not an extraordinary power, but rather it provides certainty that the Government can implement our proposals. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Amendment 48 from the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) would be unworkable. It would require the Assembly—which is of course not sitting, which is part of the whole essence of this Bill—to pass a prohibitive number of votes to enable swift implementation of the solutions delivered by the Bill, so I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 49 also from the hon. Gentleman would require Ministers to have due regard for the principle that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement should be protected in all its parts. The hon. Member states this amendment is based on the fourth point in the preamble to the protocol which sets out the United Kingdom and the European Union’s affirmation of their commitment to do just that. The Government’s overriding commitment—I emphasise this as strongly as I can—is to protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions. That commitment is absolute, but the balance within that agreement, and which was critical to its negotiation, must be maintained, and it is for that very reason that the Government have introduced this Bill. Although I welcome and endorse the sentiment underlying the amendment, it is, for the same reason, unnecessary, and I urge the hon. Member to withdraw it.
Amendment 46 from the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) would require the Assembly to approve clause 20. That is inappropriate under the devolution settlements because it would prevent the Bill from making important changes that go to the heart of the current democratic deficit. Does the hon. Gentleman wish me to give way now?
Stephen Farry
Yes, I am grateful to the Minister, and I assure him this is only a probing amendment and I will not be putting it to a vote. In terms of the Government’s position of removing the ultimate jurisdiction of the ECJ, do they recognise that in doing so they will in effect unpick Northern Ireland’s access to the single market for goods in that we would not be fully in line with the required EU law for that to take effect?
Michael Ellis
I do not accept that characterisation. This is very important to the whole community in Northern Ireland and it is very important that we have cross-community consensus in the working of these operations. I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the Minister accept that in fact this Bill makes all the provision necessary for firms in Northern Ireland that wish to access the single market to be able to do so by opting for dual regulation? Dual regulation is what gives them access to the single market, not oversight by the ECJ.
Michael Ellis
The right hon. Gentleman is certainly right about the dual regulatory regime, as the Committee discussed at some length yesterday; I agree with his contention.
Claire Hanna
Will the Minister please clarify? I am struggling to understand. He repeatedly refers to the need for cross-community consent. Does he understand and has he noted the letter from a majority of MLAs—[Interruption.] Does he acknowledge that all MLAs representing others and representing nationalists reject this Bill in the strongest possible terms, and can he outline how these recommendations and powers have cross-community consent if they are rejected by two of the three traditions in Northern Ireland?
Michael Ellis
As I think the hon. Lady knows, this cannot be about majoritarianism, and by the way I note a poll in December 2021 that indicated there was 78% agreement in Northern Ireland that the protocol needed to change. There is a requirement that there is cross-community consensus and—
Michael Ellis
The hon. Lady is shouting from a sedentary position, but I think I have made the position clear. [Interruption.]
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) knows she cannot shout like that while she is sitting down. If she wishes to intervene again she can try to intervene; I will not have this shouting.
Michael Ellis
Thank you, Dame Eleanor.
I simply reiterate to the hon. Lady and the whole Committee that our overriding priority is preserving peace and stability in Northern Ireland, and I make no apology for repeating that. The situation as it stands is undermining the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and it is undermining power-sharing, as proven by the very fact that we do not have an operating Northern Ireland Assembly—surely that is proof positive.
Sammy Wilson
Does the Minister share my bafflement at the intervention that he has just had to respond to? On the one hand, SDLP amendment 49 requires the Government to ensure
“the principle that the Belfast Agreement, including its subsequent implementation agreements and arrangements, should be protected in all its parts”,
yet at the same time we are being told that a majority in the Assembly—which does not include one Unionist: a key principle of the Belfast agreement—should override any of the views being expressed by Unionists on these Benches today.
Michael Ellis
The right hon. Gentleman makes his point with his usual eloquence, and the citation he makes from the agreement is irrefutable; it is simply on the face of the document.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
Can the Minister point out the line, paragraph and page of the Good Friday agreement that he is quoting? This does not make any sense.
Michael Ellis
The hon. Gentleman is being mischievous in the best possible sense of that word; he is very familiar with the agreement and does not need me to cite the passages in question. I am sure all sides would agree that what is most important is the preservation of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement; that surely is irrefutable.
Amendment 13, tabled by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central, would bind domestic courts into the existing CJEU reference procedure without any choice as to what the new arrangements are. In the Government’s view, that would not resolve the current democratic deficit.
I have given the position of Her Majesty’s Government on the amendments; I hope I have outlined that in sufficient detail. I therefore recommend that these clauses all stand part of the Bill.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I am happy to follow the Minister. Reference has been made to the oversight of the European Court of Justice. Although our primary concern about the protocol is in respect of trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we do have a concern about the role of the European Court of Justice in respect of oversight, where there is a dispute between the United Kingdom and the European Union on matters pertaining to the protocol. We believe it is unfair and unreasonable that the European Court of Justice should be the final arbiter on such matters.
Sammy Wilson
Does my right hon. Friend accept that in no other trade agreement would one side be able to adjudicate on whether the terms were to be accepted? However, in this case, the EU, which has skin in the game, would be the final arbiter in any dispute. That is totally unfair, totally unwarranted and totally unprecedented.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
Indeed, and that speaks to the issue that I raised about the democratic deficit. The Government are endeavouring, through the Bill, to correct the flaws that were evident in the protocol. Although some in the House will point out that the Government signed up to the protocol, I welcome the fact that the Government recognise that the protocol is not working, that it is harmful to Northern Ireland and that changes need to be made. That is very important.
We believe that the democratic deficit needs to be addressed. The European Union has so far shown an unwillingness to introduce proposals that would meet the United Kingdom’s concerns in that regard. We do not yet know whether there will be a change of heart, but in the absence of that, we are with the Government on this: we want a fair and reasonable system.
I repeat what I have said throughout the Committee: if we set aside the process of how we got here and examine the detail of the Government’s proposals as a framework to provide solutions to the problems, I believe that that framework is fair. It respects the integrity of the EU single market and its right to protect that market. However, for us, it also fundamentally recognises and respects the United Kingdom’s right to protect the integrity of and to regulate its internal market. The protocol prevents the Government from doing that for the whole United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is currently subject to regulations that are introduced by the EU in a manner over which we have no say.
Other Members have raised the fact that, at the moment, we do not have a fully functioning Assembly and Executive in Northern Ireland, yet I still do not see or hear an understanding from them of how that situation has arisen. It was with great reluctance that we took the decision to withdraw the First Minister back in February. It only happened after much delay; I stood on the green outside this building and was mocked by the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) for not having followed through on the warning that I had given to withdraw the First Minister. He goaded us, saying that we had not followed through, and he sits on these Benches now and attacks us for taking the decision that we warned we would have to take if progress was not made towards addressing the issues related to the protocol.
I have also said, and reiterated during these debates, that as we make progress and as decisive action is taken by the Government in implementing this legislation, we will of course restore those political institutions, because we want them to work and function in the way that they were intended to. The hon. Members for Foyle and for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) seemed to suggest from a sedentary position that the concept of power sharing and consensus was not a fundamental principle of the Belfast agreement. I have to differ from them on that: I believe that power sharing is at the heart of the Belfast agreement and in the principle that, in a divided society such as Northern Ireland, we cannot have one side with all the power and others excluded from power. Therefore, the concept of power sharing was embraced by the political parties in Northern Ireland and has been the basis on which those political institutions have operated. However, if power sharing is to work, it requires cross-community consensus.
I hear this new language from the SDLP, in particular, and also the Alliance party, who constantly talk about a “majority” of this and a “majority” of that. When Unionists had the majority, however, we were told that majority rule was anathema to the Alliance party and the SDLP—that we could not have a Unionist majority governing in Northern Ireland and there had to be cross-community consensus. However, when Unionists have concerns and issues and say that the cross-community consensus does not exist, our concerns are almost dismissed. Lip service is paid to them but, at every opportunity, there is opposition to reasonable change that would address Unionists’ concerns.
I have not heard from the likes of the SDLP what the solution is, beyond saying, “Let’s have negotiations with the EU”. But negotiations have been tried—there have been 300 hours of negotiations. If the EU is prepared to come back to the table, change its negotiating mandate and act in good faith to get a solution that restores the cross-community consensus in Northern Ireland, bravo. But we see no inclination from the EU that it will do that.
So what do we do? Do we sit back, rub our hands, say, “It’s all too difficult” and wait for the day when, hopefully, the EU will come riding over the hill and rescue the political stability in Northern Ireland, rescue the Belfast agreement and rescue the concept of power sharing on the basis of a cross-community consensus? That has not happened, despite the EU’s bold claims that the protocol was designed to protect the Good Friday agreement and the political institutions. Those institutions are not functioning precisely because there is not a cross-community consensus in support of the protocol.
We need arrangements that reinstate and restore Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market, which respects the outcome of article 1 of the agreement—that Northern Ireland remains an integral part of the United Kingdom—as was recognised by the Irish Government and by the people of the Republic of Ireland, who voted in a referendum to change its constitution to recognise that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. I am afraid that the protocol has disrespected that constitutional settlement—that recognition that, for the time being, that is the settled will of the people of Northern Ireland. These issues are fundamentally important, and addressing the democratic deficit is important.
Colum Eastwood
Despite what the right hon. Member has been saying, I am very grateful to him for giving way. I know that he is a new convert to supporting the Good Friday agreement; in fact, he left the talks before they were concluded and then opposed the Good Friday agreement from the outset. That is fine—that is his right—but I wonder whether he can explain what version of Brexit can get this mythical cross-community consensus. The word “consensus”, in that sense, is not in the Good Friday agreement.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I am not going to delve back into the history of Northern Ireland and leave the Committee bemused by an exchange on the Opposition Benches about the wherefores and merits of the Good Friday agreement in 1998. Yes, I did vote against the agreement in 1998, because I was opposed to what I regarded as deep flaws in it—not least its abject failure to address the needs of the innocent victims of the troubles, which were trampled over in the initial format of the agreement.
We are now trying to deal with the legacy not just of 30 years of violence, but of almost 25 years of an agreement that failed to address the issue in the first instance. I happen to believe that an important part of it that ought to have been dealt with in 1998 was not dealt with. I voted against the agreement on that basis, but, to be clear, at no stage did I ever oppose it on the basis that I opposed power sharing or that I believed that the only way forward was anything other than cross-community consensus. I have argued consistently as a Unionist that in a divided society, cross-community consensus has to be the way forward.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
Yes, nationalist concerns need to be heard. I believe that the proposals that the Government have made address the concerns on both sides of the community. They address the need to protect the integrity of the European Union and the need to protect the integrity of the United Kingdom.
Do you know what? In 1998, when the referendum was held on the Good Friday agreement, I voted against it—but on the day the result was announced, I stood outside at Balmoral, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Belfast South, and declared that I accepted the result and would continue to work to change the agreement in a way that would benefit all the people of Northern Ireland. I would love to hear some day from SDLP Members that they finally accept the result of the largest democratic vote ever held in this United Kingdom, in which the people of this nation voted to leave the European Union. If they do not like what has happened, they should work to change the arrangements, as we are trying to do, rather than going back to 2016 and saying, “It’s all too difficult, it’s all terrible and therefore we can’t do anything about it.” The essence of democracy and the essence of good politics is that when you do not like something, you seek to change it.
Sammy Wilson
Can my right hon. Friend understand why nationalists will not accept this Bill? I cannot, because first, it will ensure their primary consideration, which is that there be no border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic in terms of infrastructure. Secondly, it will address their concerns about the EU single market and ensure that their friends in the EU are protected, because goods going into the Republic will be examined as they come through Northern Ireland and companies in Northern Ireland will be required to abide by EU rules. Thirdly, courts in Northern Ireland will ensure through heavy sanctions that those who try to break the regulations will be punished. At the same time, the Bill will address Unionist concerns about the democratic deficit and ensure that goods can move freely into Northern Ireland from elsewhere in the UK and are not impeded in any way. Does my right hon. Friend agree that both sides can find something in the Bill?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I believe that if we examine the proposals that the Government are making, we can see that they are fair and balanced. Despite the criticism that some have made that my party supported Brexit, at no stage in the process have we argued for a hard border on the island of Ireland. That is because we recognise the sensitivities of nationalists—it is precisely because as Unionists we are alive to and aware of the sensitivities of nationalists about having infrastructure on the border. We have therefore sought to encourage a solution that respects and acknowledges their concerns, but it would be nice to have a bit of reciprocation from the nationalist side for a change, and a recognition of our concerns that a border in the Irish sea is offensive to us in the same way that a hard border on the island of Ireland is offensive to nationalists.
There are reasonable solutions that can ensure that we avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland and that we avoid a border in the Irish sea for goods moving within the United Kingdom. That is what this Bill does. That is precisely the outcome that it seeks to achieve, and in that respect it is, I think, balanced and fair.
Claire Hanna
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why, in the case of all the Bills that preceded Britain’s exit from the European Union, he repeatedly voted against all the SDLP’s amendments to design in consent for the people of Northern Ireland? Where was this regard for the delicacies of the Good Friday agreement then?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I am a democrat, and I accepted the outcome of the referendum. The British people had voted for Brexit, and I was not going to go along with the SDLP’s desire to hold the United Kingdom within the European Union and its proposals to keep us in the single market and the customs union, because I believed that that was contrary to what the British people had voted for. We therefore sought a solution.
At the time, in 2016, the former First Minister of Northern Ireland, Arlene Foster—Dame Arlene Foster—wrote to the then Prime Minister and to the Irish Prime Minister, the Taoiseach, making it clear that we needed a solution for Northern Ireland that took account of the distinct situation that pertained. We always recognised that arrangements in respect of Northern Ireland would take account of the sensitivities, but that should and must include the sensitivities and concerns of Unionists as well as nationalists. The solution provided for in the Bill, I believe, does that. It avoids a hard border on the island of Ireland, meeting the needs and the sensitivities of nationalists—of the constituents, in particular, of the hon. Member for Foyle: I acknowledge that many of them cross the border every day. I do not want impediments to be put in their way, but nor do I want impediments to be put in the way of my constituents, because trade with the rest of the United Kingdom is the lifeblood of their business, or of the consumers who live in my constituency, who simply want to buy British products from British companies in England, Scotland and Wales in the way that they have always enjoyed. For all those reasons, we will oppose the amendments. On balance, we believe that the Government’s proposed framework for the solutions that will flow in the form of regulations will protect Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom.
Let me say this to the Government. I said it yesterday, I repeat it now, and we will come to it again later today. I know that the Government are currently consulting on what schemes they want to introduce to give effect to the Bill. It is important that there is consultation with business and with the political parties, that we have an input, and that the regulations are published as soon as possible so that we can all see that they do not pose the threat that some suggest they do, but instead offer us the solution that we need.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson). I oppose all the amendments and I support all the clauses standing part of the Bill, and the reason I do so is that, as we have heard repeatedly in the Chamber over the past days, the Northern Ireland protocol is causing unacceptable disruption and friction to the UK’s internal market. So radical is the impact of the protocol that we have seen the astonishing court ruling that, in voting through the protocol, this Parliament has partly suspended article 6 of the Acts of Union, one of its foundational statutes.
The EU’s insistence that the protocol requires full compliance with its regime for food and goods, which is applied in a one-size-fits-all way to countries around the world with far lower standards than ours, is simply unreasonable. Northern Ireland’s chief veterinary officer has estimated that if the current grace periods were removed, the number of food certificates required in Northern Ireland could soon almost match the total number processed in the entire EU, so 50% of all food-related EU certificates would be issued in relation to trade between Britain and Northern Ireland. That is not just unreasonable; it is disproportionate, and arguably violates the fundamental international trade principle that border-related checks and controls need to be based on evidence and risk. The millions of checks being asked of us by the EU are in no way proportionate to the risk posed by GB food to the internal market of the European Union.
I noted the comments of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), about what he perceived as some kind of democratic deficit in relation to the delegated legislation clauses, but I think the democratic deficit is far more serious, in that we are asking the people of Northern Ireland to live indefinitely under rules made in the European Union over which they and their elected representatives have no say whatsoever. That is not sustainable. I believe that the protocol arguably violates a core principle of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, because it has altered the status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom without the consent of its people, and the one-off majoritarian vote every few years provided for by the protocol is just not sufficient to signify consent or to deliver political stability under the Good Friday agreement.
There can be no doubt that the protocol is the root cause not only of the practical disruption but of the political instability we have witnessed in Northern Ireland over the last few months. We cannot ignore the fact that every single one of the recently elected Unionist Assembly Members is against the protocol, and we cannot stand by while Northern Ireland is deprived of its power sharing agreement.
Claire Hanna
I genuinely share the right hon. Lady’s concern that all the elected Unionist Members oppose the protocol. It is not a desirable situation, which is why I poured six years of my life into preventing it at the time. Will she also acknowledge that every single other Member of the Assembly is against this Bill? Could she also please outline what aspects of societal disruption she is referring to and which products are not available in Northern Ireland?
Theresa Villiers
What I want to emphasise is that this Bill, once it is adopted, will deliver a system that will deal with the worst aspects of the friction and disruption that have been occurring. I also believe that it is important to build support for the Bill among all sides of the community in Northern Ireland. It is not in the interests of one side for other side to be alienated, as it is at present.
On the disruption being caused, the hon. Lady will be aware that it is partially mitigated at the moment by the grace periods that are in place. However, if we were to have the full panoply of EU rules on food, it would mean huge disruption to food being transferred between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and it is essential that that is dealt with.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As everyone here knows, I represent my constituency of Strangford, but I have had representations from people in the South Down and Belfast West constituencies—people with different political aspirations and different religious viewpoints—who have asked me to make sure that this Northern Ireland Protocol Bill goes through because it will advantage them as well. So it is wrong for some people in this Chamber to adopt the attitude that this is all to the advantage of Unionists. It is more than that; all the people of Northern Ireland will gain the advantage if this Bill goes through. The right hon. Lady knows that—[Interruption]—unlike this yapping person on my right-hand side.
Theresa Villiers
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The reason I am supporting this Bill is that I believe it is in the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland. On the disruption, whether it is related to food, to the movement of pets and assistance dogs or to the soil and trees for planting as part of the Queen’s green canopy for the jubilee, these are disruptions that need to be addressed. What also needs to be addressed is the fact that, for the moment, Northern Ireland is subjected to laws made in Europe that it does not influence. For all those reasons, we need this Bill.
We cannot stand by while Northern Ireland is deprived of its power sharing Government and its devolved institutions because of the intransigent attitude of the European Union. We have heard from the Opposition spokesman that we should give more time for negotiations, but after 18 months of fruitless negotiations, the UK Government are right to act to remedy the worst of the practical problems caused by the protocol. We simply cannot carry on as we are, with the EU refusing to consider changes to its negotiating mandate to allow constructive talks that might resolve this issue.
The Bill will deliver pragmatic changes. It does not rip up the protocol or violate international law. It is in line with the protocol’s provisions that acknowledge its potential replacement by alternative arrangements. The protocol itself also recognises the primacy of the Good Friday agreement.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Brexit undoubtably casts a heavy shadow over this debate. The point raised by the right hon. Members for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) on the democratic deficit is fairly made, although almost all the laws under which Northern Ireland is currently operating apply in the United Kingdom because of retained EU law. We must not get this entirely out of perspective because the Government chose, at the moment of withdrawal, to take EU law, move it across and stick it into UK legislation.
Sammy Wilson
Although the right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about EU law being retained for the rest of the United Kingdom, the vital difference is that the 82 pages of EU law contained in the protocol can be changed. Those changes apply to Northern Ireland, which is where the democratic deficit comes in.
Hilary Benn
The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I understand it entirely. I am talking about the situation as it is today. We should, therefore, be calm and reasonable in describing it.
Let us not forget that Northern Ireland is in a unique and favourable position compared with my constituents, precisely because it has access to both the market of the United Kingdom and the market of the European Union, which is why the polling indicates that businesses in Northern Ireland are very much in favour of having this privileged access, which other parts of the United Kingdom would greatly like.
The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet correctly made a point about the grace period. I do not understand why the Government did not just continue negotiating within the grace period. [Interruption.] The Minister for the Cabinet Office raises his eyebrows, but we have now been in the grace period for 18 months. I believe there is a problem with the checks that needs to be sorted out, as I have said on the record many times. In my conversations with European colleagues, I have asked them to give me one example of how the integrity, safety and security of the single market has been compromised during the grace period. I have yet to receive an answer that a problem has actually arisen. The longer that goes on—perhaps that would have been the better approach for the Government—the more difficult it becomes for the EU to argue, “There is a fundamental difficulty here, which is why we need the whole panoply”. In the end, we are going to have to identify where the real risks are, and it is a relatively limited number of products. For the rest, particularly those goods that come to supermarkets and businesses in Northern Ireland that are not going anywhere else, a completely different solution could be required, although the Government are going to have a job on their hands to differentiate between the two.
I wish to speak in support of my amendment 12, which I hope might be voted on later, my amendment 13 and other amendments. I said last week that the Bill as a whole was egregious, but clause 18(1), to which amendment 12 refers, is particularly so, because it states:
“A Minister of the Crown may engage in conduct in relation to any matter dealt with in the Northern Ireland Protocol…if the Minister of the Crown considers it appropriate”.
Basically, that is asking the House to legislate to give Ministers a power to do whatever they feel like, provided, in their opinion, that they think it is appropriate. We should listen to what Sir Jonathan Jones, the former Treasury Solicitor has had to say. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who is on our Front Bench, mentioned, Sir Jonathan described this power as “extraordinary” and said it is a “do whatever you like” power, and no wonder. He also said in the article he wrote that the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which led to his resignation, was bad enough, but this Bill is of a “wholly different order”. The Hansard Society has criticised the clause as not being subject to any parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever, a criticism also made by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which said:
“There is no definition of ‘conduct’ in the Bill itself. And there is nothing on the face of clause 18 that would prevent it from creating legally binding rules of general application.”
The Committee has previously criticised what it calls “disguised legislation,” by which it means
“instruments that are legislative in effect but often not subject to parliamentary oversight. Examples include guidance, determinations, arrangements, codes of practice and public notices. Clause 18 appears to allow all these things to be done, without any parliamentary procedure and in a way that is binding on the general public.”
So the question the Committee reasonably ask of the Minister is: what is this power and what do Ministers want it for? If I heard the Minister correctly, he said that the clause was there merely to ensure that Ministers acted lawfully. What is this “conduct”? I ask because “engage in conduct” is, as the very helpful House of Commons Library note says,
“an unusual form of words for a statutory power.”
If we turn to the Bill’s explanatory notes for some enlightenment, we see that they state that clause 18(1) authorises “sub-legislative activity”. I have been in the House for a few years and I have never come across the concept of “sub-legislative activity”, whatever that is. The only example given in the explanatory notes is guidance. If the Government’s aim is to have a power to issue guidance on matters that they have not thought of in the rest of the Bill or might think of at some point in the future, why does the clause not say, “The Minister will have the power to issue guidance”? It does not say that.
The other example the Minister gave left me even more perplexed. He said that this was to enable Ministers to issue instructions to civil servants. I was a Minister for nine years and I am not aware that I had to refer to a bit of legislation to give instructions to civil servants. I find the explanation wholly incredible, so it begs the question, and ought to beg the question for the Committee, whether one supports the principle of the Bill or not: what are the Government actually seeking to do? The Hansard Society, in its excellent note, makes it clear that that is not a narrow, obscure point. It is about ensuring that relevant legal provisions are drafted and treated consistently with other legislation. That is why the Hansard Society says:
“It also ensures that law-making does not circumvent the publication requirements that accompany, and the parliamentary scrutiny that is afforded to, primary and delegated legislation.”
In this case, the Government have given no explanation of why they believe that the powers are needed—apart from in relation to guidance and instructing civil servants, as we have just heard from the Minister—or why they believe that the powers are administrative rather than legislative. We need to hear from the Minister in his further contribution precisely what conduct is covered by cause 18(1). If he has a list of things in mind, will he please amend the Bill and put them in one by one so that we can see what they are? Secondly, will he give a categorical assurance that this provision will not permit legally binding obligations to be made as a result of that conduct? I raise that issue because the Government have not included clause 18(1) in the Bill’s delegated powers memorandum, which is quite a significant point.
The clause is also indicative of the Government’s wider ambitions for, and the problems they are having with, the Bill. What they really want to do—the Minister has been absolutely open about this, to his great credit—is give themselves the power to do whatever they want in relation to the protocol. They want to be able to turn things on, turn them off and even turn them back on again whenever they feel like it. The fundamental problem, which has become evident over the last two days in Committee, is that, in fairness, Ministers are not entirely clear how some of their proposals—for example, a red customs lane and a green customs lane, or the dual regulatory regime, which we discussed at some length yesterday—will work in practice.
To take the example of the dual regulatory regime, when pressed on whether firms would be required to choose whether to follow EU or UK rules, the Minister said yesterday:
“clause 7 makes it clear that businesses will have a choice which regulatory route to follow when supplying goods to the market in Northern Ireland.”
However, later he said that clause 11 would
“allow a Minister to prescribe a single regulatory route for specific sectors, including a UK-only route with no application of EU law”—[Official Report, 19 July 2022; Vol. 718, c. 877-79.]
In other words, businesses will be absolutely free to choose which system they want to use, unless and until the Government tell them which one they must use.
There is a confusion and a contradiction here. Why would Ministers want to take such a power if they are confident that they have already worked out how a dual regulatory system will work? I do not think they are confident, because they do not know the answer. That is why so many of these Henry VIII powers are dotted throughout the Bill to give the Government the cover they require. For me that goes to the heart of why clause 18(1) is so objectionable and why it has been more widely criticised—apart from the Bill itself—than any other clause: the Government are trying to give themselves a sweeping power and a sweeping-up power. That is why this provision should be removed.
Let me turn briefly to my amendment 13. To be frank, I tabled it as a probing amendment because I was trying to understand the Government’s intention in allowing courts or tribunals in the UK to refer matters to the European Court. There is a bit of a contradiction between clause 20(2), which would prevent any UK court from referring a matter to the European Court, and clause 20(4), which would allow the Government to lay down in regulations a procedure under which courts could refer matters of interpretation of EU law to the European Court. To put it simply, if the Government are planning regulations to allow referrals—if they are not planning that, why does subsection (4) exist—why take a blanket power two subsections earlier to prevent any referrals whatever. The thinking does not seem clear.
Finally, given what I have said about the inappropriate use of the word “appropriate” in the Bill, I support the Opposition amendments, including new clauses 11 and 12, which would change the word “appropriate” to “necessary”. It seems to me that that would provide a better and a higher test for the exercise of ministerial discretion rather than the wide latitude allowed for in the Bill, which has rightly led to so much criticism from so many quarters.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans, as we discuss the Bill this afternoon.
I wish to say at the outset that I am speaking very much in support of the Government’s position on the Bill. It seems to me that we are dealing with a very complex, sensitive and fluid situation. I recognise that we have heard from everybody, from the former Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair, right through to business organisations on the ground, all of whom recognise that there is no clear right or wrong to this situation at the moment, that we need to take forward this debate in a constructive way, and that we need to reach solutions that continue to support stability and the economic development of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom.
My attention was particularly drawn i to amendment 51, because of the points that it illustrates about referring disputed matters to the UK-EU Joint Committee, which is envisaged as part of the withdrawal agreement. That highlights that there remains a number of avenues still to explore, and it is with a sense of optimism that I look at those avenues. It is clear that the political situation that we face today, with the departure of one Prime Minister and a new Prime Minister to be elected, creates an opportunity for a reset in the relationships and the negotiations that are taking place with the European Union on this issue. It was clear from the Dispatch Box when we first debated the Bill that it remained the Government’s preferred outcome that negotiations would result in changes that would address fully the issues of concern to all communities across Northern Ireland and, indeed, to those in my own constituency, whose businesses are involved in trade with the UK single market and the European single market. They are watching closely at what the outcomes of this will be because of the implications for other parts of our international trade in future.
The success that we have seen in Northern Ireland—in particular its ability to attract inward investment to drive that economic growth, to be the other region of the United Kingdom, outside of London, that is really bouncing back strongly—demonstrates the strength that there is in that economy and that community, and that it deserves the support and attention of this House to a greater degree perhaps than it has enjoyed in the past. The reality is that the protocol that we are discussing today is clearly our Prime Minister’s protocol, and we now have an opportunity to revisit those negotiations and find a new way forward.
I wish to address the point that was made strongly by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) in his eloquent contribution around the issue of a democratic deficit. There was one thing that piqued my attention. I have served as a member of the Committee of the Regions, alongside cross-party members from Northern Ireland, such as Jonathan Bell, Arnold Hatch, Stewart Dickson—all of whom were part of a process that was set up, as an EU member state, whereby the elected politicians from different parts of the European Union undertook a supervisory and oversight role on the operations of the European Union and the single market.
I spent a good part of my life in the Centre Borschette in Brussels—the conference centre in which the European Union undertook its negotiations and discussions about the development of the single market. I was there to talk about education. I was sharing that building with people who were there to deal with anything from veterinary products, to agriculture and to any other conceivable economic area of interest. It is clear that, now that we have left the European Union, we need to make sure that we are putting in place an equivalent degree of oversight so that everybody involved in the community has the opportunity to play an appropriate part in the development of these markets. It is clear from the eloquent contributions that we have heard from a number of Members on the Benches opposite that there remains a very live concern in Northern Ireland about whether the arrangements currently in place allow for that to happen.
Even with the results of the recent election, where I recognise that the majority of people in Northern Ireland voted for parties that were in favour of the protocol, it is clear that the essence of the peace and stability that supports that economic development is that everybody has the opportunity to be part of that discussion. We know that that has not always been done as fully as it should have been in the past, and as we debate the Bill in this Committee we have the opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to ensuring that that does happen in future.
It is also important to recognise, when we look at the important progress that Northern Ireland is making in its economic development and in bouncing back from the covid pandemic, that the European Union is making a reasonable point about the need to ensure that we carry out the relevant checks on goods and products that are traded in and out of that single market—a point that we have an equivalence for in our own United Kingdom single market. There is a lot of history to that. The United Kingdom has historically been notorious, as a member of the single market, for not carrying out the checks on goods and services that we were committed to carrying out as part of that single market.
Indeed, the United Kingdom was significantly fined for having failed to carry out those checks. I know that there are businesses in my constituency trading in goods and services that have seen their ability to do so undercut when the integrity of that single market has been damaged by our failure to carry out those checks. That failure means that we have, for example, counterfeit car parts being brought into the United Kingdom and traded—not only putting people’s lives and wellbeing at risk, but damaging the economic prospects of those businesses.
As we take those negotiations forward in a constructive spirit, while we are rightly determined to protect the integrity of the UK, it is absolutely right that we also recognise that the United Kingdom has not always been as good at this as we should have been. The constructive partnership with the European Union means that we must recognise that and show our commitment to ensuring that those checks and standards will be carried out in future in a way that we have not always done in the past. It may well be that the joint committee referred to in amendment 51 will play some role in ensuring that, as negotiations progress and those matters are taken to a lower level, there will be an opportunity to drive forward to reach agreements.
I will finish where I started. The opportunity of a change of leadership is that it creates some scope for a reset in the relationship that has been clearly described at the Dispatch Box as the Government’s preferred route for achieving a better outcome. I entirely support the Government in that objective. We have already heard intimations from some of our partners across the European Union that, regardless of what they think about the merits of any individual, that reset is the chance for a fresh start.
I hope the outcome will be that we reach that negotiation without any of the powers that have been referred to at the Dispatch Box and that are causing concern ever having to come into play, exactly as we saw with the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. The priority for this Committee, for Members and for my constituents whose trading interests are strongly affected by this Bill is that we ensure that we respect the complexity of the politics of Northern Ireland, to which we have often paid far too little attention in this House. We must support all our colleagues in achieving a deal that they can live with, one that will continue to support the stability and economic development of both the Republic of Ireland, our ally, and Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom.
Claire Hanna
This afternoon’s amendments focus on the disapplication of the protocol and the extravagant powers that the Government hope to grant themselves. Our amendments, consistent with our amendments tabled on other days—I think we are on day 712 of this Bill—seek to balance and, where necessary, curtail those powers, to ensure that Ministers have due regard for the views and the needs of all the people in Northern Ireland and their elected representatives.
Through amendment 49, we also propose to formalise the safeguarding of the Good Friday agreement. It is referenced just once in this Bill, where I believe it is being used as an amulet to defend against repudiation of an international treaty. We are told repeatedly, although it does not reflect the understanding of the agreement that many of us have, that this Bill is about protection of the Good Friday agreement, so it is difficult to see why codifying that is being so forcefully rejected. As a lifelong and committed follower of John Hume, I am always very pleased when his ideas get a new airing and a new audience. However, it is frustrating when the concepts and ideas he spent his life developing and persuading Northern Ireland to adopt—many people took a lot longer than others to finally adopt those views, while we all seemed to happily operate in this framework—are misrepresented and distorted, as they have been at some stages of this debate. John Hume argued and finally persuaded, through the Good Friday agreement, which has enormous consent in Northern Ireland and is sovereign in Northern Ireland, that consent should rest on the will of the majority of people in Northern Ireland. Crucially, he framed that within the architecture and the institutions of the three-stranded approach in the agreement, which explicitly saw Ireland’s and the UK’s joint membership of the EU as underpinning that, and underpinning the relationships east-west and north-south, regardless of Northern Ireland’s constitutional settlement.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
There is, though, a clear distinction between the principle of consent, which relates to the ultimate question of Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom, or constitutional change affecting our place in the United Kingdom, and the principle of consensus, which applies to the operation of the political institutions. My point throughout this debate has not focused primarily on the principle of consent, although that is important, but relates to power-sharing on the principle of consensus. Without Unionist support, there is not a consensus, and that is simply the reality.
Claire Hanna
I am glad the hon. Member brought up that point, because I am sure that all the Members in the Chamber have read the Good Friday agreement and will know that in the original 1998 document, the only—only—aspect that required parallel consent, other than the potential petitioning of motions, was the joint nomination of the First Ministers. Would Members like to hazard a guess as to which party disapplied that one use of parallel consent in the Good Friday agreement? It was the DUP, at St Andrews, that ruled it out. The principle of consent, as codified very clearly in the Good Friday agreement and in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, is about the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and about the consent of the majority of the people. Those are the facts, and, as people are disappearing up their own contradictions to try to justify support for this damaging Bill, those remain the facts.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I am afraid that I must disagree with the hon. Lady. Parallel consent does not apply on only one issue. In strand 1 of the agreement, the requirement for cross-community consensus applies to matters that are controversial, so the idea that consensus applies only on the constitutional issue is simply not true. The power-sharing institutions operate on the basis of consensus. If cross-community consensus was not required for power-sharing, then why on earth have we no power-sharing Executive fully functioning today in the absence of Unionist support? The facts speak for themselves: Unionists absent, no consensus, no power-sharing. For the hon. Lady to try to suggest that consensus is not required for power-sharing frankly leaves me bemused, because it is at the heart of the Belfast agreement.
Claire Hanna
This is the problem we had in the stop-start 25 years of devolution: an obsession with and an addiction to veto by the DUP, and others. Some of these points would have more coherence and would be less hypocritical if that party had not correctly—correctly—bemoaned Sinn Féin holding the institutions to ransom, which was undemocratic when it did it between 2017 and 2020. The Member was not slow in pointing that out, rightly, and his words now would have a little bit more credibility if that had not been the case. There is a difference between consent and consensus. Again, it would be a little bit more credible if he was not repeatedly ignoring the fact that a democratic majority of people in Northern Ireland oppose Brexit, particularly the hard form of Brexit that is being applied without any form of consent. I say respectfully that his words do not have credibility on this. In fact, Hume developed the notions of complementary consent, north and south, for any agreement produced by negotiations for future constitutional change in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday agreement was mandated on that basis, and while I appreciate—I was a teenager at the time, so I do not recall the press conference—that the right hon. Member said on that day that he accepted the result of the referendum, it is a matter of record that his party spent many years doing everything they could to thwart its implementation.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
This debate is not about history, but at the time I was actually a member of the Ulster Unionist party, not the Democratic Unionist party—a small fact. As a member of the Ulster Unionist party at the time, even though I voted against the agreement, I said I accepted the democratic outcome. Subsequently, when I joined the Democratic Unionist party, I worked with my party to bring about the change required democratically to ensure that the flaws in the agreement were addressed. I am simply saying to the hon. Lady that that is what we are engaged in now in respect of the protocol. Let us get the change that works for everyone in Northern Ireland, rebuilds the consensus on a cross-community basis and gets us back to doing what we need to do for Northern Ireland.
Claire Hanna
I desperately hope with every fibre of my being that the position the right hon. Gentleman sets out in his final words is the one we reach at the end of this process. The people of Northern Ireland want more than anything in this world to not hear this situation being played out aggressively in a toxic fashion day after day, as it has for the last six years, but they do not believe it will happen unilaterally through this Bill. Anybody who legitimately and thoroughly supports the Good Friday agreement and the teachings of John Hume will know that this Bill is a world of logic, decency and reality away from what he outlined about consensus and power sharing.
We have tabled amendment 49 to give an opportunity to protect fully and truly the Good Friday agreement with negotiated solutions. That is where we want to get to. Members should be fair and current about the context in Northern Ireland, because people at home do not recognise the Mad Max scenario being portrayed of people unable to access goods and services in Northern Ireland—it is just not reflective of the reality. Once again I say, as I have probably done every time I have spoken on this issue, that I fully understand the hurt of many Unionists. I have also spoken about the constitutional identity of many of us. I am Irish and I am Northern Irish, and I do not pay my taxes to the same state that my passport comes from—I understand that those are compromises, and it is frustrating when the impression is given that such compromises are for non-Unionists, but Unionists should never have to compromise on their lines of governance.
In terms of the actual material effect on people’s identity, I quoted yesterday words from the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) that I agree with. He said clearly that customs checks do not alter the constitutional status of the UK, and I think he is correct, but it is also appropriate that people reflect on the reality of what is and is not happening with goods moving through, where there is not the full panoply of EU checks. The situation is evolving. We were not given the benefit of an implementation period—such was the rush from other parties to get Brexit done, they did not allow businesses a period in which to adapt—but as was always envisioned, the protocol is evolving and the EU has set out legally dropped checks that are available permanently for easement, so Members should be rational about that.
Members should also be rational about the impact of the European Court of Justice. If I understand it correctly, it applies to the sovereign parts of Cyprus in the absence of Brexit. Perhaps Ministers in their summing up could advise whether the constitutional status of those UK sovereign areas of Cyprus has changed due to the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
Consistent with those points, amendments 48 and 49 would try to apply the consensus and the trust of the Northern Ireland Assembly to some of the powers that will be exercised apparently for its benefit. That consent from the Assembly will better reflect the range of views across Northern Ireland’s diverse communities, as well as businesses, whose representative groups—Members and in particular Ministers should be honest about this—have all rejected this Bill and set out their grave reservations about it. It is important that those views be reflected, if only because Members have, shamefully, maligned some of those business representatives in the Chamber, and I do not believe that their accusations have been withdrawn.
When Ministers sum up, will they say whether they will table a report that gives qualitative and quantitative information on the feedback that the Government have received from businesses on the Bill? It is frustrating for many that little pieces of feedback are being appropriated by some, while the vast majority of feedback—the representative feedback—is being distorted. I ask the Government to commit to publishing a report on the feedback—anonymised, where appropriate—that they have received, so that we can ensure that the voices of the economic actors in Northern Ireland are heard without distortion or impediment.
It is wrong to imply, as some did in debate yesterday, that Northern Ireland exporters will have a choice on regulations and standards. In fact, customers will have that choice; that is how these things work. The UK proposes a dual-regulation system on an open border. That will require customers—mostly other businesses—to make judgments and assumptions about the validity and standards of Northern Ireland produce. The Bill creates that serious reputational risk to businesses. I must repeat that the Bill’s powers, to the extent that they can be quantified—there are a lot of unanswered questions—are unwanted by a majority of Members of the Legislative Assembly, and by all the business organisations. Our amendment will help to ensure that those powers are appropriately moderated by the Northern Ireland Assembly. I do not want to hear the all-purpose excuse, “The Assembly isn’t sitting.” We are told, as part of the two-step that is going on between the Government and the Democratic Unionist party, that once the Bill passes, the Government will give democratic governance to the people of Northern Ireland, so that should not be an impediment. I ask the Government to accept that.
Stephen Farry
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I want to make a few points about the European Court of Justice and my amendment 46. It is important to recognise that the ECJ has not been a big issue in Northern Ireland to date. No business has ever expressed any concern to me about its jurisdiction. Indeed, it was a very minor issue in political debate in Northern Ireland until Lord Frost took it upon himself to escalate the issue in a speech that he made last October in Lisbon, I think. It was on the eve of the European Commission tabling proposals for breaking the deadlock on this issue; that shows how well the Government have handled some of the so-called negotiations. The European Court of Justice seems to be an obsession for hard-line Brexiteers in this Chamber and elsewhere, and for those who advocate what could be described as a purist and old-fashioned approach to sovereignty that denies entirely the realities of the modern, interdependent world.
It is important to focus on the distinction between dispute resolution mechanisms in a free trade agreement, and the situation regarding the protocol. Many people suggest that we should simply have an arbitration mechanism for the protocol, and deliberately conflate the two types of agreement. It is entirely appropriate to have an arbitration mechanism for the trade and co-operation agreement, which is a free trade agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. It is about two equals coming to the table and working out exactly how things will be taken forward. The position on Northern Ireland and the protocol is qualitatively different; we are talking about a region that continues to have direct access to the single market for goods, and is required to remain aligned with a body of European law, as is set out in annex 2 of the protocol. We will in a minute discuss the pros and cons of that, and the justification for it, but that is the situation that pertains, and why there is a different arbitration mechanism for a free trade agreement.
If the ultimate jurisdiction of the European Court is removed, that will jeopardise or destroy Northern Ireland’s ability to access the single market for goods. It is important that Members are fully aware of the implications of going down this particular road, because the two go hand in hand. Northern Ireland needs to remain in line with that law, and the European Court is part and parcel of how the situation works. Of course, if that were to happen, there would be massive implications for all businesses that operate on a north-south basis or that trade directly into the European Union. It is important that we do all we can to preserve that jurisdiction, while at the same time trying to fix the issues that pertain across the Irish sea. Through the Bill, a unilateral approach will be imposed on the European Union that probably will not address the issues across the Irish sea and at the same time will undermine Northern Ireland’s current dual-access opportunities.
I will go further and say this: we do not simply have to tolerate and put up with the situation. I maintain that being within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice is actively in Northern Ireland’s interests, because there may well be situations that come to light over the years where—due to the complications around the protocol, and the distinctions between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom—some businesses and places in the European Union do not accept goods from Northern Ireland, because they are confused about the overarching situation. In such situations, it is crucial that we have the European Court of Justice to enforce the rules and protect the rights of Northern Ireland businesses. If we are to change the jurisdiction, there is a real danger and risk that we throw away the opportunity and advantage that we have.
Last night, I had a conversation with a major export business in my constituency, whose representatives said that they were recently at a trade fair in Italy and people said to them, “Thank God you’re still part of the single market via the protocol, because we cannot do business readily with your counterparts in Great Britain, but because you’re part of the protocol we have that export opportunity.” Many hundreds of people are employed by that company. It is important to recognise that issue.
Hilary Benn
The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting and important speech. In clause 20(4), the Government propose to allow cases to be referred to the European Court; they say they want the European Court to have nothing to do with any of this but are then taking a power to allow referrals. Does he, like me, think that that is because businesses in Northern Ireland that choose to operate under the dual regulatory system under EU rules may themselves, in the circumstances he has just described, want to go to the Court to demonstrate that they are abiding by the rules, and therefore ensure that the Republic or any other EU country cannot say, “We are not taking your goods”? That is in the interests of business in Northern Ireland, is it not?
Stephen Farry
Absolutely. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for reinforcing that point; there is a kernel of rationale as to why the provision is in the self-interest of Northern Ireland businesses. If the Government even slightly recognise that—without, perhaps, wanting overly to acknowledge it—that is indeed welcome. I hope that the Minister will expand on that whenever he speaks.
I want to make some closing comments on the democratic deficit. Of course, the largest democratic deficit we currently face in Northern Ireland is the fact that we do not have an Assembly, which means that we cannot do any self-government, pass any laws or strike a devolved budget, and there is money building up through Barnett consequentials to address the cost of living that cannot be allocated to help struggling households. That is the big democratic deficit that the people of Northern Ireland are talking about at present, not the intricacies of European law.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am now going to call Jim Shannon as the last contributor on this group, and then we will have two brief contributions from the Front Bench. We anticipate that two Divisions will follow.
Jim Shannon
I am very pleased to be called to speak, Mr Evans. The Minister referred to the democratic deficit and clause 13, and that is what I want to focus on. I want to focus on the effect it has on my constituents in Strangford. I thank the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) for her significant contribution, too.
I have informed the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) that I intend to refer to some remarks that were made yesterday. Yesterday, I listened to him as he told hon. Members in the Chamber what conversations took place—he seemed to know better than I did—between me and Lakeland Dairies. To go on the record, let me be quite clear: I have been assured not that Lakeland Dairies is for or against the protocol; rather that it looks at the issue of the protocol and simply wants to know how we intend to deal with it in this place, so it has the information to move forward.
I refuse to allow others in this place to misrepresent me and my relationship with one of the largest employers in my constituency of Strangford. It is also noteworthy that meetings took place on a regular basis between myself and Lakeland Dairies staff, because they understand that I am up to the case and up to the job of helping them. I have had meetings with Lakeland Dairies directors, the Minister here and Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. They were quite clear where they are on those issues. So that is where we are, on the record.
I want to see a way that works for Lakeland Dairies, but also for the seed farmers in my constituency, for the small business person, for the dog owner and for the pharmacist. Lakeland Dairies is not against that either. It has stated an opinion on how its business is currently operating and wants to know how to continue to grow its incredible global enterprise. That should not be twisted by any Member, whether it be the hon. Member for North Down or any other Member.
Stephen Farry
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is perhaps useful to distinguish between what are two separate conversations. One is a business saying that, on how the protocol is addressed, it is pragmatic, open-minded or indeed that it does not take a position in that respect. Yesterday, we were having a very good separate discussion on dual regulation. I was articulating the views expressed quite openly by the Dairy Council. It is worth making clear that the authoritative information I have is that Lakeland Dairies is entirely in agreement with the stated public position of the Dairy Council.
Jim Shannon
For the record again, I repeat, and do so with authority: Lakeland Dairies has told me that whatever legislation is in place, if it assists the Bill to go through it will work with that, north and south, to make it happen—and that is the important point.
It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to read off a bit of paper and say this group supports this and that groups supports that, but let me tell him something. He reads it off a bit of paper. The difference between him and me is that I live this every day. When it comes to knowing the difference between a field of barley and a field of wheat, do you know something? I know it because I live it. When it comes to knowing the difference between a cauliflower and a cabbage, I know it—I don’t read it on a bit of paper. When it comes to knowing the difference between a Friesian cow and a Dexter cow, I know the difference. You know why? Because I live it. The hon. Member just reads it on a bit of paper.
If you want to know the difference, Mr Evans, between a John Deere tractor and a Ford tractor, I know it because I live it every day. I do not read it off a bit of paper. With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, he can read it off a bit of paper and know nothing about it, but you can live it and know everything about it. That is the difference—
Jim Shannon
Well, have you brought your wellies? He wants to go and buy himself a pair of wellies. Before he goes on to the farmer’s field, he’d better ask for the farmer for his permission.
I am quite concerned about how we are, so let me be rightly understood in the Committee today. The protocol can undoubtedly work for some—I have never said that it does not—but the fact of the matter is that the majority of individuals who have approached me in my constituency have told me that it does not work for them and their businesses.
If the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) was here, I could ream off to her, if she had the time and the patience to listen to me, perhaps 100 businesses in my constituency that are impacted by it. They have told me that it does not work for them or their businesses. I believe that to be replicated in other constituencies. In my intervention on the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, I referred to businesses in South Down and West Belfast. I mentioned another one yesterday. Again, the hon. Member for North Down ignored it as if it did not matter, but it matters to me because a constituent of mine is involved.
Sam McChesney, who was on “Countryfile” on Sunday night, said that the protocol as it is at this moment impacts greatly on him, and on his cattle and his sheep. He cannot take his cattle across to the markets in Carlisle and the rest of north England or in Scotland without a financial equation being involved. Just for the record, he happens to be a member of the Ulster Farmers Union, as am I—I declare that as an interest. The hon. Member for North Down can read things off a bit of paper and hold up some names, but he does not know it because he has not lived it, unlike we who understand the agricultural business and who speak to the farmers.
I spoke to farmers on the 12th day; they happened to be in my lodge, Kircubbin LOL 1900—true blues they are, just for the record. They were telling me their thoughts on the Northern Ireland protocol and why they want it changed. When we live with them, understand them, socialise with them, and are members of a lodge with them, then when they tell us what their problems are on the farm, we know it because we live it—we don’t read it off a bit of paper. That is the issue for me; I just want to put it on the record.
I also have concerns about the 300 hours spent by the EU not to find a solution—if only that were the case—but just to be obstinate and awkward, and never at any stage to have it in mind to deal with this.
I want to ask the Minister some questions because yesterday I met people involved in the pharmaceutical business; I will be happy if he can come back to me at a later stage with answers. Should the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill pass, can the Government confirm that the regulation of all medicines, health technologies and vaccines in Northern Ireland will fully and exclusively fall under the remit of the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency as the primary assessor and regulator, and no longer under the European Medicines Agency, as is currently the case? I want to make sure that what I am looking for and what they asked me to ask about is in place. They also seek confirmation that in such an eventuality all pharmacovigilance reporting for drugs, medicines and vaccines will thus transfer fully and exclusively to the UK MHRA.
Similarly, can the Government confirm that should the Bill become law the testing and batch release of relevant health technologies and vaccines will fully and exclusively fall under the UK National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, and that the European official medicine control laboratories network will no longer have any responsibility for Northern Ireland? Can it subsequently be confirmed that the requirements under the falsified medicines directive, which includes products having to be serialised and barcoded for decommissioning, will also no longer be required for Northern Ireland, as is already the case for the rest of the UK?
Importantly, pharmacies and pharmaceutical companies are asking for the same thing that the agricultural representative bodies that I referred to earlier are looking for: an explanation of the transitional arrangements and preparations that have been made and an account of what guidance will be issued to urgently bring clarity. Most businesses understand the nature of this Bill, but they need to know that they will have useful information from day one and not be left uncertain, as they have been in recent days.
Certainty is the order of the day: certainty that Northern Ireland can trade with her biggest market; certainty that Northern Ireland citizens can access the same medicines as the rest of the United Kingdom; certainty that farmers can get seed potatoes from, or sell their beef to, their biggest market, the UK mainland; certainty that people can take their dog on a staycation trip to Scotland without a costly pet passport; certainty that they can see their Amazon order delivered without a message telling them the seller will not post outside the United Kingdom because they think Northern Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom; certainty that they can order dog biscuits, frames or plastic flowers from their supplier without needing to fill out paperwork for each colour of each flower, which shows how absurd the EU is and why this Northern Ireland Protocol Bill needs to be law, giving us in Northern Ireland the same opportunities as the rest of the United Kingdom; certainty that our Chancellor and Government in this House can progress state aids which are currently being withheld from the people in Northern Ireland struggling with the price of daily living; certainty that the Unionist voice in Northern Ireland in terms of the upholding of the Belfast agreement is on equal footing with the nationalist voice, facilitated in this House by the SDLP and Alliance party pan-nationalist front, which is aided, disappointingly, by some on the Labour Benches—there are some that do not, but there are some that do; and certainty that, unless the people of the Province determine otherwise by a democratic specific vote, we still have the right to call ourselves as British as Finchley, as Margaret Thatcher once famously said.
This Bill is not perfect, but it starts a journey back to certainty that every single person in Northern Ireland deserves. I ask that we do the right thing.
I will refer briefly to clause 18 and the amendments tabled by SDLP and Alliance party Members, including amendments 46, 48 and 49. Despite the fact that all those Members have sat in the Northern Ireland Assembly and that they are intelligent and thoughtful individuals, there seems to be a grave misunderstanding about the role of this House in legislating through the Bill. It is not for the Northern Ireland Assembly to circumnavigate the decisions of the Minister as they pertain to individual protocol issues. Those Members should well understand the role of this House in rectifying the complete override of this House that was caused by accepting the role of a foreign power in Northern Ireland—namely, the EU: that insatiable giant that soaks everything up and takes all the goodness away. Its power was abused to punish the temerity of the British people for seeking to withdraw from Europe. We wanted to withdraw from Europe, and the Bill would give us the same authority and make me as British as Members on the Government Benches.
Stephen Farry
On a point of order, Mr Evans. Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the use of the term “pan-nationalist front”? I appreciate that this is a heated debate, but I understand that there have been multiple pieces of guidance on the use of temperate language. The use of the term “pan-nationalist front” has led to people being put under threat of their lives. It is a dangerous concept that implies that both my party and the SDLP are somehow in league with other nefarious forces who are trying to do certain things to people. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not like me to refer to the “pan-Unionist or loyalist front” for exactly the same reason.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Clearly, Mr Speaker asked people today to use temperate language, with reference to “Erskine May”, and that stands not just for Prime Minister’s Question Time but for all debates. I know that this is an emotional, sensitive Bill, but people must be very careful with the language that they use at all times.
Stephen Doughty
This has been a very wide-ranging and thoughtful debate, albeit with passion at various points. The question of a democratic deficit is one of the key issues that we have discussed. I recognise the concerns of Unionist colleagues in the Chamber, but I find it odd that the Government are pursuing a Bill with parts that remove powers from this place and the Northern Ireland Assembly and give them to Ministers here. It strikes me that that is the real democratic deficit that we are dealing with.
I hope that the other place will look at these matters in great detail in the weeks to come. I indicate our support for amendments 12 and 49, if those are put to a separate decision, but I will withdraw amendment 38.
Michael Ellis
I thank hon. Members, who have all spoken passionately. I will try very briefly to address some of their points.
The hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) asked about the impact of CJEU provision on Northern Ireland access to the EU single market. When he raised the point, I reiterated the importance of cross-community consent; I should also reassure him and the Committee that we want and intend to retain elements of the protocol that are working and preserve north-south trade and co-operation. As the Prime Minister has said, we want to fix it, not nix it. The Bill just makes targeted changes to address key concerns and restore balance.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised some technical questions about pharmaceuticals; I will write to him about them.
The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) referred to clause 18, which I assure him is genuinely less exciting than some might think. Normally, as he knows, the lawfulness of Ministers’ non-legislative actions can be taken for granted or implied. The Bill is slightly unusual in that it clarifies how new domestic obligations replace prior domestic obligations that stem from international obligations. Those international obligations are currently implemented automatically by section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. That conduit pipe currently constrains—and could cause confusion in future as to —how Ministers can act in support of the Bill. Clause 18 will remove that potential confusion.
The hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) juxtaposed Northern Ireland with Cyprus. I do not need to say to anyone on the Committee, particularly anyone from anywhere on the island of Ireland, that the history and geography of Northern Ireland is vastly different from that of Cyprus, so it is clear that different issues might arise from the remit of the CJEU. On that note, I recommend that the clauses stand part of the Bill.
Stephen Doughty
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 13 and 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendment proposed: 12, in clause 18, page 10, line 9, leave out subsection (1).—(Hilary Benn.)
This amendment would remove the Minister‘s power to engage in any conduct in relation to any matter dealt with in the Northern Ireland Protocol, not otherwise authorised by this Act, if the Minister considers it appropriate to do so.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 21 stand part.
Amendment 50, in clause 22, page 11, line 16, at end insert—
“(1A) A Minister of the Crown may not exercise any power to make regulations conferred by this Act unless a Legislative Consent Motion approving a draft of the regulations has been passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
This amendment would prevent a Minister of the Crown seeking to use powers conferred by this Act to make regulations unless and until the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly to said regulations has been obtained.
Amendment 51, page 11, line 16, at end insert—
“(1A) A Minister of the Crown may not exercise any power to make regulations conferred by this Act before a Minister of the Crown has presented a draft of the regulations to the UK-EU Joint Committee for discussion and has laid a full report setting out the details of those discussions before each House of Parliament and provided a copy to the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
This amendment would prevent a Minister of the Crown seeking to use powers conferred by this Act to make regulations unless and until said regulations have been presented by a Minister to the UK-EU Joint Committee for a discussion and a report detailing those discussions had been laid before each House of Parliament and a copy provided to the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Amendment 55, page 11, line 16, at end insert—
“(1A) A Minister of the Crown may not exercise any power to make regulations conferred by this Act in contravention of views agreed by the North-South Ministerial Council on EU matters, including those regarding future policies, legislative proposals and programmes under consideration in the EU framework as provided for in Paragraph 17 of Strand Two of the Belfast Agreement.”
Amendment 53, page 12, line 15, at end insert—
“(6A) A Minister may not exercise the power to make regulations under subsection (6) with respect to a devolved authority in Northern Ireland unless the exercise of any power by that devolved authority is approved by the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly—
(a) on behalf of the Northern Ireland Executive,
(b) following a resolution by the Northern Ireland Assembly,
or both.”
This amendment would prevent a Minister of the Crown seeking to use powers conferred by subsection (6) without the agreement of the First Minister and deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland acting jointly has been. The First Minister and deputy First Minister may be acting on behalf of the Northern Ireland Executive and/or following a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Clause 22 stand part.
Amendment 19, in clause 23, page 12, line 25, leave out from “to” to “unless” in line 26 and insert “draft affirmative procedure”.
This probing amendment would apply “draft affirmative” procedure in place of regulations being subject to annulment.
Amendment 20, page 12, line 33, leave out “draft affirmative procedure” and insert
“super-affirmative procedure (see section (Super-affirmative resolution procedure: general provisions))”.
This probing amendment would replace draft affirmative procedure with super-affirmative procedure (see NC6).
Amendment 21, page 12, line 33, leave out from “procedure” to the end of line 37.
This probing amendment would prevent Henry VIII powers (amending Acts of Parliament by regulations) being made using the “made affirmative” procedure.
Amendment 22, page 12, line 38, leave out subsections (7) to (9).
This probing amendment would remove the “made affirmative” procedure.
Clauses 23 and 25 stand part.
Amendment 2, in clause 26, page 15, line 41, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert—
“(2A) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.
(2B) The other provisions of this Act come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint.
(2C) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (2B) may not appoint a day for the commencement of any section unless—
(a) a Minister of the Crown has moved a motion in the House of Commons to the effect that a section or sections be commenced on or after a day specified in the motion (‘the specified day’),
(b) the motion has been approved by a resolution of that House,
(c) a motion to the effect that the House of Lords takes note of the specified day (or the day which is proposed to be the specified day) has been tabled in the House of Lords by a Minister of the Crown, and
(d) the day appointed by the regulations is the same as or is after the specified day.
(2D) Regulations under subsection (2B) may—
(a) appoint different days for different purposes;
(b) make transitional or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of any provision of this Act.”
The intention of this amendment, linked to Amendment 1 to clause 1, is to require parliamentary approval for bringing into force any provisions of this Act.
Amendment 33, page 15, line 42, after “section” insert
“, section [consistency with international law]”.
This consequential amendment would bring NC11 into force on the day the Act is passed.
Amendment 3, page 15, line 44, at beginning insert
“Provided that the Northern Ireland Assembly has first passed a resolution indicating support for this Act,”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 4, will make all operational aspects of the Bill dependent upon the approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Amendment 4, page 15, line 45, at end insert—
“(3A) A motion for a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly referred to in subsection (3) must be tabled by either—
(a) the First Minister and Deputy First Minister jointly, or
(b) any Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
This amendment, together with Amendment 3, will make all operational aspects of the Bill dependent upon the approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Amendment 47, page 15, line 45, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (3) may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament, except that regulations under subsection (2) relating to tax or customs matters may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the House of Commons.”
This amendment would make all the commencement regulations subject to parliamentary approval.
Clause 26 stand part.
New clause 6—Super-affirmative resolution procedure: general provisions—
“(1) For the purposes of this Act the ‘super-affirmative resolution procedure’ in relation to the making of regulations subject to the super-affirmative resolution procedure is as follows.
(2) The Minister of the Crown must have regard to—
(a) any representations,
(b) any resolution of either House of Parliament, and
(c) any recommendations of a committee of either House of Parliament charged with reporting on the draft regulations, made during the 60-day period with regard to the draft regulations.
(3) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Minister of the Crown wishes to make regulations in the terms of the draft, the Minister of the Crown must lay before each House of Parliament a statement—
(a) stating whether any representations were made under subsection (2)(a); and
(b) if any representations were so made, giving details of them.
(4) The Minister of the Crown may after the laying of such a statement make regulations in the terms of the draft if the regulations are approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5) However, a committee of either House charged with reporting on the draft regulations may, at any time after the laying of a statement under subsection (3) and before the draft regulations are approved by that House under subsection (4), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft regulations.
(6) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under subsection (5) in relation to draft regulations, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the draft regulations in that House under subsection (4) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.
(7) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Minister of the Crown wishes to make regulations order consisting of a version of the draft regulations with material changes, the Minister of the Crown lay before Parliament—
(a) revised draft regulations; and
(b) a statement giving details of—
(i) any representations made under subsection (2)(a); and
(ii) the revisions proposed.
(8) The Minister of the Crown may after laying revised draft regulations and a statement under subsection (7) make regulations in the terms of the revised draft regulations if the revised draft regulations are approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(9) However, a committee of either House charged with reporting on the revised draft regulations may, at any time after the revised draft regulations are laid under subsection (7) and before the revised draft regulations are approved by that House under subsection (8), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the revised draft regulations.
(10) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under subsection (9) in relation to revised draft regulations, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the revised draft regulations in that House under subsection (8) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.
(11) For the purposes of subsections (4) and (8) regulations are made in the terms of draft regulations if the regulations contain no material changes to the provisions of the draft regulations.
(12) In this section the ‘60-day period’ means the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft regulations were laid before Parliament under section 23 of this Act.”
This new clause sets out the bi-cameral super-affirmative procedure regulations under the Act, except in relation to tax and customs matters.
New clause 11—Consistency with international law—
“(1) A Minister of the Crown must not make regulations under this Act unless both the conditions in subsections (2) and (5) have been satisfied.
(2) The condition in this subsection is that a Minister of the Crown has laid before both Houses of Parliament a consistency report from a qualified person in relation to the provisions of the Northern Ireland Protocol that are, in consequence of the regulations, to become excluded provision (‘the provisions at issue’).
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a ‘consistency report’ is a report as to whether, in the opinion of the qualified person, it is consistent with the international obligations of the United Kingdom for the provisions at issue to become excluded provision, and which—
(a) sets out the reasons for its conclusions;
(b) sets out the steps taken by the qualified person to obtain the views of persons appearing to the qualified person to have appropriate expertise in questions of international law; and
(c) attaches, or contains references to a publicly available version of, all materials considered by the qualified person in the course of preparing the report.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) a ‘qualified person’ is a judge or former judge of—
(a) the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom;
(b) the Court of Appeal of England and Wales;
(c) the Inner House of the Court of Session; or
(d) the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland.
(5) The condition in this subsection is that—
(a) the House of Commons has approved a resolution to take note of the consistency report on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown; and
(b) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the consistency report has been tabled in the House of Lords by a Minister of the Crown and—
(i) the House of Lords has approved a resolution to take note of the report, or
(ii) the House of Lords has not concluded a debate on the motion before the end of the period of five Lords sitting days beginning with the first Lords sitting day after the day on which the House of Commons passes the resolution mentioned in paragraph (a).”
This new clause would prevent any clause of the Bill (or regulations made under it) that create ‘excluded provision’ from coming into force until (a) an authoritative and independent legal expert presents a report to parliament as to whether it is consistent with the international obligations of the United Kingdom, and (b) the House of Commons has passed a motion noting that report, and the House of Lords has debated that report.
New clause 12—Adjudications of matters pertaining to international law—
“No later than two weeks after any finding by any international court, tribunal or arbitration panel that any provision of this Act, or any action taken by a Minister in exercise of powers granted by this Act, is inconsistent with the international obligations of the United Kingdom, a Minister of the Crown must—
(a) report to each House of Parliament setting out the extent to which the relevant court, tribunal or arbitration panel has found that any provision of, or any exercise of power under, this Act is inconsistent with the international legal obligations of the United Kingdom; and
(b) set out what steps Ministers propose take in order to bring the United Kingdom into compliance with those international obligations.”
This new clause would provide that, if an international court, tribunal or arbitration panel found as a matter of fact that any actions taken by the government under the Bill were inconsistent with the UK’s international legal obligations, the Minister must report this finding to the House, and set out what steps the government will take to ensure the UK is in compliance with its international obligations.
New clause 16—Impact assessment—
“Within six months of a Minister of the Crown exercising any power conferred by this Act to make regulations, a Minister of the Crown must publish a full impact assessment of the effect of the regulations on businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland.”
This new clause would require a Minister of the Crown who has exercised any power conferred by this Act to make regulations to publish a full impact assessment of the effect of said regulations on businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland within six months.
New clause 17—Consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly—
“(1) A Minister of the Crown may not exercise the powers to make regulations conferred by this Act before a Legislative Consent Motion approving a draft of the regulations has been passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
(2) A Minister of the Crown must, at the end of the relevant period, seek a Legislative Consent Motion approving the continued application of regulations made under the powers conferred by this Act.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the ‘relevant period’ is—
(a) the period ending four years after the powers are exercised; or
(b) the period ending eight years after the powers are exercised where the original Legislative Consent Motion was approved by—
(i) the support of a majority of Members, a majority of designated Nationalists and a majority of Unionists,
(ii) the support of 60 per cent of Members, 40 per cent of designated Nationalists and 40 per cent of designated Unionists, or
(iii) the support of two thirds of Members.”
This new clause would require a Minister of the Crown to obtain the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly in order to exercise the power to make regulations conferred by this Act. It would also require a Minister of the Crown to obtain the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly for the continued application of the said regulations within the relevant period. The relevant period would be four years unless the vote passes with a majority in any of the ways described in Clause 3(b), in which case the relevant period is eight years.
New clause 19—Expiry—
“(1) The powers conferred by this Act upon a Minister of the Crown will expire if the Northern Ireland Assembly passes a resolution pursuant to Article 18 of the Northern Ireland Protocol (Democratic Consent in Northern Ireland).
(2) A resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly under subsection (1) can only pass with one or more of the following measures of representational support—
(a) the support of a majority of Members, a majority of designated Nationalists and a majority of Unionists,
(b) the support of 60 per cent of Members, 40 per cent of designated Nationalists and 40 per cent of designated Unionists, or
(c) the support of two thirds of Members.”
This new clause provides a sunset clause whereby the powers expire if the Northern Ireland Assembly does not vote to approve the continued application of the Northern Protocol in 2024 in the vote required by Article 18 of the Northern Ireland Protocol.
Michael Ellis
Let me, for the last time, thank hon. Members who have spoken in the previous Committee stage debates. I remind hon. Members that, although the Northern Ireland protocol was agreed with the best of intentions, it is causing real problems for people and businesses in Northern Ireland, and this legislation will fix those practical problems.
Let me turn to the clauses under scrutiny this afternoon. Clause 19 gives powers to Ministers to implement a new agreement with the European Union as soon as one can be reached. A negotiated agreement with the EU remains the preferred outcome of this Government and this clause demonstrates that very commitment.
Clause 21 allows for preparatory spending undertaken to support the aims of the Bill to be made proper in the eyes of this place. This ensures that the Government can get on with delivering the new regime as soon as possible for the businesses and people of Northern Ireland.
Clause 22 sets out the general scope and nature of the powers contained in the Bill. This will ensure that the powers have the appropriate scope to implement the aims of the Bill, including setting out that regulations made under the Bill can make any provision that can be made by an Act of Parliament.
Regulations under this Bill may not create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, which feature at the border either physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls that did not exist before exit day. I know that some Members are concerned about the possibility of border checks on the island of Ireland. This is the clearest possible way to show that this Government will not do that.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
Further to that point, will the Minister also assure us that, consistent with clause 1, regulations brought forward as a result of this Bill will not harm the integrity of the United Kingdom and will respect Northern Ireland’s place within the Union?
Michael Ellis
Yes, indeed.
Subsection (6) provides that a Minister can facilitate other powers under this Bill to be exercisable exclusively, concurrently or jointly with devolved Administrations to implement the aims of the Bill, and that is our intention where this is possible and appropriate.
Clause 23 sets out the process and parliamentary procedure for regulations made under the Bill, except for those in relation to tax, or customs, or commencement, which have been dealt with in other clauses by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Clause 23 will ensure that the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny is in place for the different arrangements that will be necessary for the functioning of the new regime.
I will now move on to clause 25, which sets out the definition of relevant terms in the Bill, including by cross reference to their definition in other pieces of legislation. This is a normal and regular feature of all legislation. Clause 26 makes a number of final provisions in the Bill relating to extent and commencement, which are a normal part of all legislation. That clause is vital to ensure the smooth commencement of the new regime and to give business certainty.
Moving briefly to amendments 50 and 53 in the name of the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood). This would require approval from the Northern Ireland Assembly before the Bill could come into effect, but the Northern Ireland Assembly is not currently sitting and it is precisely because of this breakdown of institutions that we need this Bill, so I ask the hon. Member not to press the amendments.
Amendment 51 is in the name of the hon. Member for Foyle. This would require secondary legislation under the Bill to be presented to the Joint Committee. It is wholly inappropriate, in our view, to give scrutiny of UK domestic legislation to the EU in this way, as it would effectively give it a procedural veto, so I urge the hon. Member not to press that amendment.
Amendment 55 in the name of the hon. Member for Foyle relates to the role of the North-South Ministerial Council. As the hon. Member knows, the North-South Ministerial Council includes Members of the Government of the Republic of Ireland and, as I said yesterday, it would be wholly inappropriate and a wholly inappropriate role for the Irish Government potentially to veto the Acts of a sovereign United Kingdom Parliament. I therefore urge the hon. Member not to press the amendment.
I will consider amendments 19 to 22 and new clause 6 together. They are in the name of the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson). My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury covered similar amendments to clause 24 of the Bill during the first day of debate. I reiterate her comments that the normal affirmative and negative procedures for statutory instruments provide effective scrutiny for the House. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendments.
I will touch on amendments 2 and 47 in a little more detail. They are tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and seek to require a parliamentary vote prior to the commencement of the substantive provisions of the Bill. As I have outlined to the House, the EU is not prepared to change the protocol to resolve the problems we face, and there is no prospect of seeing a power-sharing Government restored in Northern Ireland if we are unable to tackle those problems. We need to bring in solutions as soon as possible to help the businesses and consumers of Northern Ireland. Additional parliamentary procedures would risk delays to the regime’s coming into force and undermine the certainty and clarity that we are looking to provide through this very Bill.
Turning to amendment 47 specifically, it would also set a concerning precedent that, when the legislature has passed legislation, the Executive are not free to bring it into force. That freedom has been a long-standing rule and one that a Government of any party would not wish to depart from. Furthermore, the amendment deviates from the previous one in that, rather than offering this House a single future debate on the issue at hand, it hands an effective veto on most of the Bill to the other place. I understand that some may find that an attractive outsourcing of opposition and a way around the conventions governing relations between the two Houses. However, the Executive , as my hon. Friend is well aware, is grounded in this honourable House and must be able to commence legislation they have agreed with Parliament. I urge him not to press his amendments.
I come now to amendment 33 and new clause 11, in the name of the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). He is right to raise the important question of the relationship between this Bill and the United Kingdom’s obligations in international law. However, the consistency report that he proposes in his amendment, is unnecessary in our view. The Government have already been clear that the proposals of this Bill are consistent with international law, so I ask him not to press his amendment or the new clause.
I respectfully point out to the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) regarding his amendments 3 and 4 that, while we need to see the restoration of the institutions as quickly as possible, it is exactly because of the breakdown of those institutions that this Bill was needed in the first place. That is why we cannot have a resolution of the Assembly before it comes into force. His amendments, by contrast, would allow the Northern Ireland Assembly to constrain the UK Parliament’s power to legislate, even if that legislation relates to a reserved matter. That cannot be right; it would be wholly inappropriate under the devolution arrangements, and for that reason and the others I have mentioned I respectfully urge the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendments.
Moving on to new clause 12, and coming rapidly to a conclusion, this new clause is not necessary, as we have been clear that proceeding with this Bill is consistent with our obligations in international law and in support of our prior obligations to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The Government have published a summary of our legal position alongside the Bill and would robustly defend our position in any relevant legal proceedings, should they occur. I therefore ask the right hon. Member for Tottenham not to press this new clause.
New clause 16, tabled by the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), would require an impact assessment to be published within six months of making regulations. We are currently engaging with businesses on the detail of regulations, but we need flexibility so that any regulations brought forward as the product of that engagement ensure that the new regime is as smooth and operable as possible.
Penultimately, new clause 17, tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle, would allow the Northern Ireland Assembly to constrain the UK Parliament’s power to legislate on reserved matters. As I have said before, that is inappropriate under the devolution settlements.
New clause 19, tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle, would remove the powers provided by the Bill in the event of a Northern Ireland Assembly vote for continued application of the protocol. This would freeze in place a muddied set of arrangements in Northern Ireland and remove the ability of the UK Government to manage them, so the new clause should also be withdrawn.
This Bill provides a comprehensive and durable solution to the existing problems with the Northern Ireland protocol. The Government remain open to a negotiated outcome with the EU on the protocol, but the urgency of the situation means that we cannot delay. We must act to preserve political stability in Northern Ireland and fulfil our duty to uphold the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. I therefore recommend that these clauses stand part of the Bill.
Stephen Doughty
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Rosie, for the second part of this debate. I will speak to new clause 12 in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
In the debate so far, we have focused, rightly, on the Henry VIII powers that the Government seek to gift themselves, but of course the problems with this Bill stretch far beyond the sweeping powers that Ministers are attempting to take. We seem to have forgotten at various points during its passage that this is a Foreign Office Bill because it relates to an international treaty and our international obligations. Indeed, there are many crucial issues at stake in that regard, because, as has been recognised by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, the Bill is incompatible with international law. It is not just those who have spoken up in the House who have said that. The Bingham Centre states unequivocally:
“The Bill is in clear breach of international law”
and that the breach is “without legal justification”. It, along with many others, has argued that the Government’s so-called defence of the Bill, grounded in the doctrine of necessity, is completely baseless. As the shadow Foreign Secretary my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) set out in great detail on Second Reading—many more have done so subsequently —each of the elements of the justification for the doctrine of necessity fall flat. This is a difficult situation that we all want to see resolved, but it is not a situation of grave and imminent peril, no more than the doctrine of necessity is an excuse for countries to abandon other responsibilities or dig themselves out of holes.
Similarly, the Government’s proposed actions are not the only way possible to resolve the issue. Although imperfect, there are clear mechanisms within the protocol for resolving disputes, meaning that the passage of this Bill is not the only way to resolve these challenges. Indeed, the Government themselves continue to maintain that they seek a resolution with the EU through negotiating, which is of course what Labour Members would want to see. Therefore, not only is this Bill a clear obstacle to these apparent efforts, but for as long as a solution is even remotely possible through negotiation, breaching the obligations of the protocol cannot be the only way to protect the UK’s interests. We have discussed at great length the fact that trust is at an all-time low with this Government, and this will do nothing to help to rebuild it. Unilateral action will not find us a way forward. Either the Bill is necessary because the Government are certain that negotiations will not lead to any kind of resolution or they still hope for a breakthrough with the EU, rendering the Bill unnecessary under the doctrine.
Given this confusion and the flawed justifications offered, we have tabled new clause 11—although we do not seek a Division at this stage—which would prevent powers of the Bill from coming into effect until an authoritative and independent expert set out whether it is consistent with international law. The Government keep stating their position, but that is their interpretation. The problem is that we do not trust the Government on this, and neither do many others outside the House, while many have criticised the Bill from an independent perspective, so it is important that we understand all those views. An independent expert could make a determination on the legality of this issue before any clause unilaterally altering the protocol came into effect.
There was a time when having to table an amendment to this effect would have been unthinkable—a time when we would have legitimate political differences here in the Chamber but would never wilfully break with our international obligations as a first recourse. As I said, we do not intend to seek a Division on new clause 11, but I hope the other place will look carefully at the Government’s legal justifications to see whether they stack up. I do not believe they do and neither do many others.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Has the hon. Gentleman or his party ever once lobbied the EU in public or in private to shift its position to accommodate the very reasonable grievances and to deal with its illegalities under the protocol?
Stephen Doughty
I do not agree with the last part of what the right hon. Gentleman said, but actually I sat around the table with EU ambassadors and, indeed, the EU ambassador to the UK to discuss these very issues just weeks ago, so I have sat down in private, and we have said so publicly on a number of occasions. The right hon. Gentleman should be reassured on that point.
It is not just Members on the Opposition Benches who have talked about the incompatibility with international law; Government Members have done so, too. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said:
“My answer to all those who question whether the Bill is legal under international law is that…it is not.”—[Official Report, 27 June 2022; Vol. 717, c. 64.]
The Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said:
“Respect for the rule of law runs deep in our Tory veins, and I find it extraordinary that a Tory Government need to be reminded of that.”—[Official Report, 17 May 2022; Vol. 714, c. 550.]
Beyond this House, the Taoiseach has said:
“Unilateral action to set aside a solemn agreement would be deeply damaging”,
and would
“mark a historic low-point signalling a disregard for essential principles of laws which are the foundation of international relations.”
Is that what global Britain has come to mean to this Government?
The Bill must comply with Britain’s international obligations, or we risk a collapse of our global reputation, discord with allies at a time of crisis in Europe and the risk of a raising of trade barriers during a cost of living crisis where billions are already struggling to make ends meet. That is why we want to see new clause 12 put to a separate vote today, because a piece of legislation that runs even the remotest of risks of breaching the UK’s international obligations should never pass this House, but we must be prepared if it does.
Under new clause 12, if an international court or tribunal found that actions taken by the Government were inconsistent with the UK’s legal obligations, the Government would have to immediately set out to Parliament what steps they would take to rectify the breach. Quite simply, once the Bill is passed, if the Government’s actions are found to be unlawful, it is only right that a Minister is brought to the House to explain how that has come to be and what they will do to put it right. The Government should not be afraid of that measure, because if their arguments hold sway, it would not be needed, although many others out there disagree with the position they have taken. There must be a mechanism to ensure that we can urgently restore our compliance and mitigate further damage to our global reputation, if indeed this Bill is found to be unlawful. We should not need to be pushing for this change, but if the Government insist that this is their chosen course, Members are duty-bound to do everything in our power to ensure that the Government do the right thing.
In the TV debates in the latest Tory leadership contest, the Foreign Secretary has been boasting about this legislation as an example of her effectiveness and her ability, but we see it differently. If she were so effective in her role, she would get back around the negotiating table, rather than countenance the UK breaking the international legal framework it should be championing, with huge impacts for Britain’s wider reputation and effectiveness. [Interruption.] The Minister, who I have a great deal of respect for, is chuntering from a sedentary position, but the collapse in trust in this Government has been made clear to us. With this zombie Government, it is likely that that trust has fallen to an even lower level.
I will speak briefly to some of the other amendments. I will not rehearse the arguments we have already made about the Henry VIII powers and the related amendments that we discussed in the earlier debate, except to add that many reasonable amendments have been tabled, including amendment 2 by the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). Taking back control for this Parliament should mean that parliamentary approval is required for operationalising provisions of this Bill.
Equally, we support the principle behind amendment 3 in the name of the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry), which would make the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly required—we all want to see the Assembly functioning again—and ensure that the views of all communities are heard and considered before unilaterally making changes with wide-ranging implications, as this Bill does. Both those amendments would undo the real power grab by this zombie interim Government, trying to approve large numbers of unaccountable powers in areas of huge sensitivity. It is simply not the way to proceed. I will seek a Division on new clause 12, but we will not press new clause 11 at this stage. I look forward to hearing the contributions of others in this debate.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Rosie. I am grateful to the Minister for the constructive approach he has taken, as always, and I am grateful, too, to the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office, particularly the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), who is not in his place. He has been very helpful in a number of discussions we have had. I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to his place for the first time in the Chamber.
The reason behind my two amendments, 2 and 47, was well rehearsed on Second Reading and on the first day in Committee, so I do not seek to repeat that. As the House, and my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, know well, I have misgivings about the Bill, as do a number of right hon. and hon. Members, and I cannot say that that has changed. My right hon. and learned Friend says that amendment 47 is unprecedented. With respect, it is unprecedented for regulations to breach international law; that is why I tabled the amendment. However, he and I, and everyone in this House, hope that we will never get to that stage; of course, by far the best outcome would be for negotiated changes to the protocol, which we all want, to be brought into force. Those with whom I have engaged, on both sides of the Irish sea, have good will and are men and women of honour; I hope that that will enable us to find a window for that negotiation, if the Bill passes its stages in this House.
Of course, the Bill would then go to the upper House. As the Bill was not in an election manifesto, that revising Chamber will be entitled to look with considerable care at the issues that I and others have ventilated in these debates. The best outcome would be if that never became necessary, for the reasons that we have all rehearsed.
I have set out the caveats, have said where I hope this matter will go, and have said that it will be troubling if the Bill needs to go through the whole parliamentary process and ever needs to come into force; I hope it is made redundant by a negotiated change. In that spirit, I will not press my amendments to a Division.
Stephen Farry
I will speak to my amendment 3, and some others. The Bill is notionally about the good of Northern Ireland, but we cannot escape the reality: it is not supported by the majority of people or businesses in Northern Ireland, which rather prompts the question: why is the Bill going forward, if it is so unwanted there, and is seen as damaging to the wider community and the economic life of the region?
We could discuss consent to Brexit and the protocol, and how we got here, but I will not give into that temptation. I will focus on consent to where we are on the Bill. Brexit, the protocol and any modifications to it are matters for the UK Government and the European Union to work through in negotiations. Northern Ireland is not directly party to those negotiations. The issue of the consent of Northern Ireland, and specifically the Assembly, is recognised in article 18 of the protocol. I believe that was inserted into the protocol at the insistence of the UK Government, rather than the European Commission, so the Government have recognised the importance of the views of the Assembly.
The Government talk about the importance of Unionist concerns, and of getting some degree of cross-community consent, but the bottom line is that the Government are working towards a minority agenda. It is fine to have a debate about whether the aim should be majority consent or cross-community consent, particularly in the context of a divided society, but I am not aware of any democratic society in the world where progress is based on the views of a minority.
Stephen Farry
Well, obviously, that is about to happen in Northern Ireland, if the Bill goes through its stages. We cannot escape the reality that a majority of MLAs have signed a letter making it very clear that they do not support the Bill. I urge all Members of this House, and of the House of Lords, to respect the views of the people of Northern Ireland, who have a direct mandate. Obviously, we have a group of MPs here who represent Northern Ireland, though some of them do not take their seats, which is regrettable. The views of the DUP are not the views of Northern Ireland. Of course, we have to address the views of the DUP, alongside the views of others, in trying to find a way forward, but it is not consistent with democracy to allow that view to dictate what happens to the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I have listened to the hon. Member outline to the Committee that the majority of people in the Northern Ireland Assembly are against the Bill. We hear him say that he recognises there are issues that need to be resolved, yet he was fully supportive of the Northern Ireland protocol and talked about its full implementation. He was supportive of New Decade, New Approach in 2020, yet he was against the provisions within it on the UK internal market. His party was against the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, against triggering article 16 when the conditions were met and outlined in the White Paper, and now against this Bill. When are we going to get to the stage where we actually resolve the issues in Northern Ireland?
Stephen Farry
There is a lot in that intervention. I hope that I can address the hon. Member’s points in order. I have been consistent throughout this process in recognising that there is a need for pragmatism, but the bottom line has to be that outcomes are mutually agreed between the UK and the European Union, and they have to be sustainable and legal solutions. I very much supported New Decade, New Approach; I did not support the UK Internal Market Act, because that diverged from that. Of course I want Northern Ireland to have full access to Great Britain and Great Britain to have access to Northern Ireland, and to reduce the impediments as far as possible.
We have discussed at length on many occasions a range of constructive proposals to address the issues, including the red and green channel proposal, which can only be delivered through negotiations, and wider sanitary and phytosanitary measures—preferably a wider UK-EU veterinary agreement—to address movements across the Irish sea. Those are pragmatic solutions that would address the vast bulk of the issues raised by businesses, as opposed to the ideological matters of sovereignty spoken about by people in here or elsewhere in Great Britain; that is an important distinction to make. I regret to say that at various times, such solutions—particularly the veterinary agreement—have been rejected by Unionism, and I confess that I find that bizarre.
There are some genuine concerns about the implications of the Bill. There are major implications for Northern Ireland’s economy, particularly for the ability of businesses to access the single market. There are also implications for the UK as a whole. The UK’s international image will take an even further hit from breaking international law and undermining the rules-based international order, at a time when that is so important whenever we are facing down Russian aggression against Ukraine, and other countries around the world are potentially breaching international law—I am looking at China in particular, among a number of other situations.
The UK is also risking economic retaliation from the European Union, which I do not want to happen, but is a genuine risk if this legislation passes. At a time of major economic pressure in the UK as a whole, it is bizarre that anyone would seek to make the situation worse through a trade confrontation with the European Union.
It is absurd for people to vote for and proceed with the passage of the Bill—to take all that pain and those consequences—in the name of doing Northern Ireland a favour, when the majority of people and businesses in Northern Ireland do not believe it is a favour; indeed, they believe it is incredibly harmful. The Government have acknowledged that the Sewel convention should apply to this legislation, but also recognise that, unfortunately, in the absence of an Assembly, that becomes moot.
We are in a chicken and egg situation. The Government are saying, “We can’t talk about consent of the Assembly in the absence of the DUP,” but want the Bill to get the DUP back into power sharing. Of course, if amendment 3 were accepted, there would be a huge incentive for the DUP to go back into power sharing in order that eventual consent or otherwise could be considered by the Assembly, if warranted. There is a certain inbuilt incentive to put that challenge to return to the DUP.
My amendment would essentially link commencement of the Bill to the democratic vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly. We can discuss whether that should be a majoritarian vote or a cross-community vote in the Assembly, but either would be far better than a situation where we have a minority dictating an outcome. There is, in theory, an article 18 vote scheduled for 2024, and that covers the continued application of articles 5 to 10 of the protocol. That vote will become null and void if the Bill is passed and implemented, and in particular whenever large aspects of article 5 have become excluded provisions. Indeed, the Bill goes even further; it even allows Ministers to do away with article 18 votes on a legal basis, so that the views of the Assembly in 2024 could be absolutely taken away.
The amendment would ensure that the democratic voices of the people of Northern Ireland, as expressed through the Northern Ireland Assembly, were taken into account. If the Bill is genuinely about the good of Northern Ireland, respect will be given to the views of the Assembly.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 21 to 23 and 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Extent, commencement and short title
Amendment proposed: 3, in clause 26, page 15, line 44, at beginning insert “Provided that the Northern Ireland Assembly has first passed a resolution indicating support for this Act,”
This amendment, together with Amendment 4, will make all operational aspects of the Bill dependent upon the approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly.—(Stephen Farry.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I must inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected the reasoned amendment in the name of Ian Blackford.
Michael Ellis
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
While the debates in Committee have been heated—literally, given the ambient temperature—the exchanges have been productive. Members heard detailed scrutiny of the Bill and the Government’s planned solutions to the problems that the protocol is causing in Northern Ireland. Some Members do not agree with the Government’s diagnosis, but it has been reassuring to note how many Opposition Members do agree and accept the problems, even if they do not currently accept that the Government have no choice but to proceed unilaterally. I can understand that, but unfortunately, while our door is always open, there does not appear to be a fruitful negotiation to be had with the European Union at present.
We have not had a Report stage debate, as the Committee did not see fit to amend the Bill. I, and the Government as a whole, see that as a strong vote of support for our proposals, and we hope that those who are eagerly waiting for them to come to pass in Northern Ireland will take heart in the knowledge that they may not have to wait too long, and that the House of Commons has heard them. I hope that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) and his party will hear that too, and will continue their moves towards returning to power sharing.
The Bill is a powerful toolkit. I know that there are noble Lords in the other place who might think it too powerful, but the Government have been clear on our policy and the range of detailed regulations that will be required, and these are the tools for the job. The Bill provides certainty that the elements of the protocol that have developed into problems will no longer apply in our domestic law and, alongside that, ensures that the Government can honour their promises to the people of all the communities in Northern Ireland. We will protect that which is working to maintain the economic and social framework for north-south traders and nationalists, and we will fix that which is undermining the lives and livelihoods of east-west traders and Unionists.
This Bill is the Government’s top legislative priority. Given the grave situation in Northern Ireland, it must be so. Negotiations will always remain a possibility, and the Bill ensures that implementation of any agreement will not cause further delays. Negotiations tomorrow are always a day away, but it is today in Northern Ireland and the issues are clearly with us now. In the absence of other comprehensive and durable solutions, the Government and Parliament must act. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Minister, Stephen Doughty.
Stephen Doughty
As if we needed any more evidence that this zombie Government are even now doing everything they can to avoid proper scrutiny, here we are as they push this Bill through its Third Reading with less than 24 hours’ notice—[Interruption.] We had 24 hours’ notice of Third Reading, despite what the Secretary of State is chuntering. If only Conservative Members had had the courage to remove the Prime Minister sooner, Northern Ireland and Britain’s international standing could have been spared the fallout that will be inevitable from this legislation. Just now we have heard that there are two candidates vying to take his position who are just as tied up in this mess and in whom trust has fallen to at an all-time low.
This week, Labour Members—indeed, hon. Members on both sides of the House—have tabled amendments to improve the Bill by ensuring that it would comply with our international legal obligations, to prevent a brazen ministerial power grab not just from this House but from the people on Northern Ireland, and to ensure that the changes to the protocol would have the consent of all the communities of Northern Ireland. Conservative Members have voted each one of them down, but not without knowing the facts. They know what this Bill is and what it means—but don’t take my word for it. Take it from the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who called the Bill “unamendably bad”, or from the former Attorney General—
Stephen Doughty
I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has not been here throughout the course of the debates on the Bill today.
The former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox), admitted:
“I do not believe that this legislation will produce a permanent solution”.—[Official Report, 13 July 2022; Vol. 718, c. 399.]
Even the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), said that the Bill failed on all three counts of upholding international law, achieving its aims and maintaining our global standing. From these assessments and countless others, it is clear that the Bill does not address the challenges of the protocol.
Only to this outgoing Prime Minister, his zombie team of Ministers and those who have not yet had the courage to disown him completely is the Bill worth defending. Regrettably, it could be said to represent the state of certain parts of the Conservative party today. We can say that because it proposes a complete abdication of responsibility from resolving challenges that the Government themselves have created. We must remember that it was this Prime Minister who negotiated the protocol and ran an election campaign on it, and now it is the Foreign Secretary who, in vying for his job, seeks to advance her own political fortunes by unravelling it. We are truly through the looking glass. Time and again we have seen senior members of the Government attempt to make political gains from what is a very serious and fragile situation. To them, damaging our reputation on the world stage is a second thought and risking trade barriers during a cost of living crisis is a price worth paying—never mind the issues that this Bill could cause for the people of Northern Ireland.
When it comes to the protocol, Labour would not act like this. As the party that negotiated the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, we would do what we have always done: get around the table and negotiate in good faith. We would find workable, practical and sustainable solutions such as a veterinary agreement and a data sharing deal that would eliminate the need for the vast majority of checks. We would negotiate with the EU to seek more flexibility on VAT and use that to take VAT off energy bills to help with the cost of living crisis. We would not breach our international obligations or derail our relationship with European partners while gifting Ministers powers without proper scrutiny, as this outgoing Government seem ready to do.
Before Members are tempted to go there, this is not about trying to relitigate Brexit. We want to see it work, which means leadership and negotiation to defend the UK’s interest, to safeguard peace and stability in Northern Ireland and, crucially, to ensure that our word continues to mean something internationally. Trustworthiness and a commitment to the international rule of law are British values, yet those values are impossible to reconcile with this Bill and the Government’s agenda in forcing it through.
We know the protocol is not perfect, but we have all known that from the very beginning. The Government, however indignant they may be today, knew we would reach this moment. We have listened to the legitimate concerns expressed by colleagues on both sides of the House and from all communities about the functioning of the protocol and its ability to deliver for Northern Ireland and its people. Those legitimate concerns need to be addressed, and the EU needs to show flexibility and understanding in addressing them. We are under no illusion in that regard, but let us be crystal clear that this Bill does nothing whatsoever to remedy that. Labour will be voting against this Bill tonight to uphold the rule of international law and to protect our global reputation.
Sir William Cash
It is a great pity that the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) says I have not participated. I did not participate this afternoon, as the House can well understand, but what difference does it make? I spoke in Committee on previous days, and I spoke on Second Reading. We only have this Bill because of the work done by a number of people to ensure it got its Second Reading. I will leave it at that for the moment.
The hon. Gentleman, in his arguments on international law, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and the other people whose assertions he quoted, are talking through their hats. The reason I say that is terribly simple: for those who have any knowledge of these matters—[Interruption.] Yes, I mean that. For those who understand these matters, this Bill is the only way to address the democratic deficit created by the protocol.
I am the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, and we receive a tsunami of legislation every single week that comes into Northern Ireland as a matter of EU law and binds voters and businesses, whom the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth claims to be trying to protect, without their having any involvement or influence. They have no protection from Westminster, and this Bill is so important because it gives back to the people of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, through a sovereign Act of the United Kingdom, the right to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland are listened to and protected.
This democratic deficit—[Interruption.] I see that some Opposition Members obviously know nothing about this Bill and its content, or any of the principles of international law that quite clearly—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth is shouting at me across the Chamber, but it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. He does not know what he is talking about, and some people who have studied this do.
The words on state necessity are “grave and imminent peril”. Nothing could be more perilous to the people of Northern Ireland than to be legislated for in absentia by an unelected Commission making proposals that are agreed in the Council of Ministers, behind closed doors, without so much as a transcript and by a majority of other countries.
Northern Ireland belongs to the United Kingdom, and it belongs to the democratic decision making of its people, just as constituencies such as mine do. I do not have to enlarge upon this but to say that the Bill is essential to protecting Northern Ireland and its constitutional integrity, irrespective of the rantings of those who claim it is a breach of international law when, actually, state necessity does provide an answer and a remedy to the democratic deficit that the hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand and clearly does not care about.
Richard Thomson
I rise to confirm on Third Reading that the SNP will also oppose this Bill, and to take the opportunity to thank Maria-Clorinda Luck from our research team and all the House staff for the support they have given us throughout this process. It has been very much appreciated.
Despite our opposition to this Bill throughout, and despite the fact that the protocol was of the Government’s own doing, we have always accepted that seeking a renegotiation of its terms was a legitimate aim. So we have tried to stay focused throughout on the content and intent of the Bill, and through doing that I have learned a number of things. Perhaps first and foremost, I have learned that the words “urgent” and “necessity”, at least in the eyes of the Paymaster General, do not mean quite what I previously thought. That was an education.
More importantly, the people of Scotland will have learned something about their own place and standing in the Union. The Paymaster General has more than once in Committee dismissed amendments that would have given the Northern Irish Assembly oversight and democratic control over whether aspects of the Bill would ever be switched on; they have been dismissed on the grounds that there is, clearly, no Assembly sitting. He has, however, also been happy to go past the fact breezily that a Parliament within these islands that is sitting, in Edinburgh, at Holyrood, has declined to give its legislative consent—but still the legislation continues without that consent.
I have tried throughout to empathise with and understand how Unionists in Northern Ireland would feel, and I have said on more than one occasion in this House that I cannot for the life of me understand how any Unionist Government who seek to have that label attached to them could ever have left Northern Ireland in a situation where there was, in effect, a trade border down the Irish sea; it is inconceivable that any competent Government could have done that. However, if this Bill brings some satisfaction to some in Northern Ireland, it throws a few issues for voters in Scotland into very sharp relief. We have found out that the precious Brexit has at all stages throughout this pantomime been much more important than the previous Union. We have found out that we do not exist in anything remotely approaching a partnership of equals. We have also found that we are no longer part of a state that can claim with any shred of credibility to stand up for international law and the rule of law and that can be respected for the stance it takes as part of that rules-based international order.
Sadly, this is not going to be the end of the process, because if the measures in the Bill are used, owing to the Government’s inability to negotiate and push at, what is, an open door, we are going to find ourselves, at the height of a cost of living crisis, experiencing even more frictions than we are currently for our manufacturers and our consumers. We will also find this legislation being prayed in aid by despots around the world as they seek to escape their own obligations under international law. What is clearest of all is that the Union in which Scots were invited to vote to remain in 2014—to “lead not leave”, as the slogan had it—has been changed utterly and is now unrecognisable. That, above all, is why we can, we must and we will have a referendum on Scotland’s future.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I will be brief. I thank the Minister and his team for the work they have done on this Bill, and I thank other right hon. and hon. Members for the contributions they have made to the Committee stage. The Democratic Unionist party supports this Bill. We believe that the Government are right to act at this time; that a very real issue needs to be addressed; and that Northern Ireland at the moment is without a fully functioning Government, because the consensus essential for power sharing to operate has broken down, and the reason for that is the protocol—that is acknowledged.
Even those parties that supported the protocol initially recognise that change is required. We have waited and we have been patient. The European Union has refused to change the negotiating mandate of Maroš Šefčovič, which means he is limited in his scope as to what can be negotiated. The solution that is required necessitates the EU changing its negotiating mandate. If it does, let us see where a negotiation—a meaningful negotiation—leads, but I am sceptical that the EU will change its mandate. In the absence of such a change, the Government are right to act, because their first priority is the integrity of the United Kingdom and ensuring that all parts of the United Kingdom can function properly, that the Acts of Union are respected and that article 6 and the rights that flow from it mean that Northern Ireland has the right to trade freely with the rest of the United Kingdom.
This Bill offers a framework to correct the difficulty that we face and to deal with the real problems that the protocol has created not just for business and consumers in Northern Ireland but by undermining the identity of the majority of people in Northern Ireland who want to remain part of the United Kingdom. We have heard a lot in this debate about majorities, but there is no evidence whatever that anything other than the greater number of people in Northern Ireland want to remain part of the United Kingdom. That is their settled will, and it should be respected. The protocol does not respect it, and that is why change is required. This Bill offers the opportunity to deliver that change, and we support it.
In closing, I say this to the Members of the House of Lords, who will consider the Bill in due course. They may be tempted to make radical changes to it, but they need to understand that the choice is not merely one of determining whether the Bill is a good thing or not. The Bill is essential to protect the Belfast or Good Friday agreement, to protect political stability in Northern Ireland, to restore the political institutions in Northern Ireland and to restore the consensus that is at the heart of power sharing. That is the choice, and if they should try to wreck the Bill, they need to understand that, in so doing, they will also destroy the consensus—the basis, the foundations—for the Belfast agreement. That will fall to them. Without that consensus the agreement does not work; that is what we are talking about here—that is the choice for those in the other place. Do they want to protect the Belfast or Good Friday agreement and restore stability in Northern Ireland and the consensus that is required for the agreement to operate, or do they not? I put that choice to them, and I hope they will be wise in the decisions they have to make.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
I promise to be brief, because we have heard a lot over the last number of days and we have heard a lot repeated as well. The Bill clearly and blatantly breaks international law. It breaks an agreement that the Government made with the European Union and that was trumpeted to the electorate as a fantastic deal. I think the Bill will end up going the same way as the Prime Minister.
Colum Eastwood
I will not. Sit down!
This Bill is a sop to the DUP and a campaigning tool for the Foreign Secretary in the Conservative party leadership election. If it is driven through, the only likely outcome is a trade dispute with the European Union. Well, good luck to the next Prime Minister if they want to go into the general election with prices going even higher than they already are.
I have heard a lot from some interesting people about the Good Friday agreement. I have always supported the Good Friday agreement, and I am delighted that so many people support it now. However, there is a nonsense at the heart of the argument that the Good Friday agreement is based on consensus. It is not; that is not possible. I sat in the Northern Ireland Assembly for almost nine years, and there was very little consensus in that place. Things got gone and things got voted on, but majorities made decisions.
The reality for all those people who say they care about the people of Northern Ireland is that the people of Northern Ireland do not want this Bill. Their elected representatives do not want this Bill. The representatives of the business groups we have been told so much about do not want this Bill. Anybody with any sense knows that this is a blatant breaking of international law.
We have also heard an awful lot about the Union. I think that some people in this place, who have talked a lot about the Union but have acted in a certain way around this Brexit farce since 2016, will come to regret it. There will be statues erected in the new Ireland to Boris Johnson and some of the Members of the DUP, because that is the road that they have taken us down. I fully respect—by the way—the principle of consent, and it was my predecessor who made sure that it was in the Good Friday agreement. The constitutional position of Northern Ireland, whatever anybody says and however much I want to change it, cannot be changed until the people of Northern Ireland and the people of the Republic of Ireland vote to change it. To say anything else is just not true.
I wish to end my remarks with an ask of the DUP. We have been told over the past number of months that the Northern Ireland Assembly cannot meet unless this piece of legislation goes through. Well, this piece of legislation is just about to go through the House of Commons. Will the DUP now take the opportunity to go back into Stormont to live up to their responsibilities as democratically elected leaders in Northern Ireland and do the job that people are crying out for them to do? If they do not do so, the SDLP will put a recall motion into the Northern Ireland Assembly tonight, asking them to come back in to nominate a Speaker and to nominate a Deputy First Minister, who I hope will be the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson).
Despite all the talk about the Good Friday agreement, we have to get back to working together, to working the common ground, to dealing with the issues in our health service, in our economy and in all those issues that people say they care about. We will not be able to do that if we stay out of Government for months upon months upon months, because that is how long it will take for this Bill to get Royal Assent. That is my appeal to the DUP.
I make this appeal to the Government: there is no option to unilaterally rip up an agreement. The only way that we can do these sensitive, difficult things is to sit down with our partners and negotiate. I met Lord Frost many, many times when he was in that position. I did not get the sense that he was a man determined to find accommodation and compromise. Whatever things may look like in September, I appeal to the Government to sit down with the European Union and stop using Northern Ireland as a political football.
Hilary Benn
There is a problem with the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol and it needs to be sorted out, but this Bill is not the way to do it. Indeed, it will end up making matters worse, because it has damaged trust—the very thing that is required to solve the problem. That is why I will not be voting for the Bill tonight.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
You will be glad to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will also keep my remarks very brief.
Tonight, we have reached a milestone and we can say that we are off to a good start in this place. I am pleased that the amendments designed to wreck this Bill have been defeated, safe in knowledge that they were more about grandstanding than actually helping the businesses and constituents who, day in, day out, are affected by the protocol.
The Bill, as it is, certainly does have the potential to restore devolution in Northern Ireland and preserve the constitutional balance. Although the SDLP Members have consistently called for the re-establishment of the Executive, they fail to recognise why that Executive are not sitting—it is the fact that not one Unionist party in Northern Ireland supports the protocol. We are actually elected on that mandate. The SDLP forget and ignore our mandate, which is to ensure that our constitutional place within the United Kingdom is restored and the economic impediments to trade are scrapped.
Throughout the course of the debate, it was and is very clear that there is no alternative to the Bill. This Bill is the only solution, after everything else has been tried, to help restore devolution.
Let us now address the EU and the pipe dream of further negotiations. It is fact that negotiations have been tried and have failed. It is abundantly clear, as per the reports today in The Daily Telegraph, that the EU is not in a position to renegotiate a satisfactory outcome. We only have to look at the fact that it is continuing to pursue legal action against the UK for grace periods that virtually everyone in Northern Ireland supports as essential.
As the EU continues to demonstrate a complete indifference to the real challenges in Northern Ireland, it is naive to believe that there is a negotiated solution that comes close to delivering the objectives of this Bill. A new Prime Minister is not going to change the EU’s fundamentally belligerent approach, which in truth is less about protecting the single market and more about punishing the UK and warning other countries not to consider leaving.
Today is an important staging post, but we know there is a long road ahead. I have no doubt that the other place will try to thwart the will of this House—those actually elected to legislate on these matters—but I warn those in the other place that, if they wish to see devolution restored, they will leave well alone.
The Social Democratic and Labour party and the Alliance party parrot the narrative of others who will not even come and sit in this House. They were slow to realise the damage the protocol was doing in Northern Ireland. They eventually caught up and sought mitigations, but they still bury their heads in the sand regarding the consent of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland to the protocol. It is all smoke and mirrors to deflect from the folly of their own position.
The UK as a whole voted on the same ballot that the whole UK should leave, and leave on the same terms. It does not matter who the leader of the Conservative party is; it only matters that they repair the damage that has been done in the form of the protocol and are not bullied by the EU.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
The hon. Lady makes an important point about the leadership of the Conservative party. As one of many on the Conservative side of the House who pushed for this Bill, I think it is important that the House understand that the two candidates who go forward for the leadership have also given strong undertakings on the importance of Northern Ireland within the UK and the importance of the protocol. I hope she can take that as reassurance.
Carla Lockhart
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member. We welcome those comments, but we hope and trust that the incoming Prime Minister will not be bullied by the EU, but will bring Northern Ireland with them, restore its place in the UK’s internal market and allow it to trade on the same terms as the rest of the United Kingdom.
Sir William Cash
A number of assertions have been made during the course of this debate about the breaking of the international rule of law and the rest of it. Has the hon. Lady heard of the House of Commons Library paper that clearly indicates that de Valera himself broke the Anglo-Irish treaty in 1938? Not only that, but A. J. P. Taylor, in his extremely erudite book, also says that the treaty was ripped up by de Valera in 1938.
Carla Lockhart
I thank the hon. Member for that wonderful point. I genuinely thank every hon. Member who has put their trust in this Bill and supported it; the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) has been a real friend to Northern Ireland. We will be supporting the Bill tonight.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill
Thursday 21st July 2022
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022-23 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 20 July 2022 - (20 Jul 2022)
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill
Tuesday 11th October 2022
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022-23 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 20 July 2022 - (20 Jul 2022)
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Relevant documents: 7th and 12th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I first thank all noble Lords with whom—together with my noble friend Lord Caine and my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart—I have been engaging on this Bill. While there may be different perspectives and views, I am as ever grateful for the courtesy extended to myself and my colleagues and for the engagement that we have had through our conversations.
This Government remain very much committed to upholding the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which has, as we all acknowledge, for almost 25 years brought peace and political stability in Northern Ireland. Irrespective of the speeches that will follow, I believe that all noble Lords without exception share strongly in this key principle. The Northern Ireland protocol was also agreed with the objective of protecting the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions and, indeed, in avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland. That was key. Furthermore, it was also agreed by both sides that it would not undermine the wish of the United Kingdom and the interests of all parties in Northern Ireland.
In practice, however, the Northern Ireland protocol is undermining the delicate balance of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and, as we all know, the functioning of the power-sharing institutions in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the Executive are not functioning at all. The protocol has diverted east-west trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain and it is creating fractures within the UK internal market. Again, I am sure all noble Lords would agree that this cannot be right and cannot continue. It is also impacting negatively on the everyday lives of people in Northern Ireland. It has weakened their economic rights and contributed to the sense of a democratic deficit in Northern Ireland—a point to which I will return shortly.
This Bill gives the Government powers to address these urgent political challenges by seeking to fix the practical problems created by the protocol. It allows the Government to restore the balance of the original objectives of the protocol, thereby avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland and—as I know to be important to all—protecting the integrity of the United Kingdom internal market while also protecting the EU single market.
The Government remain clear—a point that, again, I have shared with colleagues through engagement—that our preference would be to reach a negotiated solution to the protocol with our partners in the European Union. We have always said that we remained open to constructive dialogue and discussions with the European Union on the Northern Ireland protocol. I assure all noble Lords that this remains the case today.
Within the past fortnight, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and EU vice-president Maroš Šefčovič have spoken to reiterate their shared commitment to exploring potential solutions on this very issue. I am pleased to take this opportunity to report to the House in response to a question that I received from noble Lords in advance of Second Reading, including from my noble friend Lady Altmann: I can confirm that officials from the UK and the European Union are now conducting further technical discussions on the protocol.
As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary agreed with Vice-President Šefčovič when they spoke recently, both sides—the UK and the EU—want to look for solutions to protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That is another sentiment that I know has been echoed in contacts with the Irish Government, including between my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and the Irish Foreign Minister, Simon Coveney, most recently last week and over the weekend.
However, the situation on the ground in Northern Ireland remains urgent, and the Government cannot allow that to continue. We must ensure that the Government retain the ability to act in all scenarios that prevail. It is a fact, as we all know, that Northern Ireland has been without a fully functioning power-sharing Executive since February this year. The political settlement in Northern Ireland is based on respect between all communities and the consent of those communities. I know we all recognise the huge insight of a number of noble Lords and colleagues who were there when that agreement was set up and initiated. However, the protocol in its current form is undermining that delicate balance, as I said earlier, and is contributing to ongoing political instability.
The Government remain committed to the restoration of the power-sharing devolved institutions, including the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Executive and the North/South Ministerial Council. We remain equally committed to preserving Northern Ireland’s place within the UK and removing barriers to east-west trade. This is particularly critical during the challenging economic period that has been fuelled by President Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. I assure all noble Lords that the Government will continue to engage, as the Bill proceeds through your Lordships’ House, with the remaining parliamentary stages of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, while, I also assure noble Lords, continuing to conduct technical talks and explore shared solutions with our EU friends and counterparts.
I turn to some of the substantive provisions within the Bill. The Bill allows the Government to fix specific problems with the protocol by granting powers to make changes in four main areas: first, to provide and improve the customs and sanitary and phytosanitary regime; secondly, to create a new dual regulatory model; thirdly, to ensure that Northern Ireland can benefit from UK policies on subsidy control and VAT; and, fourthly, to legislate for new governance arrangements that address the democratic deficit created by the protocol in its current form.
On customs and SPS, the Bill allows the Government to introduce a green-lane and red-lane system to remove barriers to internal UK trade. There will be no unnecessary paperwork, checks or bureaucracy on goods staying in Northern Ireland as they will move via the green lane. Businesses will be able to use this green lane as part of a trusted-trader scheme. Goods destined for Ireland or the rest of the EU will go through full EU checks, controls and customs procedures via the red lane.
The UK is committed—a point that again several noble Lords raised with me during discussions—to a comprehensive approach to data sharing with the EU under our new model, a key ask that the EU has made of the UK. We would continue to share comprehensive data on the operation of the trusted trader scheme and on goods movements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This would of course enable the UK and the EU to jointly monitor the risk of abuse and allow for risk-led intelligence sharing and co-operation. Data-sharing arrangements would be delivered through a purpose-built IT system, with information available to the EU in real time. This would include standard commercial data for green-lane movements and more than 110 fields of data collected through customs declarations for red-lane movements. Any trader found abusing the green lane would incur penalties and face ejection from the trusted trader scheme. We fully understand and respect the legitimate concerns of our EU counterparts and friends that the single market should be protected. These provisions in the Bill will achieve that.
The Bill will also establish a dual regulatory regime so that businesses can choose between meeting UK or EU standards, or both, should they wish to do so. This will remove the barriers to goods made to UK standards being sold in Northern Ireland and cut the processes that drive up costs for business, particularly at this time. It will help address divergence between the two parts of the UK internal market. Anyone who trades into the EU single market will still have to do so according to EU standards. This will also protect the EU single market and we are committed to ensuring that firms in Northern Ireland that benefit from access to the EU single market retain that access.
The Bill will also ensure that the Government can set UK-wide policies on subsidy control, VAT and excise, so that people in Northern Ireland can benefit from the same policies as the rest of the United Kingdom. For example, at present, people in Northern Ireland are not able to benefit from VAT reliefs on energy-saving materials for homes. These reliefs help fight the cost of living and climate crises and pose no risk to the EU single market but cannot be implemented in Northern Ireland because of the protocol. At a time when a warm home and clean and secure energy are more important than ever, is it right that a typical family in Northern Ireland needs to find nearly £300 more to install solar panels? Surely that cannot be right.
Tax and spend are essential sovereign functions, especially in Northern Ireland where the UK Government play a significant role in the local economy. We will also maintain the VAT arrangements in the protocol, which support trade on the island of Ireland while ensuring Northern Ireland can still benefit from the freedoms and flexibilities available in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I turn now to the governance provisions in the Bill. Rules applying under the protocol are currently made without any say for Northern Ireland representatives and with no means to adapt them for the Northern Ireland context. In some cases, this has uniquely disadvantaged Northern Ireland, yet the rules have not been subject to any dialogue beforehand. This has been cited as symptomatic of the significant democratic deficit that I referred to. The proposals in the Bill will give businesses and consumers new flexibilities and freedoms to ensure that they are not bound to follow rules over which they have no say. Furthermore, prominent members of the unionist community in Northern Ireland have also expressed serious reservations about the role of the European court in overseeing the operation of the protocol. Unlike ordinary international treaties, disputes under the protocol can be taken to, and settled by, the Court of Justice, the court of one of the parties. The Bill will remove the domestic effect of the role of the European court where it is not appropriate. Disputes between the European Union and the United Kingdom would be settled by independent arbitration, in line with normal international dispute resolution provisions, including those in the trade and co-operation agreement.
However, the Bill would also enable the Government to implement a mechanism that allowed courts to seek an opinion from the European court on legitimate questions of interpretation of EU law, ensuring that it can still be applied where necessary, such as for the purposes of north-south trade. To be absolutely clear, the Bill seeks to change only those parts of the protocol that are causing problems and undermining the three strands of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement; it keeps the rest. We have, for example, explicitly protected the articles of the protocol that cover north-south co-operation, the common travel area and the rights of individuals, and we will maintain the functioning of the single electricity market, which benefits both Ireland and Northern Ireland.
The Northern Ireland protocol in its current from has created real problems and challenges for ordinary citizens and businesses in Northern Ireland and contributed to political instability in the region.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
If the Government wish to take action to remedy the situation the Minister has identified, why do they not take that action by invoking Article 16 of the protocol, which provides a perfectly legal route for such action to be taken?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I know that my noble friend has raised this point. As I have indicated, there are parts of the protocol that we believe are working. I have already alluded to the common travel area, for example. While Article 16 remains a provision that the Government obviously know is at their disposal, and can enact it if so required, we believe that the Bill seeks to present a solution to the exact issues that we are identifying and need to be addressed, but not by removing the protocol altogether. I have cited two or three reasons that are currently operational and work within the existing protocol.
To continue, we also believe that the current protocol creates new, cumbersome processes and bureaucracy for traders. It undermines Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom internal market and, as I said, has contributed to the diversion of east-west trade. Most urgently, it has provided an obstacle to the restoration of the devolved Government in Northern Ireland, undermining the important power-sharing institutions established by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The Government are continuing, again, as I said earlier, to engage in constructive dialogue with our EU partners to find shared solutions to these problems. I have referred to the discussions under way on current technical decisions between the UK and EU officials, which are a positive forward step.
Let me say again, as I said at the start of my remarks, that our strong preference remains to have a negotiated solution. However, we cannot stand by and allow the current situation to continue. We must ensure that the United Kingdom Government have the powers they need to address these urgent problems and enact lasting solutions to the problems inherent in the protocol, given any scenario. The Bill ensures that we have covered all the bases to implement what we believe are durable solutions while, to reiterate the point on the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Howard, preserving those parts of the protocol which are currently working.
I am confident that once the Bill has received Royal Assent, we will be well on our way to restoring the balance between the communities in Northern Ireland, which is integral to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. I assure your Lordships that we continue to engage directly on the ground with businesses and communities in Northern Ireland; importantly, we continue discussions with our EU partners. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that we have all the tools available to the Government to deal with the scenarios that we currently face, but we remain committed to finding a lasting solution.
Lord Cormack
At end insert “but that this House regrets the early introduction of this Bill, and calls on His Majesty’s Government to delay further consideration of the Bill for six months, so as to allow time to reach a negotiated settlement with the European Union”.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I have never moved an amendment expressing regret before and I thought long and carefully before putting this one down on the Order Paper. I hope I speak for the whole House in saying how good it is to see my noble friend Lord Ahmad still on the Front Bench. He has come a long way since he was my Whip and we had a very amicable conversation yesterday, for which I am extremely grateful. I am glad that during his speech he referred on a number of occasions to the Government’s preference for a negotiated settlement. I believe that is important and, in saying so, that it will be far more helpful for the continuance of the Belfast agreement if we come to a united position with our European friends and former partners.
I believe that many things are at stake here, primarily this Government’s reputation as an upholder of international law. When we consider the serious and precarious position of the world today, underlined by those dreadful photographs in this morning’s paper, we have to realise that it is very important that we work with our international friends and neighbours and that, in our relations with them, we carry forward that spirit of unity in our nation that was so manifest only a couple of weeks ago. It is not helpful, while we continue those negotiations, to have on the statute book a Bill that is, in effect, an implied threat. I believe that there is a case for a pause.
I am not advocating, and have not advocated, that this House should go against its long custom and deny the Bill a Second Reading: we have our limitations, and we must not exceed them. But we also have a specific responsibility to uphold the constitution of our country and to maintain the rule of law nationally and internationally. We also have to remember—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My noble friend says his amendment would allow a Second Reading but in effect it wrecks the passage of the Bill by delaying it for six months. The Bill was approved by the House of Commons without amendment; does my noble friend think that this is the proper thing for this House to do?
Lord Cormack (Con)
Yes, it is entirely proper and consistent with this House’s role to pause, which is all that we are doing, and my noble friend knows that. We had a long conversation the other day, and my noble friend tried to persuade me that he was right, but I am afraid that, much as I genuinely admire and respect him as a great parliamentarian, I do not agree with him on this occasion, and he knows that.
It is crucial to remember that we have a constitutional role. We are not transgressing that role by calling for a pause, as my regret amendment and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, do. We have discussed these things and decided on the best outcome today. Because the Official Opposition are not prepared to have a vote today on either their own amendment or mine, there will not be one, so far as I am concerned. But that does not mean that the arguments have disappeared or that, in the two weeks between now and Committee, we will not continually be thinking about how best to achieve a pause in the passage of the Bill while we have proper negotiations.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
My noble friend rightly paid tribute to the Minister and the fact that the negotiations are going forward. I think he shares the view that, if we can reach an agreement outside the protocol, that is the best way to go. But I am very surprised about the timing of his regret amendment, because it seems to me at this stage that every effort has been made to reach an agreement. Stopping the Bill at Second Reading might introduce all sorts of new elements into the negotiations. I suggest ensuring that the negotiations can continue. If my noble friend then feels that the outcome of the negotiation is constitutionally unacceptable, surely that is the moment at which he should raise this matter, rather than Second Reading. There are many weeks ahead of us for Committee, Report and Third Reading, which would be open for him to move his amendment. I understand my noble friend’s constitutional point, but I completely fail to understand his timing.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My noble friend is entirely entitled to his opinion, but I remind him that, until very recently—by which I mean the last two weeks—no substantive negotiations took place between March and now. My noble friend, in his great distinction, is fully entitled to have whatever view he wants, but I do not believe that to hold a sword of Damocles, as it were, in the form of this Bill over negotiations is a good idea. We would be far better negotiating with our friends and neighbours by treating them as friends and neighbours whom we totally trust. Should things go badly wrong, we will have to return to the Bill.
I remind noble Lords in all parts of the House that, in Northern Ireland, there is certainly a majority opinion—I am not talking about the DUP—reflected in the composition of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which has been elected but sadly does not meet, that the protocol should be amended but should not be ditched, and that this Bill should not pass. I have many correspondents from Northern Ireland who tell me that this is very much the general view, and certainly the general view in the business community of Northern Ireland. They want a degree of certainty and to have these matters resolved as soon as possible, but they want them resolved in a way that preserves the essence of the protocol. That is the opinion of that part of the United Kingdom. I find it very sad that the world is in such a precarious state—I refer again to those terrible photographs in today’s newspapers about what happened in Ukraine yesterday. During this time, we need to try to have the sort of unity that our Prime Minister is, I believe, arguing for today in the G7—and that should apply throughout. Therefore, there is a very strong case for pausing these negotiations.
As I have said, I have had conversions with the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman; she is not going to move her amendment to a vote tonight and I am not going to push mine to a vote tonight—I make that absolutely plain here and now. However, this is not going to solve the position. Before we come to Committee, we must see whether it would not be advisable to pause the Committee while negotiations continue—the Bill will have had its Second Reading, so that is not in jeopardy. I accept the ultimate supremacy of the House of Commons—as I have argued many times in your Lordships’ House on a whole range of issues—but we have a role to play, and we should seek to play it.
I ask noble Lords to reflect for a moment: most of us in this House are anxious to preserve the United Kingdom as a union. We are anxious to have the closest possible relationships with other western democracies in Europe and across the Atlantic. Do not let us forget that one of the people who is most troubled by the Bill and its implications is the President of the United States, who has made his views very plain to the Prime Minister and others.
There will be no vote tonight, but I beg noble Lords to think carefully about some of these issues and to reflect on the importance of having a stable relationship and a series of agreements, which have not come about and will not come about by our seeking to ride roughshod over the principles of international law. I rest my case and beg to move.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, nearly three years ago, Ministers and the then Prime Minister returned from Brussels triumphantly, holding the withdrawal agreement and a brand-new protocol on Northern Ireland. We were told that this was a great deal for the country, and especially for Northern Ireland. It was, we were told, the best of both worlds. Most importantly, we were told that the letter and spirit of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement had been preserved. Now, Ministers tell us that none of this really happened. They insist that the protocol—that they negotiated, signed and campaigned on—does precisely the opposite of what they claimed then, and that it is the source of the problems that they vowed it would solve. Their answer now is to take a wrecking ball to their own agreement and to ask noble Lords to support a Bill that is a flagrant breach of international law. Frankly, your Lordships’ House should not have been asked to consider this Bill.
The truth is that the Bill is an abject admission of failure: first, a failure to understand the deal that they themselves negotiated; and, secondly, a failure to right the wrongs of their previous decisions. As my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede will outline later, the Bill is an insult to our political, legal and diplomatic traditions. Its aims and the powers it grants to Ministers of the Crown amount to nothing short of constitutional vandalism. It damages Britain’s hard-won reputation as a country that plays by the rules. It divides us from our European allies when we should be walking in lockstep in the face of Putin’s war in Ukraine. Further, it risks creating new trade barriers and more uncertainty for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland, and the rest of the UK, in the middle of a cost of living crisis.
There are many reasons to object to the Bill but I will focus on just three. First, the Bill will not solve the problems it purports to fix. Secondly, it is incompatible with our obligations under international law. Thirdly, it affords Ministers unreasonable, unwarranted and unprecedented powers. I shall take each one in turn.
We are all aware of the serious and difficult political challenges facing Northern Ireland today. The Good Friday agreement is an article of faith for the Labour Party: it is one of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government, negotiated in partnership with parties and communities across Northern Ireland and with the Government of the Republic of Ireland. The institutions born out of that transformative peace are now under strain. Stormont is unable to function; months have passed without power-sharing; and democratic elections have not produced a functioning Government, meaning that the Executive cannot deliver for people during this economic crisis. This is a serious problem.
We recognise that the operation of the protocol, and the checks and barriers to trade that are an inherent feature of its design, have created problems for businesses. We accept that. Regrettably, it has heightened concerns, particularly among the unionist community, about their place in the UK, and these concerns must be heard.
As I have said on multiple occasions, this is not a one-sided issue. The EU too, as well as the UK Government, must show flexibility, but the only feasible way forward is through negotiation. Without swift progress there will have to be fresh elections in Northern Ireland and a serious Westminster Government, one with cool heads and steady hands, would work with all parties to ease current tensions.
With trust, good will, statecraft and hard work, these problems can and will be overcome. Instead, the Bill seeks to impose an unrealistic and likely unlawful unilateral solution. It is fundamentally flawed. Only a deal that works for all sides and which delivers for the people of Northern Ireland can be durable and provide the stability that businesses and the public deserve.
The good news is that the Government may finally be realising this. Last week, talks between the Government and the EU resumed. While some chose not to endorse this approach, Ministers apologised for their prior conduct in an extraordinary but welcome admission of the damage done in recent years. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has even said that he wants to make this legislation redundant—hear, hear to that. I welcome the Government’s long-overdue conversion to the merits of negotiation, but does that not undermine the entire basis for this Bill?
This brings me to our second central objection: the Bill is by any reasonable reading incompatible with international law. Britain has a proud record as a champion of the rule of law. This transcends personalities and party politics, stemming from our unique history and legal traditions, from Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights. However, this Government are willing to rip up those traditions and override a central element of an international treaty in domestic law, despite only recently agreeing the treaty forbidding such behaviour. They argue that this Bill is necessary, yet the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland says that he is very positive about the chances of success in these new negotiations. Not only is there an alternative to this Bill but the Government prefer it, are working on it and think it is achievable.
Moreover, the Government have not exhausted all legal routes available to them under the protocol and wider agreements with the EU. We do not wish to see Article 16 triggered, but if the Government are so keen to implement safeguards, why have they not done so through the legal means at their disposal? Despite what the Minister said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Howard, Article 16 could of course be used without jeopardising the common travel area or the energy market. I ask him to look again at his argument on that point.
The Bill shows the Government are willing to break binding treaties when it suits their internal party-political objectives to do so. That is disgraceful. If they proceed with this legislation, can they be surprised if our international partners start asking themselves whether we will keep our end of the bargain? As Ministers travel the globe to challenge the actions of dictators and despots, what message does it send when they stand here, in the mother of all parliaments, proposing measures that break international law? Reputations are hard won and easily lost. This Bill tarnishes our country’s reputation. That is simply not in our national interest. It is not who we are, nor is it the country we want to be. There is nothing more patriotic that this House can do than to defend Britain’s proud political values and legal principles.
The Bill is also a blatant power grab. It gifts the Government extraordinary powers while denying proper scrutiny by Parliament. Ministers may use these powers whenever they feel it is appropriate, disapply other parts of the protocol, or even amend Acts of Parliament. These are some of the widest-drawn Henry VIII powers I have seen during my more than 10 years in both Houses of Parliament. I am aware that that is a blink of an eye compared to the experience of some noble Lords here today, but surely this sets a dangerous precedent for the future. Just as we should defend our nation’s reputation as a law-abiding member of the international community, we should also preserve Parliament’s role as a check on ministerial power.
Finally, I know colleagues are interested in the various amendments to the substantive Motions on today’s Order Paper, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. First, let me say that I empathise with the noble Lord a great deal. If he does not mind my saying so, he has been a Conservative parliamentarian for more than 50 years and has been present in either this House or another place during all manner of political events and crises. It therefore says a lot about the Government and their handling of the protocol that he has felt compelled to table his amendments. I have tabled my own, setting out the concerns of not only the Labour Party but many noble Lords across the House. I am grateful to those who have engaged with the process of drafting it.
The Government need to reconsider this legislation. Ministers should at least report to the House on whether a pause in the passage of the Bill would be beneficial to these new negotiations. I know that many noble Lords would like to see the back of this Bill. I would, too; it is an abomination. But, however flawed, the Bill has the support of the elected House and we will proceed with it for today.
I welcome the Minister’s remarks that a negotiated settlement genuinely is the Government’s goal. I do not believe that that has always been the case, so his remarks to that effect are welcome. Taking that in good faith and with flexibility from both sides, an agreement is surely possible and we hope that this Bill can be consigned to history, where it belongs. It may be that Ministers reflect on today’s debate and decide to take the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, up on his suggestion of a pause, but if they insist on pushing ahead with Committee in two weeks’ time, we will, of course, be open to discussions with colleagues across House as to possible next steps.
To summarise, this Bill is the wrong approach at the wrong time. It breaks international law, damaging our reputation; it gives Ministers unparalleled delegated powers; and it does not enjoy the support of the majority of businesses or Assembly Members in Northern Ireland itself. The way forward is a grown-up, level-headed negotiation, not the continued threat of unilateral action, which would result in retaliatory measures that our economy could do without at such a precarious time.
We have been presented with a window of opportunity in recent days. The gap between the UK and the EU is not vast. Let us seize that opportunity and do the deal that should have been done three long years ago: a deal with the people of Northern Ireland at its heart that enables the whole of the United Kingdom to move forward and to regain our reputation as a country that acts in good faith.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, over the Recess, the Minister and I both travelled to regions of the world where peace building continues to need to be nurtured and where trust is a vital commodity. The offensive nature of this Bill is that in just one measure it breaches international law, undermines our reliability for other international trade agreements, divides communities rather than brings them together and abuses proper parliamentary legislative processes to an egregious degree. The fact that it is a Foreign Office Bill—a department which is meant to promote the currency of the British word in an unreliable world—is doing immeasurable damage. I believe that the House knows it and that the Minister, who is very highly respected here, must know it too. My colleagues will expand on these areas in their contributions.
When the Government presented their protocol, they did so with somewhat of a Janus face. “Best of both worlds” and “oven-ready deal” was how it was how it was spun, but the unspun accompanying impact assessment was clear that it was neither, and far more complex.
Chapter 6 of the impact assessment at the time, on risks, states in paragraph 295:
“An increase in uncertainty associated with the UK’s regulatory or customs position with the EU could affect the business environment and consumer confidence. The costs of new checks and administration associated with the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol may affect the profitability of businesses trading to and from NI … given uncertainty around price changes, or the UK’s and NI’s relationship with the EU, consumers may decide to delay spending, reducing consumer demand for goods and services”.
Paragraph 302 states:
“The proposals will have an effect on all UK businesses that move goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, irrespective of the business’s size … a ‘one size fits all’ approach for business trade requirements is likely to have a disproportionate effect on SMBs in particular”.
Paragraph 319 states:
“This could result in higher prices for Northern Ireland consumers purchasing goods which reached Northern Ireland from both Great Britain and Ireland.”
Remember, this is what the Government said would happen if it was working—not if it was not working, which is what the Minister seems to be suggesting today. Perhaps the Government thought that we would not read the impact assessment at the time, let alone remember it. Boris Johnson said that there would be no problems. Liz Truss said that the problems were “unintended”. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, said that they were someone else’s fault. Speak no evil, hear no evil, but see evil.
When Liz Truss said in the spring that there were “unintended consequences”, the poor officials who outlined the intended consequences must have rolled their eyes. However, with the joint monitoring and systems that the Minister has outlined today, they were the very ones that were rejected by the Government at the time of the protocol. I am therefore not surprised that some want the protocol ended.
Instead, the Government say that they want to mend it, not end it. So if they mend, not end, what will be left of it? Northern Ireland will still have to operate under a foreign power’s laws and have no say over them. It will still collect its taxes, still operate under its state aid rules and still have to comply with the hundreds of regulations listed in the annexe to the Brexit agreement that I spoke of in 2019.
On countless occasions, the Liberal Democrats, along with our Alliance partners in Northern Ireland, warned constructively but repeatedly that the Government knew they were in breach of the previous commitment that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, gave to this House in January 2019 when he said:
“We will give an unequivocal commitment that that there will be no divergence in rules between … Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.—[Official Report, 9/1/19; col. 2222.]
We were ridiculed and condemned, especially in the House of Commons by people such as Steve Baker MP. However, today, on behalf of my colleagues, I accept Steve Baker’s apology. By the way, some might be tempted to suggest that it is the fact that we have this Bill that forced Brussels’ hand to return to talks; it is perhaps the welcome hand of apology from a Northern Ireland Minister.
The Minister’s justification for the Bill today seems to be based on the coming to pass of the very impacts that the Government themselves said were going to happen, but that case for the Government is disingenuous as the Bill does not even address all the areas in the Government’s previous Command Paper. There, they listed what they said were the problems with the protocol —not least that it would be an ongoing “democratic deficit”, which, I remind the House, was a fully intended consequence. So the Government cannot say that this is the solution when it omits whole swathes of areas that they previously said were the problem.
At this point, it is worth saying that the impact of the protocol has been mixed, with some benefits for people in Northern Ireland, which has benefited from the single market. Those are not my words; they are the words of the Northern Ireland Economy Ministry under a DUP Minister. I will quote from Invest NI:
“This dual market access position means that Northern Ireland can become a gateway for the sale of goods to two of the world’s largest markets … This is a unique proposition for manufacturers based in Northern Ireland as well as those seeking a pivotal location from which to service GB and EU markets … These additional benefits further enhance Northern Ireland’s already strong proposition as a prime location to establish, or grow, a business”.
I think the whole House wishes the Northern Ireland economy well and wishes growth for it, but the Government’s legal position is that all of what the DUP Minister’s department is saying is a grave and imminent peril to this country. Both cannot be right.
Describing “grave and imminent peril” is in the Government’s legal position: it seems to be their case. They cite the UN International Law Commission’s Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts from 2001. However, Article 25 of that states:
“Necessity may not be invoked by a State … unless the act … is the only way for the State to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril”.
It goes on to say that
“necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding wrongfulness if … the State has contributed to the situation of necessity.”
The Government state that the UK has not contributed to this situation of necessity relied upon. But, of course, that is almost a risible explanation, given that the Minister at the time, in 2019, signed an impact assessment saying that they were party to it. Given that the UK has made policy decisions separate from the agreement that would have had a material impact on UK trade with Northern Ireland, such as on labelling requirements, the Government cannot credibly argue the UK has been a wholly unwitting and absent bystander to this process.
I agree with the Law Society of Scotland, which said that the Bill goes beyond what is necessary to resolve any trade problems and instead seeks to rewrite provisions in the withdrawal agreement and the NI protocol, such as those in Clauses 13, 14 and 20. When the Advocate-General winds up this debate, I would be grateful if he could clarify the Minister’s assertion, in response to the intervention, that Article 16 would bring about the cessation of the whole of the protocol, rather than be a mechanism that could resolve certain elements of it. I have to say that the contradiction in the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, over these two days arguing in the Supreme Court that the Scottish Government are seeking to act unlawfully but this evening defending the Government for breaking international law is jarring.
Why should this deplorable misuse of “necessity” and redefining “grave and imminent peril” worry us so much? Since I have been speaking on trade from these Benches, I am now on my seventh Trade Minister in the Lords. Every one has said “Our word is our bond” in implementing agreements. For all the trade agreements we have signed, the other side will know that they can be changed unilaterally. How can we be trusted if we choose not to use the dispute mechanisms written into trade agreements but just bring forward domestic legislation to disapply treaty obligations? Pacta sunt servanda.
The Bill presents no baseline information on disruption, subsequent to the original impact assessment. It presents no objective assessment of overall net impact on the economy of Northern Ireland and no regulatory impact assessment contrary. This is all contrary to clear Cabinet Office guidance on legislation.
Finally, of course, the Bill reflects the Government’s view of Parliament. The Law Society of Scotland has said that
“it is inappropriate to implement international agreements by regulation. That approach departs from the precedents set by the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 and the EU (Future Relationship) Act 2020.”
I would add that it is contrary to every commitment for every trade agreement since Brexit.
I conclude by quoting these remarks:
“The Bill represents as stark a transfer of power from Parliament to the Executive as we have seen throughout the Brexit process. The Bill is unprecedented in its cavalier treatment of Parliament, the EU and the Government’s international obligations … the legislative mechanism by which the Government propose to give to effect to the Bill’s purpose is wholly contrary to the principles of parliamentary democracy (namely, parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law and the accountability of the Executive to Parliament)”.
That was all from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House.
On the basis of the breach of international law, the damage to our standing and word around the world, the adding to divisions—rather than healing them—and the abuse of Parliament, the Government should think again. At the very least, we should reflect very carefully on the necessity of proceeding, given ongoing talks that we on these Benches wish well and which need to continue and conclude.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
My Lords, in making foreign policy, it is a good idea to think about who you might have as an ally before taking the initiative. The only world leader I can think of who might raise a cheer if this Bill became law is Vladimir Putin, because it would sow division and discord among key members of the alliance supporting Ukraine. I note the Minister’s careful emphasis on technical discussions going on with the EU. I welcome that but, since the Government have also chosen to bring this Bill to Second Reading today, I want to take the opportunity to set it in the wider context of our national security.
The House is very well aware that we are at a very dangerous moment in the largest war in Europe since World War II. Putin’s massive gamble is going very badly. He is lashing out at civilian targets. He is seeking to frighten Ukraine’s supporters with his reckless talk of nuclear weapons—a sign of weakness rather than strength. This is a moment for unity among all those countries supporting Ukraine. That will be more necessary than ever during what will be a difficult winter.
What are the immediate prospects? My guess is that the fighting will subside when the cold weather comes and there will be stand-off along the front line. That will trigger a race against time to ensure that Ukraine is well enough funded and supported to have the upper hand when the fighting resumes in the spring.
The NATO response has been admirable. I have never known that organisation be stronger or more united than it is now. I congratulate the Government on all that they have done on that. The EU has also been more decisive than I would have expected, although it should be doing more to carry out its undertakings on financing and weapons. I gather that there has been good working co-ordination between the UK and the EU on issues such as Russia sanctions, although the Government find it hard to acknowledge that in public.
It was excellent that the Prime Minister went to the Prague summit of the 44 European countries but that is not a policy-making forum. It will meet only once every six months. There is no substitute for high-level UK-EU co-ordination in the coming months on the issues of the crisis that lie outside the remit of NATO. To take two of those issues, preventing sanctions evasion will be essential if we are to prevent Russia rebuilding its stocks of weapons using western microelectronics, and energy security and supply will be a vital issue on which we must talk to the EU.
One of the greatest risks to western strategy is Ukraine fatigue setting in across Europe as high energy prices take their toll on public opinion in many countries. Look only at what is happening in Italy with the new coalition before it is even formed, to say nothing of Orbán’s antics in Hungary. What is the relevance of all this to the Second Reading of this Bill? It should be a top priority for Britain to keep support for Ukraine strong and to prevent it ebbing away. There is a real premium on solidarity. It is therefore the worst possible moment for the British Government to be pushing forward on taking powers to renege on our international law commitments to the EU. If the Bill becomes law, the EU will retaliate. Remember the very careful words from Commissioner Šefčovič, who said that enacting this Bill would undermine
“the trust that is necessary for bilateral EU-UK cooperation within the framework of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement”—
the trust that is so vital right now. Is this really the time risk a trade war with the EU, when we have a real war a couple of hours’ flying time away?
I am glad that the Prime Minister has now accepted that France is a friend, not a foe, and that she and President Macron agreed in principle to a summit next year. Very good, but if the Bill becomes law, a reset with the French is out of the question, as is an improvement in bilateral relations with our other EU partners.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, referred to President Biden’s comments to the Prime Minister, as reported by the White House. He told the Prime Minister about the importance of a negotiated agreement with the EU on the protocol. Surely what is going on in Ukraine puts everything else into perspective. It is good to know that we are having technical discussions with the EU on the protocol, but we have found in the past that threatening unilateral action does not have a positive impact on negotiations with the EU—rather the reverse. If the Government insist on pushing the Bill through and on to the statute book, it will open up new divisions with the EU and damage our reputation as a serious country in all democratic countries around the world. I strongly support the case for a pause at some stage in the passage of this Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts. I have no experience of living with the protocol and no expertise in the technicalities of the Bill. However, reflecting on it has sent me to Hannah Arendt’s seminal analysis of the human condition.
Arendt spoke of the unpredictability of human life that arises from, as she put it, the “basic unreliability” of human beings,
“who can never guarantee today who they will be tomorrow”;
this applies also to their successors. The remedy for unpredictability and unreliability, Arendt contended, is the faculty of promise making. Promises provide the stability that enables common life to be established and maintained in an uncertain future. As the wisdom of age-old liturgy puts it, they should be not entered into unadvisedly or lightly, but soberly and after serious thought.
The reaction to this Bill has been strong, at the root of which is a visceral sense that promises made and accepted in good faith are being unmade, and that the stability on which human community relies is being shaken. These roots go deeper. In my dealings over the Brexit years with European colleagues through Coventry’s many links, I saw how many of them felt that covenants to common life, upon which they had built their futures, were crumbling beneath them, and that the British could no longer be trusted.
I recognise the complexities of applying Arendt’s analysis to the Bill. There are many, of course, who regard the protocol as the undoing of promises made to the people of Northern Ireland over the generations, some enshrined in law and some in other agreements. However, I share concerns that the Bill risks not only reinforcing attitudes of distrust with European partners, including Ireland, just at the point in history where concerted action is needed between allies, but undermining our reputation in a world where future security and peace will rely on the capacity of states to make and keep their promises.
Is this not the time for a reconciliation of relationships, for the healing of the wounds of recent history, for rebuilding trust for the cause of peace? As we have heard, the new Government have shown they have seen that need and are ready to grasp that opportunity. The positive reactions of European leaders to the signals sent by the Conservative Party conference, the Prime Minister’s part in the European Political Community meeting and the public comments of the Northern Ireland Minister, together with the opening comments of the Minister today, show that the protocol gives a chance to reset the relationship between the UK and EU, rather than further disrupt it.
My hope is that the problems of the protocol—which I do not doubt—will be resolved in that spirit through constructive negotiation, and that trust in the good faith of the UK will be restored. My concern is that this Bill will threaten that good work.
I was moved by the Archbishop of Armagh’s sermon in Belfast Cathedral during our recent commemorations. With a diocese sitting in two jurisdictions, he knows something about the tensions between communities and how they have been heightened by the protocol. Conscious of Her Majesty’s part in reconciliation between the peoples, the archbishop said:
“Reconciliation is about the restoration of broken relationships, and the word should never be cheapened by pretending it is an easy thing to achieve. By and large in the work of reconciliation most of our victories will be achieved quietly and in private”.
Now is the opportune time for that quiet diplomacy, which will bear much fruit in public.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, it is very unfortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, should tell this House that the only merit he could see in the Bill is that it would please President Putin. That is so over the top and inappropriate. Something happens to people who lost the argument on Brexit which means that sometimes they simply cannot see the wood for the trees.
I have only five minutes, unlike my noble friend Lord Cormack, who has abused the procedures of this House by tabling an amendment at Second Reading. That is a complete abuse of how we carry out Second Readings, which are meant to be for us to discuss the merits of a Bill and not, traditionally, for us to have a vote. By tabling an amendment my noble friend is able to speak for 15 minutes, while everyone else can speak for only five. If we all did that, it would completely wreck the process of Second Reading.
I say to my noble friend, who is a friend, that to use an amendment at Second Reading to try to prevent the Government delivering the programme that was supported by the other place—this Bill was brought to this House without amendment—is a complete usurpation of what this House is about. We should remember that we are not elected in this House. They are elected at the other end of the Corridor and they are accountable to their voters. One of the things about the Bill, which is fundamental, is that it is about restoring democracy to those people in Ulster who are part of our United Kingdom by restoring their ability to vote on the laws that apply to them and on the taxation that is being levied on them without their consent.
I do not for a moment want this Bill to be the way we resolve this problem with the protocol. There is all this hindsight stuff about the protocol, what was said at the time and everything else. The fact is that none of us expected the kind of bloody-mindedness we have seen in operation in Northern Ireland, which has destroyed people’s livelihoods. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, may wave his piece of paper, but it is a duty of a Government to ensure that people living in one part of the United Kingdom are treated the same as those in other parts of the United Kingdom.
It is perfectly possible for an agreement to be reached on fair lines. The European Union is entitled to ensure that its single market is protected, just as we are entitled to ensure that our single market is protected. That is what the Government’s negotiations are about. I pray that they will be successful. We are making progress. That is why, at this very moment when we are making progress, it would be completely inappropriate for this House to seek to undermine the Government’s position.
The House might not want to listen to me, but it should listen to people such as my noble friend Lord King, who has been a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. This has been a long process. The way the protocol is being implemented threatens the Good Friday agreement and the ability of people in Northern Ireland to live in peace and carry out their wishes, which, at the moment, are to remain part of the United Kingdom, where the rule of law is determined by them.
My noble friend Lord Cormack suggested that we should listen to the views of the President of the United States. What has the President of the United States got to do with maintaining the integrity of this country? I understand that there were divisions on Brexit, but that is behind us. We have taken a decision on Brexit and for once people ought to stand up for the interests of this country and not argue for the interests of Europe when we are trying to negotiate the best deal for our own people. Talk of a spirit of unity would be far more reasonable if that spirit was shown by this House getting behind the Government to ensure that they can deliver what every citizen of the United Kingdom is entitled to: the right to determine their laws and their levels of tax. I believe the negotiations will be successful and that they are being done in good faith, but opposing this Bill and abusing our procedures is no way to deliver success for Northern Ireland or respect for this House.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, if it had not been for the United States of America I very much doubt that there would have been a Good Friday agreement. The support we had from our American colleagues and friends was immense.
I return to the necessity for the Bill, which in my view does not exist. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, quite rightly referred to using Article 16. There would not then have been any need for a Bill to be in front of us at all.
I am amazed that the Minister, who I respect immensely, referred to the protocol as if it had come down from the heavens. He denounced in his speech great parts of the protocol which his own Government created. That is the amazing part of this debate.
I want to refer specifically to the Good Friday agreement, because it has been prayed in aid by all sides in this debate in order to justify the Bill and the situation we are in now. I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland too, and I was responsible—a long time ago; 26 years ago now—for part of the talks that led to the Good Friday agreement. I chaired strands 1 and 3 of that agreement. In so far as it was concerned, the agreement was based very largely on a couple of issues, one of which was common membership of the European Union. We were in the same club and there is no doubt in my mind that, if you read the Good Friday agreement, you will see that going right through it is reference to our joint membership of the EU. Of course that was an important issue as well.
However, the big issue, above all, was that after three years of negotiation we achieved a deep consensus among the people of Northern Ireland in order to achieve what we did. To that extent, I accept the unionist—or some unionists’—point of view that there is no consensus with regard to the protocol. Of course, very many nationalists will argue the opposite, but it remains the case that there is no consensus. There was no consensus when we started the talks that led to the Good Friday agreement in any event, and, when we had agreed it, you could not say “Well, I don’t like that bit about the police”, or “I don’t like the release of political prisoners”, as they were called, or “I don’t like that side of it on the north-south agreement”, or “I don’t like that side on criminal justice”. We had to accept the whole of it in order to ensure that there was peace in Northern Ireland, and the people of Ireland, north and south, voted in simultaneous referendums to agree to it.
It is extremely important still to accept the principle that you cannot just have bits of it with which you agree. You all agree that you should agree by negotiation. Look at what is happening in Northern Ireland now: the very fact that there is no Assembly, no Executive and no north-south bodies is equally against the spirit of the Good Friday agreement, as is the case with regard to the border in the sea between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
There is, of course, only one solution. The Minister rightly referred to the preference being negotiations. I do not agree with it being a preference; I believe it is an absolute necessity. The only conceivable way in which this can be resolved is by proper, structured negotiations —not just going across to Belfast for a couple of days and coming back—between the EU and the United Kingdom, and between the Irish Government and the British Government. Both Governments are guarantors of another international treaty, the Good Friday agreement, so it was great to see that the Irish Foreign Minister met our Foreign Secretary the other day. That is a good start. There also need to be proper negotiations between all the political parties in Northern Ireland. It is only by those detailed, structured negotiations between Governments, the EU and the political parties that this issue can be resolved.
“Ah, it’s too difficult”, people will say. They said that in 1998. Look at the issues that we did resolve, despite all those problems. We can resolve this one. The alternative is direct rule, and none of us wants that to occur. We are now almost 25 years on from the Good Friday agreement. That could be a means by which we could relook at it—it says in the agreement that we can review it. If we do not that, if we do not negotiate properly, and if we rely on the Bill and other things to try to sort this problem out, then the peace, prosperity and stability will indeed be in jeopardy.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, who always speaks with such experience, wisdom and, if I may say so, honest-to-goodness common sense.
As previous speakers have said, this is a bad and unnecessary Bill, which sets a number of dangerous precedents. As my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed set out so clearly in his speech, the Bill is widely considered to breach international law. It damages our international reputation and threatens the economy at a time when we are already facing economic turmoil on so many fronts. Perhaps most importantly of all, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, spelled out so clearly, the Bill is not something that the majority of people in Northern Ireland or the business community actually want.
Over the last few days, I have therefore found myself asking why the Government continue to insist on pushing ahead with the Bill when the new Prime Minister and her new Cabinet could have used the opportunity to withdraw the counterproductive threat that it represents. If the Bill was meant to reverse the distrust that has developed in Northern Ireland politics in recent years, pushing ahead with it, rather than using the available route of negotiations, risks alienating the majority in the Northern Ireland Assembly who want to see a negotiated settlement. Does the Minister not agree that this is a very high price to pay at a time when re-establishing trust is so vital for progress to be made in Northern Ireland politics and for the Executive and Assembly to be able to get back to work? Does he further acknowledge that recent opinion polls in Northern Ireland indicate that the majority of people want to see the protocol amended and improved so that it can be made to work?
If the Bill was meant to strengthen the Government’s negotiating hand, it is very hard to understand how threatening to breach a previously agreed international treaty will encourage other future partners to trust us. It is also potentially deeply damaging to our relationships with both Washington and Brussels; that matters at a time when it is so vital for us to stand together against Vladimir Putin’s increasingly appalling actions in Ukraine and, indeed, within Russia itself.
If this legislation was meant to reassure the Northern Ireland business community then it is hard to see how pushing forward with the Bill rather than concluding the negotiations as soon as possible will be helpful for providing economic certainty at this time. Businesses in Northern Ireland, as well as those businesses in Britain who work with Northern Ireland, are crying out for a period of economic certainty so that they can plan and move on from the atmosphere of uncertainty that has prevailed since 2016.
It is very welcome that Chris Heaton-Harris has changed the tone since becoming Northern Ireland Secretary. When I worked in the European Parliament, Chris Heaton-Harris was known as an MEP who understood the importance of co-operation and building trust, so it is welcome that, at least so far, he is adopting a constructive and positive approach. This is greatly to be welcomed and long overdue.
Like my noble friend Lord Purvis, I also welcome the belated acknowledgement by Steve Baker that mistakes have been made. Since 2016, politics and the economy of this country have suffered from a series of short-term fixes, primarily to deal with splits within the Conservative Party. It was never going to be possible to do all of the things that successive Conservative Governments have promised regarding Brexit but, given the global political and economic crises we are currently facing, surely this is the time for the Government to think of the long-term good and avoid yet another period of potentially disastrous, self-inflicted economic and reputational damage to this country.
I urge the Minister in his concluding remarks to pause or, preferably, drop this Bill altogether and give new impetus to the negotiations, and to make sure, for the sake of the people of Northern Ireland and the whole of the United Kingdom, that this time they succeed.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, I speak today as chairman of the committee on the protocol in your Lordships’ House, nearly all of whose members are speaking in the Second Reading debate today. I am only too conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, is speaking after me
We on the committee are united in our view of the importance of scrutinising the protocol and the effect that it will have and indeed is already having on the economy and the politics of Northern Ireland. As our latest report shows, that economic impact is hard to discern with certainty. Many of those involved in east- west trade—trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland—are suffering. That is particularly true of small and medium-sized enterprises. At the same time, many of those involved in north-south trade are prospering. But all those who spoke to us agreed that the present uncertainty is destabilising, and uncertainty is the one thing that all businesses hate. That is why we concluded that a mutually agreed solution between the UK and the EU is the best outcome —but it will require flexibility and compromise on all sides, and it will also require trust.
I am glad that trust is now being re-established. It is a necessary, though not a sufficient, prerequisite for a lasting agreement. I am glad too that negotiations, even technical ones, have been restarted. They will be tough on some issues. On red/green channels for trade with Northern Ireland, for example, or on data transfers, the differences between the UK and EU positions do not seem all that huge to me. On other issues, such as the longer-term divergence between the economies of the UK and the EU, regulatory structures and governance issues, including the role of the ECJ, the differences are much greater and the negotiations will inevitably be tougher. But at least the negotiations have restarted and, if they succeed, the Bill before us will never be needed. But it is before us and the protocol committee of your Lordships’ House has begun an inquiry into it, with evidence sessions tomorrow and over the next few weeks, and with a visit to Belfast and Newry next week.
Meanwhile, there is one question on which I would welcome advice from the Minister in answering the debate. One of the recurring themes of the Northern Ireland committee’s reports has been the need for the Government to take full account of the different shades of opinion in Northern Ireland in formulating their approach to the protocol. We have heard that there is a palpable sense in Northern Ireland that their views are not fully considered. Could the Minister give us an assurance that Northern Ireland opinion will be taken into account as the negotiations proceed? Could he also say how Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland politicians, will be involved in the negotiations themselves?
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jay, who chairs our committee on the protocol with such distinction.
In my view, the Bill is necessary and provides the potential for helping to resolve the crisis in the political process in Northern Ireland brought about by the protocol. There are many aspects that we would prefer were dealt with differently, all of which will need to be addressed and resolved in due course. However, it is clear that the protocol, albeit implemented only partially so far, has the following effects. First, as the courts in Northern Ireland have adjudicated, it rips up the free trading arrangements enshrined in Article 6 of the Act of Union itself. It runs completely contrary to the cross-community arrangements—not majority rule, which some people are referring to, but the cross-community arrangements—that are at the heart of the Belfast agreement, unless people want to change the Belfast agreement to majority rule. It is contrary to the consent principle. As the Minister said, it upsets the delicate balance of the agreements, and it has undermined and continues to undermine the institutions of the very agreement that it was designed and purports to safeguard.
The protocol also negates democracy itself. Up until 31 December 2020, the people of Northern Ireland, in common with the rest of the United Kingdom, were able to elect legislators to make all the laws to which they were subject. From 1 January 2021, every citizen of the United Kingdom living in Northern Ireland has had the experience of having the significance of their votes slashed as the responsibility for making the laws of Northern Ireland over vast swathes of the economy has been taken from them and given to the members of a legislature of a foreign political entity of which they are not part, and in which they have no representation—in relation not just to one statute or one area of law, but to 300 areas of law.
The outworking of Northern Ireland being subject to European Union law, while the rest of the United Kingdom is not, has massive, far-reaching, detrimental consequences, both constitutional and economic, which will get worse over time as divergence increases. Given that the rest of the United Kingdom is by far our greatest market for trade, as a result of dividing up our country in this way we have increasing friction for goods from one part of the United Kingdom to another as a result of needless checks and tonnes of paperwork, and we have divergence of trade, restricted consumer choice and increased costs. We have threats to investment through having different state aid arrangements and regimes for Northern Ireland and Great Britain, as the Minister acknowledged when we discussed this in Committee. We are denied the benefit as British citizens of the United Kingdom of UK-wide tax changes, while being subject to EU VAT rules.
As I looked around to try to describe the reality of what confronts us, the only model that I could find that comes close to fitting is the UN category of a non-self-governing territory, which is the current term for a colony. Most colonies today are largely self-governing; they remain classified as colonies because they are not entirely self-governing. That such a solution be thought desirable, or indeed workable, for part of this United Kingdom in the 21st century beggars belief.
We have heard about this Bill and international law this afternoon. Of course, nobody seems to object to the breach of international law which is at the heart of extending unilaterally grace periods or standstill. That is a breach of international law, and yet everybody seems quite content to go along with that.
The erosion of our citizens’ rights to fundamental democratic rights under this protocol is contrary to international law. We should look again at Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 21 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which states:
“Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives”.
That is denied to the people of Northern Ireland when it comes to legislating on large parts of the economy, and of course it violates the Belfast agreement, which commits to no erosion of democratic rights. Article 2.1 of the protocol refers to no diminishment in the rights accorded by the Belfast agreement, and those who support the Belfast agreement so vehemently should be defending what we are trying to do in restoring democratic rights to the people of Northern Ireland.
So, the greatest urgency now is to restore full democratic rights to people in Northern Ireland. We cannot defend and support the sovereignty of Ukraine—rightly so—and at the same time defend and support the trashing of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. Whether by negotiation or by legislation, the objective of restoring sovereignty to the people of Northern Ireland, to all citizens of the United Kingdom who should all be treated equally, must be achieved, and with it the full restoration of Northern Ireland’s place in the internal market of the United Kingdom.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, I am genuinely grateful for the opportunity to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, for whom I have much respect, and indeed I have a good deal of sympathy with the concerns which he has expressed. But, as I hope to explain, this Bill is not the way to alleviate those concerns.
I also echo those who have paid tribute to my noble friend the Minister and expressed pleasure that he remains in his post, and of course I share the hope and aspirations, which have been widely expressed, that the difficulties we face can be solved through negotiation—and I welcome the fact that those negotiations are now under way. But the Government have asked your Lordships’ House to give this Bill a Second Reading today, and it is our duty therefore to consider its merits.
The Government seek to justify the provisions of the Bill, which would otherwise be a clear breach of international law, by reference to the doctrine of necessity. That doctrine is set out in Article 25 of the relevant treaty, which states that the doctrine cannot be invoked unless it
“is the only way”—
I stress: “the only way”—
“for the State to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril”.
Even if it is assumed that all the other requirements of the article are met—and there are of course many reservations about that—it cannot possibly be argued that this Bill is the only way in which the state’s interests can be safeguarded. It is not the only way because the protocol itself provides a way, a perfectly legal way, in which that objective can be achieved. It is to be found in Article 16.
I did not properly hear the answer which my noble friend the Minister gave in response to my intervention, but if he really suggested that the problem with Article 16 was that it could apply only to the whole protocol, and that therefore freedom of movement provisions would be affected, I have to tell him as gently as I can that there is absolutely no basis for that interpretation of Article 16, which gives the Government a wide discretion as to the measures which they could take. I am genuinely bewildered by the Government’s decision not to proceed by invoking Article 16. Your Lordships may be interested in the explanations for its rejection which were given to me by the Home Secretary when she was Attorney-General.
My noble friend the Minister had asked me to speak to the then Foreign Secretary, now of course the Prime Minister, about this issue. When the conversation turned to the legality of the Government’s proposals, she referred me to the Attorney-General, which your Lordships may think is in itself not entirely insignificant. The then Attorney-General told me that the decision not to invoke Article 16 was a political one. The reason, she told me, was that Article 16 permits only measures which are proportionate. I should repeat that, although it will not take long for the implications to sink in: Article 16 was not invoked because it permits only measures which are proportionate. To put it very mildly, this of course reinforces the unanswerable argument that the Government simply cannot contend that the Bill is the only course open to them. It must follow, therefore, that it constitutes a clear breach of international law.
Why does all this matter? It matters because, although I acknowledge that Parliament can legislate in breach of international law, it should not do so—and it especially should not do so at the present time. Of course it is the case that, on the scale of iniquity, the Bill, for all its flaws, does not begin to compare to the invasion of Ukraine. But Ministers—our Ministers—frequently criticise that invasion on the ground that it is a breach of international law. My noble friend did it in the course of his opening remarks. The Defence Secretary, for whom I have great respect, did it in a newspaper article on 25 September. He said of Vladimir Putin:
“We take everything he does seriously, because this is a man without any scruples and any regard for international law.”
The thing about the law, whether it is domestic or international, is that you cannot pick and choose. You cannot pray it in aid in one context and have no regard for it in another, so I urge the Government to think again. They can achieve their objectives perfectly legally by invoking Article 16, but if they persist with the Bill, I shall vote against it—not, of course, today—and I urge your Lordships to do likewise.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Howard. I am also a member of your Lordships’ committee on the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol. As a resident of Northern Ireland, I firmly believe that the Bill is not the way forward. In fact, it acts as an impediment and a barrier to those negotiations. I am pleased that the negotiations between the UK and the EU have resumed, because there are issues with the protocol. I speak as someone who supports the protocol because, during and post the Brexit referendum, we always said that Northern Ireland needed to have special status—and the current UK Government negotiated the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol. So, as regards as any other stories that might be coming at us, we might be talking porkies, as my noble friend Lord Murphy said, and the Government should remember that they negotiated it.
There are issues with the protocol that have to be addressed properly in the negotiations—in relation to tariffs on steel and in relation to groupage and the issues encountered by the haulage industry—but these can be resolved only by proper negotiations between the UK and the EU, without placing guns on the table to act as impediments to the discussions. There are challenges and difficulties in the Bill: it is a breach of international law; Ministers are given undue powers to legislate later on to do what they wish; and it will not deal with the problems in Northern Ireland.
Over the summer, I talked to many people—including members of Newry Chamber and the Warrenpoint chamber—who operate along the border. I talked to people in industries, including Seatruck Ferries and HMT Shipping in Warrenpoint and Lakeland Dairies. For the dairy industry, which is all-island, the Bill will legislate inefficiencies into the dairy supply chain with the dual regulatory regime and certification process. The Bill does not work for primary producers, and it has the potential to undermine Northern Ireland’s access to the EU single market. I have talked to the Ulster Farmers Union and, although it sees issues with the protocol, it also sees benefits.
The Bill rejects the NIP joint committee process for resolving disputes. It removes the ECJ from NIP decisions, and VAT and excise duties will be set by UK Ministers, rather than at agreed EU rates. In fact, the Bill is at variance with the Good Friday agreement because the principle of consent in that agreement centres around the issue of unity—“Do you want to be part of a united Ireland or to remain within the United Kingdom?”—and we do not need any confusion around that issue. The equality and human rights commissions, which are mandated to look after Article 2 of the protocol, greatly fear that Clauses 13, 15 and 20 will dilute those human rights and equality protections. This needs to be looked into.
Environmental organisations, such as Greener UK, believe that the Bill is
“extremely broad in scope and creates significant risk to the natural environment across the single biogeographic unit of the island of Ireland”,
through the powers taken by government without parliamentary scrutiny and, above all, the insufficient protections for the natural environment within the protocol.
There are areas for negotiation: the resolution of the customs issues and controls; the need for an SPS veterinary agreement; and the solution to the EU steel tariffs in Northern Ireland. We want streamlining, with no more individual certificates for agri-food products. Through Vice-President Šefčovič, the EU has indicated that it is prepared not only to negotiate but to provide those solutions, so let us get down to those negotiations. Only through proper negotiations between the UK and the EU will we achieve success and the restoration of our political institutions of the Good Friday agreement, which should never have been blocked or brought down in the first place.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I grew up in Ireland and most of my family still live there, so I want to concentrate on the practical implications of this Bill for ordinary people and ordinary traders on both sides of the border. A good example is Northern Ireland’s 3,000 dairy farmers: together, they produce 2.5 billion litres of milk every year, in turn enabling highly valuable exports. Northern Irish dairy goes to 80 countries around the world, and although the six counties represent just 3% of the UK population, they account for 31% of UK dairy exports by value. However, a third of the milk produced cannot be processed within Northern Ireland because of a lack of processing capacity in the Province. The milk needs to be processed in the only factories with adequate capacity, which happen to be located just across the border in the Republic of Ireland. However, for milk to cross the border, a vet from Northern Ireland’s food safety agency must certify that the milk meets EU standards over its whole life cycle. If it does, it can go into the Republic and come back again—pasteurised and processed—ready to go on to make money for the UK economy around the world.
However, if Northern Ireland operates a dual regulatory regime, as proposed in this Bill, products such as animal feed—some from the EU and some from the UK—are likely to be mixed up within the Province, making it impossible for vets to certify that an animal’s milk genuinely meets EU standards. This means that the cow’s produce will be unable to cross the border and unable to be processed. Noble Lords will be aware that you cannot just throw unusable milk down the drain because of the serious ecological issues that that would cause—doing so is rightly banned in British law. So, of necessity, a massive cull of one-third of Northern Ireland’s dairy herd will be needed. Leaving aside the extraordinary economic and animal welfare implications of that process, Northern Ireland does not have the vets or abattoirs to undertake such a cull. Since the animals will not be able to be certified for export—for the same reasons that their milk cannot be certified—they will not be able to go over the border for slaughter either. It will be a Catch-22 situation, full of crushing uncertainty for Northern Ireland’s farming industry. Indeed, the only certainty is that farmers will find themselves unable to repay loans they took out in good faith, in the expectation of profits from the sale of their milk. A collapse in farming incomes will follow, inevitably destroying the hard-won, peaceful sustainability of every local town and village in Northern Ireland.
The risk with which the Minister must grapple this afternoon is not just to the local economies concerned; there is also an inevitable risk that darker forces will exploit newly impoverished communities, fanning the flames of resentment and driving a wave of renewed unrest. Brexit was not supported by Northern Ireland and was opposed by the Republic. Yet both sides did everything they could to make Brexit work, and the result was the protocol. Bits of these agreements cannot be cherry-picked away: each part of an agreement is a delicate building block of Anglo-Irish relations; move one part, and you risk the whole thing falling over. And for what? After all, if the Government are serious about not having lower standards for food safety and animal welfare than the EU, they surely have nothing to fear from a Swiss-style veterinary agreement with Ireland and the EU, and nothing to gain from this absurd mess of dual regulation.
It is time for a new approach prioritising practical trading relationships, prioritising local economies and, most of all, prioritising hard-won peace over the academic sovereignty that Brexit is alleged to bring. In short, it is time to ditch this rotten Bill.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I want to focus on why this Bill would, if implemented, be a manifest breach of international law. Let me identify first what is not in dispute. The Government are not suggesting that it would be proper to bring forward a Bill which, if implemented, would breach international law—and quite rightly so. The Government also do not dispute that the Bill would resile from important aspects of the protocol and that this would be a breach of international law, unless they can rely on the doctrine of necessity. There is also no dispute about the criteria for invoking the doctrine of necessity. Your Lordships have heard that the Government must show that their action
“is the only way for the State to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril”,
and the Government accept that necessity cannot apply if
“the State has contributed to the situation of necessity.”
The Government cannot dispute these criteria, because they are set out in Article 25 of the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on state responsibility 2001, a codification of the basic rules of international law.
It seems to me that there are three reasons why the Bill, if implemented, would plainly breach international law. The first has already been addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Howard. The Bill is not the only way to deal with the perceived problem. The noble Lord rightly drew attention to Article 16, a mechanism in the protocol for addressing
“serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties”.
I entirely agree with what he said. But there are other problems. The second problem is that there is no “imminent peril”. The Government have been complaining about the protocol for many months—indeed, since soon after we signed it. And even if these fundamental difficulties were somehow to be overcome, there is a third fundamental difficulty: the Government have themselves caused the perceived problem, or at least substantially contributed to it. We signed the protocol in order, as then Prime Minister Boris Johnson said, to “get Brexit done”.
The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, in opening this debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, listed the difficulties that are caused, they say, by the protocol. Well, the Government should have thought about that before signing it. The International Law Commission’s notes to Article 25 point out, at paragraph 20, that the International Court of Justice has held that a state cannot rely on necessity when it has,
“‘helped, by act or omission’”
to bring about the situation of which it now complains. It is elementary that a state cannot sign a treaty and then seek to resile from it on the basis that the terms it has agreed damage the interests of the signing state.
The Government then say, “Yes, but the EU is not applying the protocol in good faith”—the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, referred to bloody-mindedness, as he put it, by the EU. But there are mechanisms for resolving a dispute about the obligations of the parties to the protocol. We agreed, by Article 12, to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice in Luxembourg to resolve disputes. The Government and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, may not like it, but that is what we agreed to in the protocol.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
The noble Lord speaks with great authority and expertise—I have heard it often before and it is very good indeed—but does he think Articles 49, 50, 51 and 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties also have relevance and allow some scope to move away from the narrow confines of the treaty as it stands now, when the other parties may be breaking it in some way?
Lord Pannick (CB)
I think the noble Lord refers to obligations of good faith. The answer is that the protocol sets out a mechanism, as I said, for resolving the dispute between the parties—the UK and the EU—as to whether each is complying with its obligations. The United Kingdom cannot say that the test of necessity is satisfied when the protocol sets out a dispute-resolving mechanism.
I agree with the excellent speeches by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis: this is a manifest breach of international law and I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, the Advocate-General for Scotland, will address these points when he answers this debate.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I support the Bill. If fully enacted, this legislation has the potential to provide tangible solutions that will free Northern Ireland from the grip of the crippling protocol arrangements and restore our rights as British citizens to trade freely with the rest of our nation under Article 6 of the Acts of Union.
Nobody who values the union supports barriers remaining in place between Northern Ireland and the rest of this nation. Equally, nobody who values devolved governance in Northern Ireland should countenance the protocol, as it has undermined the principle of consent and dealt a blow to consensus-building politics. If we do not act now, we will reach a critical point where, after the full implementation of the protocol, Northern Ireland will be subject to an ever-expanding series of laws imposed by a foreign entity without any say or vote by its elected representatives.
While the rest of the United Kingdom has secured its freedom to deregulate or go in a different direction on aid or taxation, Northern Ireland will be left behind and face fresh restrictions and challenges simply because it is tied to the protocol. The trade friction between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is fuelling the cost of living crisis in Northern Ireland and restricting consumer choice. The Northern Ireland protocol is not only unsustainable in its form but incompatible with the Acts of Union. It threatens the sovereignty of this nation and undermines devolved governance, which requires cross-community buy-in and support if it is to function fully.
As it stands, the Bill provides a clear framework to address many of the issues outlined today. It provides a framework to remove the European Court of Justice as the ultimate arbiter of the protocol, smoothing the passage of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and bringing Northern Ireland fully back into the UK’s VAT and excise duty regime.
The Bill must pass and its regulation-making powers be fully deployed as quickly as possible to avert impending political crisis in Northern Ireland. We must not waste any more time talking about checks. The economic problem is not the checks but the paralysing cost implications of applying third-country certification burdens on the qualitatively very different consignments of goods that flow within economies—as with Great Britain-Northern Ireland trade—rather than between them, which make trading uneconomic.
If the protocol were ever implemented economically—let us not forget that, thankfully, it never has been because of the grace periods—hauliers have made it absolutely clear that the certification costs associated with taking goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland would make that undertaking uneconomic and Northern Ireland's supply chains would break down within 24 hours, creating an existential economic crisis for part of our United Kingdom.
Similarly, the political problem is not at root the checks, but the fact that the people of Northern Ireland have been degraded as a result of their right to make laws in some 300 areas being taken from them. The value of their vote has been diminished. Every time a new law is opposed on Northern Ireland by the EU, the human rights provisions in the Belfast agreement with respect to political engagement are violated. That violation cuts to the quick—the knowledge that, while the people of England, Wales, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland must have the right to stand for election or vote to elect people to make all the laws to which they are subject, the people of Northern Ireland must be subject to the unique and deeply distressing indignity of being told that they do not always deserve to be afforded the same level of respect.
The Bill may be needed—and needed urgently—and I strongly urge all noble Lords to pass it today, and certainly without any six-month delay. Quite apart from anything else, this will strengthen the Government’s negotiating hand, while a six-month delay would simply weaken it. I support the Bill.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, I served as a member of the sub-committee on the protocol under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Jay. As has been repeatedly stated, the Bill constitutes a breach of the international obligations into which we entered freely. If we do not comply with those obligations, we will do great damage to our reputation and those who come to negotiate with us in the future will remember. We will not be trusted.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee stated in its 12th report that
“the legislative mechanism by which the Government propose to give to effect to the Bill’s purpose is wholly contrary to the principles of parliamentary democracy (namely, parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law and the accountability of the Executive to Parliament)”.
Indeed, the powers given to Ministers would permit a future weakening of protocol Article 2, which provides for the preservation of the Good Friday agreement “in all its dimensions” including its human rights and equality safeguards.
The sub-committee’s first report identified serious problems in how the protocol was being applied. It also pointed out that the search for solutions up to that point had been hampered by fundamental flaws in both the UK and the EU’s approach The report concluded that unless urgent steps were taken to correct this, Northern Ireland and its peoples would become permanent casualties in the post-Brexit landscape. The situation now is that the people of Northern Ireland are becoming casualties in that landscape. So are those GB businesses which, having developed trade links with Northern Ireland, have now decided because of the additional cost that future trade with Northern Ireland is not sustainable at present.
The committee’s second report said:
“The economic data necessary to conduct a comprehensive statistical analysis of the impact of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland is not yet available. Nevertheless … the economic impact is becoming clearer … Our witnesses have described a dichotomy of experience, characterised by one as ‘feast or famine’”.
Northern Ireland’s economy includes a significant percentage of SMEs, and it has been established that many firms in Great Britain are now refusing to, or are reluctant to, trade east to west because of increased bureaucracy, the need for enhanced staff resources, increases to cost and delivery times and reduced flexibility. The inevitable increasing regulatory divergence between the UK and the EU is also a cause of uncertainty and concern, as are the effects of Brexit.
Trade from north to south has undoubtedly benefited from the protocol. Sectors of the economy, such as the dairy and meat-processing industries, depend on complex cross-border supply chains on the island of Ireland. Damage would be caused to those sectors should access to the EU single market be lost. The committee’s report therefore says that the overall impact of the protocol on the Northern Ireland economy remains uncertain.
Witnesses to the committee have told us what is needed to resolve the difficulties underpinning the negative economic impact of the protocol. There is creativity and determination among them in resolving the difficulties, which appear to be fundamentally bureaucratic. What is necessary now is constructive dialogue underpinned by a determination to reach resolution on the many issues that have arisen. What is not needed is the effective emasculation of the protocol, which has already resulted in multiple infringement proceedings against the UK by the EU. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, there are provisions in Article 16 of the protocol which provide safeguards against
“serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties”.
These should be utilised effectively by the UK and the EU.
It is important to state that the protocol has not caused civil disturbance of any significance in Northern Ireland. People want to see the problems resolved. There is significant concern that, although the Government state that there will be no diminution as a consequence of the Bill in the rights protected under the Good Friday agreement, this is not the case. Can the Minister tell us what consideration was given to compliance with Article 2 of the protocol in the context of this Bill?
Finally, on the position of Northern Ireland within the UK, I accept that significant concerns have been presented to your Lordships. I acknowledge the fears and concerns that underpin this position. However, because the UK voted for Brexit, some accommodation has to be made for the situation resulting from Northern Ireland’s land border with Ireland—a land border that is not readily amenable to customs and other checks. Northern Ireland is in a unique position: it has access to the EU single market yet remains a constituent part of the UK. Properly worked, this could be a significant advantage for all our people in the UK.
Northern Ireland needs stability, a working Assembly, vastly improved public services and many other things. All these could happen if the protocol can be made to work. It is in both the EU’s and the UK’s interests that this should happen. It is in nobody’s interests that the Bill should pass and the consequential years of disruption to UK-EU trade should occur, nor that we should be tied up fighting battles against the EU in the CJEU for years, at a time when we need to restore our national economy and care for all our people.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I begin by noting the level of engagement with the Bill in your Lordships’ House, both in numbers and the weight of years of experience. I was tempted to ask the Library to make a calculation of the total but I decided that that was not a good use of public funds; the level of concern about the Bill is obvious.
That was reflected in the opening speeches from the Front Benches. I agree with almost every word from the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington. She clearly identified that the Bill will not solve the problems it purports to address; that it breaks international law, as many noble and noble and learned Lords have said; and that it gives unprecedented powers to Ministers at a time when we have seen a great many Bills go through in your Lordships’ House—and that is just in my three years here—that, it was already being said, gave unprecedented powers to the Executive; now, they are largely law. We have an overweening Executive, unprecedented in history—and what an Executive.
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, was notable in bringing out the second point in that list: the breaking of international law. It did not so much bulldoze the Government’s arguments for just cause for their actions as grind them into tiny fragments so that they lay on your Lordships’ House like a layer of sand.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, outlined, this is happening at a critical point in this age of shocks. He highlighted the geopolitical shocks, but I would add the broader climatic and environmental shocks. The UK remains the chair of the COP climate talks. Many are hoping, perhaps against hope, that we might play a significant, positive role in the COP 15 biodiversity talks, which are finally soon to start. The destruction of legal principles that the UK has historically played a big part in creating can only damage not just our place in those talks but the entire progress of those crucial endeavours.
I said that I agreed with almost everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, said; where I would differ is her stress on the reason for not voting today—that magical incantation that we are the unelected House. Your Lordships’ House has already had cause to ponder that lack of election does not mean lack of responsibility and that a significant number of the matters increasingly coming before us could best be labelled, in the purest sense, a conscience vote. Perhaps we should look back to what happened with the internal market Bill when, with the leadership of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, this House took a firm stand.
Many of the practical arguments against this Bill have already been powerfully made, but in part I chose to devote a considerable chunk of my week to this debate because I wanted to demonstrate the wide breadth of concern across this House. Many of the speakers with whom I am agreeing in opposing this Bill are not people with whom I have broad, general agreement across a wide range of issues, but the broad view of the House is obvious, and I agree with it.
I also consulted the Green Party Northern Ireland because I think it is important—crucial indeed—that all the communities in Northern Ireland are represented here in your Lordships’ House. Like so many others, it stressed that the Bill amounts to a near-complete unilateral rewrite of what is supposed to be an internationally binding treaty. Article 4 of the withdrawal treaty explicitly prohibits this type of legislation. More, it is clear that the scale of the provisions in the Bill is not necessary and risks making the problem worse. Very directly, what is proposed will create further difficulties for Northern Ireland businesses. The only businesses that will benefit will be GB firms which ship to Northern Ireland. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, made this point very clear.
The only sensible solution to the clear problems with the current arrangements—which, let us not forget, since the Minister referred in his introduction to the democratic deficit, are subject to a consent vote in the Assembly in 2024—is one that is managed through negotiation and mutual agreement. I note that that has been very strongly stated by the Northern Ireland Business Brexit Working Group, which represents, among others: the Dairy Council, the Federation of Small Businesses, Hospitality Ulster, the Institute of Directors, the CBI NI, Logistics UK, Manufacturing NI, the NI Grain Trade Association, the NI Meat Exporters Association, the NI Food and Drink Association, the NI Chamber of Commerce and the NI Retail Consortium. We need negotiation and a negotiated settlement, not this Bill.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I cannot pretend to offer any better ideas than anybody else about how to get Stormont going again but I must say that I sense a change of mood now in this whole situation and some welcome changes too in the wider context of the issue which, even if they are medium term or long term, can feed back positively into the immediate. So while the world drifts dangerously towards nuclear war with Russia and the Chinese carry out extending their sphere of influence and subverting Commonwealth members, among other countries, and while we are, as my noble friend Lord Skidelsky said in a remarkable speech last night in this Chamber, in effect in a war situation, I feel we can at least say that here in the British Isles there is one age-old problem that may just possibly be moving forward on the right lines.
Why do I say that? Let me enumerate some positive aspects, while not denying the negative ones. First, we are seeing distinct signs of a change of tone both in Brussels and in London, and of course in Dublin in recent days. The argument about the protocol—the one that says that one side wants changes in the protocol itself and the other side says it agrees to changes in the way it is administered but cannot open the protocol itself—is a classic diplomats’ dilemma. In the right atmosphere it really ought to be resolvable by our proverbially efficient and effective diplomatic service, with ministerial guidance, of course.
And what exactly creates that atmosphere? Let me start with a rather personalised point. We on this side have a colleague, Steve Baker MP, who is very able but also a renowned hardliner on most things. He is now newly holding the job of Minister of State for Northern Ireland—which happens to be exactly the job that I held 50 years ago. He has discovered, as I did when I went there at the height of the violence, that there are legitimate interests all round which he and others like him had not shown sufficient respect to. He said that it was time to rebuild the UK’s relations with Ireland and make sure that the two countries went forward as “closest partners and friends”.
That tells me that the talks that are about to begin will at least start on the right note, and that, despite all the aggro about the Bill, about which we have heard a considerable amount this afternoon, it is all part of a subtle and delicate negotiating positioning which could succeed. We should be very careful—I do urge my friends and other noble Lords—about barging into and upsetting what is going on. That is why, although there is plenty of room for doubts, I shall support the Bill tonight and the vote that goes with it if we have one, and why I hope that we can be spared any further, sadly misinformed if well intentioned, American advice on this matter.
However, it is in the longer-term developments where I feel the best hope is growing and where wise unionists of any shade should face reality and, if they are skilful, take their opportunities from this situation. As I said, the mood in Dublin is clearly changing. Ireland is a rich and talented neighbour nation that we should now look on with the greatest respect and treat as our major partner in the British Isles—which we have not always done in the past, to put it mildly. Before this protocol drama began, there were even signs that the forward thinking in Dublin was to be associated with the Commonwealth. We had several meetings to that effect in Dublin. Of course, that could also be part of the glue of the future as well.
Today, Ireland is far readier to drop the endless battle about old-style reunification by violence and by claim and think about different and far more constructive kinds of unity between separate communities with two capitals on the island. Issues such as energy and transport—for Ireland is one electricity market—bind both parts together, but there are also legitimate separate and lasting identities which keep them apart. With census results showing that Northern Ireland has more Catholics and Protestants for the first time, and with Sinn Féin majorities on both sides of the border, of course the conversation will change, and we will hear more about border polls. That will have to be faced. I myself bear some responsibility for that, having taken the Northern Ireland (Border Poll) Act 1972 through the House of Commons under the late Willie Whitelaw, which of course was reaffirmed in the 1998 Good Friday agreement and which Ted Heath talked about as
“a system of regular plebiscites.”
The latest survey by LucidTalk in August showed that those wanting reunification remain a clear minority. The clever unionist co-operation with Sinn Féin in Belfast can build on that to give Northern Ireland a permanent, stable and prosperous position in the future, as a constitutional part of our United Kingdom but also a good—a very good—neighbour of the Republic.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, like so many others, I oppose this Bill because it contravenes the rule of law. First, there is this flagrant breach of international law and its serious implications for our global reputation. Others have mentioned our invocation of international law when we are denouncing Putin’s conduct in relation to Ukraine. How can we—as I sought to do last night—condemn China for its conduct towards Hong Kong in breach of the Sino-British agreement, an international treaty, when we are breaking an international treaty ourselves? It is this sort of shocking conduct which I am afraid will do great damage to our reputation around the globe for law and our commitment to it.
The Government claim the defence of necessity. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has very effectively demolished that. There has to be grave and imminent peril, and that is not the situation here, as the history of this Bill relates.
In addition to breaching international law, this legislation also puts at risk other legal obligations. I remind the House that the protocol was designed to do more than protect economic interests; it had a number of objectives, one of which was to protect the Good Friday agreement “in all its dimensions”. The House will remember that concerns about human rights and equality have always been at the heart of the conflict in Northern Ireland, and a lot of work has gone into addressing those problems—I do not have to explain what I am referring to. As a result, we have seen the creation of important legal remedies, as well as institutions such as the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, both of which have expressed concern about this Bill.
Article 2 of the protocol provides that the UK has continuous obligations regarding human rights and equality in Northern Ireland. It provides that there shall be “no diminution of rights”. No diminution means that the people in Northern Ireland had rights before the UK left the European Union and these cannot be reduced as a result of Brexit. Rights can only stay the same or advance; they cannot regress.
As we know, Article 2 does not stand alone. It is supported by and must be interpreted in the light of other provisions of the protocol and the withdrawal agreement. In particular, there is an obligation on the United Kingdom for what is known as dynamic alignment in certain situations. That means keeping Northern Ireland up to date with developments in European Union law. Let me emphasise: protected rights in the Good Friday agreement that are underpinned by EU law may not be diminished as a result of Brexit and have to keep up with EU advances. Article 2 of the protocol gives that overarching guarantee. However, Clause 14 of this Bill provides that Article 13(3) of the protocol, which is on dynamic alignment, is to be disapplied immediately. Clause 20(2) provides that, in proceedings relating to the protocol, a court or tribunal is not to be
“bound by any principles laid down, or any decisions made … by the European Court”.
I am afraid that that does involve a departure. It is important to understand that this Bill ranges more widely than undermining only the trade and customs provisions of the protocol. The Bill presents a real danger to the protection of human rights provisions because of the powers that it gives to Ministers, which are not confined to trade. I remind the House of the law of unintended consequences. It could have serious implications for the citizens of Northern Ireland and their rights. That is yet another reason why this Bill should be abandoned.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I do not want to put the noble Baroness on the spot. However, since she is speaking of rights, does she have any answer made by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, that the protocol itself abridges the democratic rights of the people of Northern Ireland as guaranteed by the UN declaration and the European convention in the making of their own laws?
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, that the Bill is ill-conceived and does not consider the ways in which the overlapping provisions create real difficulties for the democratic rights of the people of Northern Ireland.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak not as an expert on Northern Ireland but simply as a member of the Delegated Powers Committee. I happen to be half Irish, which explains why I am very interested in this Bill, but it is not why I am speaking.
As other noble Lords have said, this is a Bill of exceptional constitutional significance, and yet it is a skeleton Bill that confers on Ministers powers to legislate in the widest possible terms. I cannot improve on the statement in the committee’s report on this Bill that
“The Bill is unprecedented in its cavalier treatment of Parliament, the EU and the Government's international obligations”.
Of course, the most appalling aspect of this is the Government's apparent willingness to breach international law. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, and my noble friend Lord Pannick superbly explained precisely why this Bill is a breach of international law. I would really like the Minister to respond to that point.
This Bill unilaterally disapplies specific areas of the protocol and makes matters far worse by delegating to Ministers powers to disapply further areas of the protocol in UK domestic law. Clause 22(2) is explicit that Ministers can disregard the UK’s international obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol or any other part of the EU withdrawal agreement. The extent of that delegation is quite breathtaking.
As other noble Lords have pointed out, Britain has a proud history as an example to the world of a country which at all times and in all circumstances respects the rule of law. This Bill threatens to undermine that precious reputation. For this reason alone, this House should not proceed to Committee stage on this Bill as it stands.
While recognising that the worst feature of this Bill is its disregard for international law, I will focus my remaining remarks on the extraordinary delegation of powers to Ministers. The fact is that every one of the 19 powers in the Bill allows Ministers to make any provision that they could make under an Act of Parliament, including modifying by regulations the Bill itself once it has become law.
As the Bill stands, Ministers could by regulation impose or increase taxes, create retrospective laws, create serious criminal offences, or amend the Human Rights Act 1998, for example. These are surely extraordinary and unacceptable powers. Whenever a Bill seeks to achieve any of those objectives by delegated powers, the Delegated Powers Committee pulls them up and draws attention to it. However, the wholesale nature of the matters in this Bill is completely unprecedented.
In their memorandum on the Bill, the Government frequently refer to powers being exercised to make “technical and detailed” provision that is best suited to regulations. However, to suggest that powers are just technical or detailed when they unilaterally depart from a major international agreement in a highly controversial area of law is outrageous. I hope the Minister feels able to comment on this aspect of the Government’s memorandum.
I could go on, but I have said sufficient to explain why I will support any Motion which seeks to defer consideration of this Bill to allow time for the Government to continue negotiating with the EU to resolve all remaining issues arising from the protocol. Very relevant here is the fact that Northern Ireland industry representatives are generally satisfied with the protocol if the relatively limited remaining issues can be resolved by negotiation. The southern Ireland Government have also indicated that they regard the outstanding issues as manageable through negotiation. The Minister made clear that the Government’s preferred way forward is through negotiation. For the sake of the reputation of this country and out of respect for the supremacy of Parliament, I plead with the Government to withdraw the Bill.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the Bill. As a former Member of the European Parliament—
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, to clarify, there has been a bit of a swap. It is the turn for the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson. We will then hear from the noble Lord, Lord Triesman.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the Bill. As a former Member of the European Parliament and a current member of the UK-EU Parliament Partnership Assembly, I recognise fully the vast amount of work that the European Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament—let alone those in Belfast, Dublin, Westminster and Whitehall—have put in to produce the protocol as it stands originally. I recognise the dismay at any alteration, which was fully expressed, faithfully received and partially explored in the first recent plenary of the newly created UK-EU Parliament Partnership Assembly, itself a satisfactory Brexit creation.
Yet despite these important views, I believe strongly that today’s Bill is not just important but in fact essential, and I question why, when by careful negotiation we enabled a workable, indeed, a sound solution for Gibraltar, we failed so profoundly to care for the UK citizens of Northern Ireland. This was indeed a political failure and one of such profundity that it demands the immediate and urgent reparation that today’s Bill offers.
I worked successfully on many pieces of legislation in Brussels and Strasbourg with our Irish parliamentary colleagues. I know of the deep and continuing relationship that our two nations enjoy. I was in Dublin, by coincidence, when the Anglo Irish Bank collapsed. I saw at once the immediate action of the Bank of England to save the currency. I saw too the magnificent way in which successive Irish Governments handled the EC structural funds. Indeed, I applaud the leading role that Ireland has played in demonstrating to many other member states how structural funds can be correctly and properly used, with benefits for their whole populations.
Yet despite these splendid things and powerful, historical ties, I know too that Ireland cannot afford to embrace Northern Ireland—I believe that it is now €1.2 billion—and that Northern Ireland is and will remain an integral part of the UK. I say that as one who has three great-grandfathers who, in both Houses, voted against the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland in an attempt to keep Ireland all together in 1869. Our respect for Northern Ireland is complete, but in the haste of Brexit we agreed a wrong piece of legislation with major, negative results for a part of the United Kingdom.
Today’s Bill, unamended by the other place, should go straight through in your Lordships’ House as well. Indeed, we will recall that Lord Salisbury declared more or less 150 years ago in 1869 that decisions made in the Commons are based on the will of the country and that they should not be overturned in the House of Lords. I support that view, which is exactly what my noble friend Lord Forsyth said and is perhaps the argument against my noble friend Lord Cormack.
Many of us recall the awfulness of the civil war. Brighton was just the tip of the continually erupting volcano, which took life, limb, safety and happiness from so many before the blessed Good Friday agreement. We should not look back but go forward. I remind Ministers that continuous referral to Parliament for the widest of powers that they are granted in this Bill will restore confidence in the EU that we here serve the people and that, as a Parliament, we are omnicompetent and committed entirely to turning back a wrong step if we take it. I support the Bill unhesitatingly.
Lord Triesman (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Howard and Lord Pannick, for providing us with an unanswerable case that this is a breach of international law. Many of us will want no part in a breach of international law. It is an unmoveable bedrock of what we do.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, provided a serious agenda for what can and should take place in the negotiations, which I also hope will be successful. But I have tried to reflect—particularly as I thought I would be following the noble Lord, Lord Frost—on what negotiators from the Foreign Office do when they set about the business of negotiating. One of the first things you do is think about what tools are available to you. For the most part, you cannot send a gunboat or threaten people with God-alone-knows-what. You have to go and argue on the basis of pragmatism, honesty and the expectation that you will keep your word and try to find something that is a suitable balance.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said that we should not be obsessed with history. One of the first things that happens in any negotiation is that you think about what has gone before, because if you have not understood that you have a pitiful chance of analysing what might bring the contending parties together. He was advocating negotiations between four year-olds who go into a room and shout at each other.
My noble friend Lord Murphy made the absolutely right point that all such negotiations tend to end in a compromise, which is why I hope the next negotiations will be successful. Revisiting all the issues will unquestionably take time; it was not an accident that they took time in the last iteration. They may involve the same parties, who may make it difficult, and they will unquestionably end in another compromise, because that is what happens in any negotiation. If you go in with the same tools—good faith, pragmatism and, critically, your honesty, your word being your greatest and maybe your only real asset, and recognising that the rule of law is fundamental—then you have some chance of producing a new agreement and a new compromise, and compromise is what it is.
The rule of law is important for all of us in another way. We are a country that depends on inward investment, which is attracted because people believe that we have a satisfactory rule of law. That is not on the big occasions but on every occasion when you want things to be litigated by honest and trustworthy people.
I agree with much of what has been said, not least by my noble friend Lady Chapman about the subsections, because those are also critical. However, I conclude with a point that I know will cause offence, but I am from north Tottenham and I do not mind trying to say things as I see them. It is astonishing that the Minister should have argued that it is the breakdown of the arrangements in the Parliament of Northern Ireland, in the power-sharing agreement, that has produced the peril that we apparently now face. Who is refusing to take part in power-sharing in Northern Ireland? It is arguably the most extreme right-wing party anywhere in the United Kingdom, the DUP—members of that party will not like it, but I am afraid that is my view of who and what they are. They have decided that they will not take part and that the efforts that could be made across health, education and other areas should not proceed. That is a dreadful and scandalous thing to do. I say that straightforwardly. I would never have contemplated doing anything like it.
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, has been welcomed back, and I welcome him—up to a point. That point is this. He is a Foreign Office Minister, and he will go out and negotiate again in the wider world. People will ask the question, as they always should of all of us: is his word to be respected? Is he capable of going back on fundamental promises that have been made? I appeal to him, because I like him, not to lose his reputation recklessly, because he is in danger of doing so.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, on 9 November 2019, Boris Johnson stated categorically about his oven-ready EU deal and the protocol:
“There will be no forms, no checks … You will have unfettered access.”
I was covering the Northern Ireland brief for these Benches at that time and I was astonished. I knew that the protocol meant that checks would be needed, and I knew that the Government and the Prime Minister knew. I immediately checked the government website and there it was in black and white: information as to what customs and excise rules would apply, where to find online forms from HMRC, and advice as to whether the extra processing would require the appointment of agents or recruitment of extra staff. That was on that same day that Boris Johnson made that assertion.
It was starkly clear that “Get Brexit Done” was a great electoral slogan for a weary electorate, but at its heart it was, and is, a deliberate deception. Yes, we are no longer a member of the EU, but we are trapped in no man’s land. It was always clear that the border arrangements guaranteed by the Good Friday agreement would be prejudiced by Brexit. Indeed, the Good Friday agreement was predicated on continued UK membership of the EU.
Within the EU, for most practical purposes, the island of Ireland was united with free trade, joint services and an open border. The protocol secures the open border by requiring Northern Ireland to operate within the rules of the EU but, inevitably, with the rest of the UK operating outside the EU, goods travelling between GB and Northern Ireland need to be contained within Northern Ireland and the UK, or to be identified as moving into the EU. This inevitably requires checks. The issue cannot therefore be unfettered access but, through negotiation and a combination of trust and technology, to allow movement and trade with the minimum of cost and bureaucracy.
It appears that some of the ideas behind this Bill point in that direction, but the mood music of hostility and belligerence of recent years has left little room. Like others, I welcome the change of tone in recent days, but if it is just a softening-up for a deal without substantive movement, I doubt it will succeed.
It has been suggested that Brexit was a simple solution by simple people to address a complex problem. In a post-pandemic economy, with soaring inflation and the costs of a European war, to choose to erect significant trade barriers with our principal local market is a self-inflicted harm. Now is surely the time for a little humility from those who led us down this route.
I accept that, currently, there is little appetite to reverse Brexit, although the advantages are minimal and the downside is huge. But there is an expectation of constructive, non-confrontational engagement with our friends and allies—because that is what they are—in the EU to reduce friction, ease trade in goods and services and rebuild trust. The Brexit vote was narrow. Nearly half of those who voted wanted continued membership of the EU. They are surely entitled to expect constructive and friendly relations and practical engagement, especially in Northern Ireland and Scotland where clear majorities voted to remain. This should lead to full participation in Horizon and revisiting Erasmus, which Turing does not come close to in money or practice. It must ensure arrangements to allow for as free access as possible for our creative industries and professional services. This will fall short of the arrangement we enjoyed within the EU, but surely can be better than the current impasse.
We have just witnessed the SNP conference in my home city of Aberdeen. Just as those who campaigned to leave the EU decried everything about the EU and Europe as a justification for their argument, so the SNP loses no opportunity to demonise everything British. Only by leaving the UK, it claims, can Scotland flourish—while being in complete denial of its abysmal failure in every single aspect of its governance of Scotland.
It is abundantly clear that Brexiteers had no clue as to how to move the UK to a better future outside the EU. This is confirmed by the report of our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It looks like the biggest abuse of executive power since the UK became a constitutional monarchy. The Government want sweeping powers without any indication of how they would use them. So, either they have a comprehensive plan which they do not wish Parliament to see, delete, debate or amend, or they have not the slightest idea of what they are doing—or probably both. That should be a clear warning that to trust Scotland’s destiny to the independence-obsessed and incompetent SNP would be an existential risk. But this Bill will do nothing for the UK’s economy, the unity of the United Kingdom or our standing in the world, and it should be abandoned.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I find the Bill rather shocking, and I fear that we have to stand up and be counted and send it back to the other place. I find it shocking in four distinct ways. First, there is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howard. The protocol is an integral part of the withdrawal treaty. I share a lot of the distaste that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, expressed for the protocol. I think that the democratic deficit point is real. But it is an integral part of a treaty that the noble Lord’s Prime Minister negotiated and signed, which was commended to this House and the other House and which we voted for and ratified—and this country does not break treaties it signs: pacta sunt servanda. It has been demonstrated by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Howard, that the doctrine of necessity simply does not apply in this case. Ours is an honourable country, which means that we cannot, in my view, approve the Bill.
Secondly, it is a power grab by the Executive. This point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. It is astonishing to see our Delegated Powers Committee pointing out that the power grab is
“unprecedented in its cavalier treatment of Parliament”.
As the noble Baroness said, the Bill allows Ministers to do by regulation anything that normally could be done by an Act of Parliament, including amending provisions that have been enacted. That is autocracy. That is not a parliamentary system.
Thirdly, it is an act of self-harm. The withdrawal treaty is the foundation on which the trade and co-operation treaty is built. I do not see how the 27 could continue to allow us the TCA’s duty-free access to their market if we had broken our word and torn up the foundation treaty. I applaud the Prime Minister’s rapprochement with President Macron in Prague, but the Bill would destroy any chance of building grown-up relationships with our neighbours in continental Europe. The EU has held off so far, but it would have to say “See you in court” and it would have to take retaliatory measures—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts.
Fourthly, the noble Lord, Lord Browne, argued that having the Bill’s provisions on the statute book would strengthen our hand in the current negotiations with the EU—and I am very glad that the negotiations have at last restarted. It is argued that having the gun on the table will concentrate EU minds. I am afraid there are two fatal flaws in that argument. First, the EU would resent and resist being blackmailed. It would have to, if only for reasons of precedent. Secondly, the gun is at our head. If it goes off, it is we who suffer.
What about Northern Ireland? This Bill would seriously damage Northern Ireland if our Government were to use the powers it confers on them. Northern Ireland would be out of the single market and all-Ireland links would be broken. As the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said, business in Northern Ireland really wants an end to the current uncertainty. That is the most important thing for business in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland does not want the end of the protocol. Northern Ireland wants the end of uncertainty.
So each of these four facts seems to me to be sufficient to require us to ask the other place to think again. Cumulatively, the case is overwhelming. We have to stand up and be counted.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, as the Minister indicated earlier, we are debating this Bill against a backdrop of political instability in Northern Ireland, due in no small part to the European Union’s intransigence over the Northern Ireland protocol and, regrettably, an inability, so far, to find a workable solution to the issue. Many in this House will remember opposition to the protocol, and from the very beginning we said it would be bad for Northern Ireland, simply would not work and would be a direct threat to the long-term political and economic stability of Northern Ireland.
The Northern Ireland protocol is not only an economic barrier in terms of trade in parts of this sovereign nation; it is a barrier to consensus and devolved government in Northern Ireland. As a party, we are committed devolutionists and I assure the House that we want to see the Stormont institutions up and running. The sooner this issue is dealt with, the sooner an Executive can get back and the Assembly can function properly once more.
The first priority of your Lordships’ House and the other House, and of any United Kingdom Government, must be the protection and integrity of this United Kingdom and its people. The Bill before the House offers a framework to deal with the real problems that the protocol has created in Northern Ireland for some time. If enacted, the Bill has the potential to provide a solution that will restore the rights of the people of Northern Ireland, as British citizens, to trade freely with the rest of this nation under Article 6 of the Act of Union.
The Bill before us is also essential to protect the integrity of the United Kingdom market and the constitutional integrity of this nation. Such uncertainty and disruption are unnecessary. They are problematic in the long term and potentially bring into question the very future of the institutions that so many claim they understand, respect and hold dear.
In this Bill, I believe, we have a workable solution available to us to address the serious issues now. Fundamentally, the Bill is about addressing the consensus that has created political instability in Northern Ireland. To dismiss the Bill before your Lordships’ House or to change it drastically would be to dismiss the consensus that formed the foundations for a durable Government in Northern Ireland. By supporting the Bill, we will go some way to ensuring that Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom is finally restored. We will also go some way to protecting the delicate politics of consensus in Northern Ireland.
I believe that the Bill is the only route to restoring constitutional balance as well as eliminating the trade barriers created by the protocol, and the only path to stable and sustainable government in Northern Ireland. Much of what will happen in the coming period in Northern Ireland will be shaped by the attitudes and decisions taken by this House and the other place. We are supporting the Bill.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, by far the most important reason for opposing this Bill is the fact that it is a clear breach of international law and gives Ministers powers to free themselves from parliamentary supervision in future, on an unprecedented scale. This has already been eloquently and authoritatively set out by many speakers, so I do not propose to dwell on it. I agree entirely with everything that everybody from my noble friend Lord Cormack onwards has said on that subject, and I think it would be a great blow if we were to pass legislation of this kind.
I thought in the 1990s and the 2000s—that more optimistic time—that one of the greatest things happening across the globe was the development of a rules-based international order, which gave us all great hope that we should have a more peaceful future. I never imagined that the United Kingdom would contemplate defying the rule of law—moving away from the basis of international order in a treaty with its closest allies and friends—in the way now being contemplated, but there we are. As I said, many Members of this House have eloquently set out that case, and I am sure many Members of the Government are secretly, privately, very worried about their being party to this.
Moving on to the actual politics of it, remember how we got here. The policy now being put forward is not that of a Conservative Government, unless the new Government are a total reversal of their predecessor. Boris Johnson was very proud of the agreement he reached after it was negotiated by the noble Lord, Lord Frost. There were long negotiations and no doubt about what had been negotiated. They had found a solution to the Irish problem caused by the Good Friday agreement and the fact that you cannot safely have controls on the border—something rightly sacrosanct to both the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom Government. They came up with this marvellous remedy that Northern Ireland would remain in the single market and the customs barriers that would inevitably follow from our withdrawal would be, first, along the English Channel between Dover and the continent, and then down the Irish Sea, with the Northern Irish having the advantage to many parts of its economy of being able to remain in the single market.
That was the policy; it should be the policy still. The part that changed was changed by the policy of the Democratic Unionists. They are the authors of this Bill, as already very eloquently expressed in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and his colleagues. They demanded the pistol. Theirs is the finger on the trigger because they used it as the basis for not joining a power-sharing Executive in Northern Ireland, causing the crisis. Boris Johnson immediately started changing his position once this happened. Within a week or two, he was making statements about what he had just signed—which were plainly incompatible with the policy contained in what he had just signed. From then on, so long as the Democratic Unionists would not join the power-sharing Executive, we have gone on and on until the stage we have reached now.
I do not doubt the Democratic Unionists’ sincerity on the symbolism of a customs border down the Irish Sea; they have always been consistent. But I think there is another reason behind the DUP’s position: the party has just done badly in Ulster elections and is using the Northern Ireland protocol as its explanation, as it would say—excuse, I would say—for not joining a Northern Irish Executive under Sinn Féin leadership. Sinn Féin should be entitled to the First Minister’s position. They are all nodding away at me. They still hold that pistol and the Government—
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way since he has made a direct accusation. I reassure him and the House that the Democratic Unionist Party would have no difficulty in re-entering the Executive with a Sinn Féin First Minister. We do not like that outcome but we will do that if the protocol is sorted out, so let us not go down a blind alley or a false argument as far as that is concerned.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
I am extremely reassured to hear that but it is still “if the protocol is sorted out”. Who will decide whether the protocol is going to be sorted out? Who will determine the negotiating position of British Ministers in their discussions with the European Union? It will be the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and his Democratic Unionist colleagues. The British Government will not—and, given the policy now, cannot—sign up to anything unless the Democratic Unionists agree because they will not achieve their aim of getting back to power-sharing. This is an impossible position.
We should have had a softer Brexit, but the hard Brexiteers took over. We should have stayed at least in the customs union, but that is now water under the bridge. The fact that we have come out is causing difficulties at Dover as much as it is in Belfast; it is causing damage to the United Kingdom economy just as it is to sections of the Northern Ireland economy—although some are lucky enough still to be in the single market and benefit from that. The only way out, as everybody has said, is sensible negotiations, but negotiations on the British Government’s own terms. They should get the DUP onside if they can, but we cannot allow the whole thing to be dictated by the sincere opinions of the Democratic Unionist Party, as it has been so far to get us to this position.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I support the Bill. I speak as a remain voter, a strong supporter of the Good Friday agreement—I supported it when it was not quite so fashionable as it seems to have become—and a civil rights marcher.
However, I support the Bill and I shall explain my first reason. There is an international treaty, and under Article 1, paragraph 5 of that treaty, the Good Friday agreement, which is lodged at the United Nations, a sovereign Government have the responsibility to deal with the alienation of one or other community. A few weeks ago, because of the effect on the aspirations of the nationalist community, we passed the Irish language Bill in this House in the spirit of that international treaty. The Bill today is designed to reach out to the unionist community, which is alienated on the subject of the protocol, and is designed to offer some comfort.
Mode of address is everything in politics; it is very important to say that. I have never felt more Irish than when listening to this debate today. The Irish expression “The day that’s in it” came to mind; to give your Lordships the English translation, “Timing is everything in politics”. There is talk of suspending the Bill for six months. Obviously, I listen more to the Irish media than other Members of this House, but when the Taoiseach says the negotiation now going on is in good faith and the Foreign Minister says the Bill is not an issue causing blockage, the only effect will be to disrupt the attempt to mollify the alienation of the unionist community on this issue, but we are committed under an international agreement to act just as we did with the Irish language Act a few weeks ago. That would be the only effect of a delay. These negotiations are well ahead. It might conceivably have been argued that the negotiations would be affected in a bad way, but there is absolutely no such effect. It is important to say that.
The noble Lord, Lord Howard, raised the issue of Article 16. The truth is that at this moment—again, “The day that’s in it”—it would be ridiculous. These negotiations were started at various times. Eminent international lawyers have said the Government’s approach needs Article 16. The Government’s approach is basically right to protect the Good Friday agreement, but you have to explore all routes, and Article 16 may yet return, but at this moment it would be absurd. It would cause irritation in Dublin. Timing is everything in politics, if I may say so.
I turn to illegality: pacta sunt servanda. There is more than one treaty involved. I have already tried to explain this. In fact, there are three international treaties, including the 2017 joint agreement—which, by the way, talks about unfettered access, which apparently we are not allowed to expect but is in that international agreement.
The point about the 2017 agreement, as the Irish lead official Rory Montgomery has said, is that basically the Irish Government were ceded by the British Government sole control of the Good Friday agreement. It is a two-sided agreement; not only that, but as a sovereign Government we have more responsibilities than the Irish Government. That set the template for the difficulties in all the subsequent agreements that we are now trying to resolve. It is how we got into this place and we are now trying to sort it out. It is messy, but the negotiations are now in play. The Bill was launched in June and passed in the House of Commons, and the EU has not said, “Oh my God, this is so brutal, we can’t talk”. I am not saying we are talking because of the Bill—although I know plenty of people who believe that—but I am certain that you cannot argue that the Bill is preventing this negotiation. That is how it is going to be resolved.
In conclusion, I want to say a word about international agreements. On 12 March 2019 the Brexit Secretary—with, he said, the sanction of the Attorney-General—said the Good Friday agreement was the prior agreement. In the event of subsequent agreements being in conflict with that agreement, the UK reserved the right to resile, under the Vienna convention, from the Good Friday agreement. That may be bad law, but it was that Attorney-General in the May Government. Nobody actually knows what international law is on this, to be absolutely honest; I do not want to be too brutal about it, but nobody does know. I am simply saying that the argument in play now is exactly the original argument. For some time now, three years or more, the UK Government have been saying, “We have two treaties to work with here and the Good Friday agreement is important to us”. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Jay, that the east-west dimension of that agreement is not working under the protocol and therefore we have a problem. So the UK Government’s position is, at least in that limited sense, a consistent argument.
As I keep repeating, under that protocol the UK Government have special responsibilities, which the Irish Government do not, to address the alienation of communities. I could accept the argument that some of the Bill is a bit cack-handed or not to everybody’s taste, but the fact that the Government are making a separate, desperate effort to address the alienation of one community is entirely within the logic of their international obligations. It must be understood that the treaty is in the United Nations and has no other possible meaning.
I have a few words for those in the Democratic Unionist Party. I understand that they feel that a lot of civilised opinion among the commentariat in Northern Ireland is willing them to fail, and I totally accept the good-faith remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, today. For example, in the few days before the Bill was introduced, the commentariat said it was never going to happen—but nobody then apologised in the collective wisdom of Northern Ireland. I understand the irritation with all that, but it is the case that on 27 June the DUP explicitly stated in the House that in the event that the Bill passed the Commons on its Second Reading, there would be moves towards the return of devolution. No such moves have happened. This is the vulnerability, and it is why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, is able to raise the issue of good faith. Ultimately, I accept that good faith—but no such move has happened.
The consequence is that we are likely to be moving towards an agreement between the EU and this country, and those in the DUP will be excluded from the terms of it. They will just be the passive recipients of whatever comes down the line and they will lose the place that they rightly hold—Northern Ireland, by the way, is a co-premiership—under the recent election results in the institutions of Stormont. It is time to think again about moving. I know there are all kinds of issues, but it is time to think again about moving because the centrist vision that their leader is now putting forward cannot be achieved if there is a bitter and resentful election, which is extremely likely to follow if we do not move quickly.
Lord Lilley (Con)
It is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bew, who has made the important point—strangely ignored by all the lawyers who have spoken so far—that we are subject to conflicting international agreements that cannot be reconciled without breaking, in part, some of them.
We all agree that there should be no infrastructure or checks at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Why? Not just because they would disrupt trade but because they would be a provocation to republicans and would probably be blown up, threatening the whole peace process. By the same token, we should all agree that there should be no border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It disrupts a far larger volume of trade and, as we have seen, it is provocative to unionists and is gravely undermining the Belfast agreement. As it happens, Article 6.2 of the protocol commits both parties to avoid infrastructure at the ports and airports of Northern Ireland to the extent possible—but the EU ignored that and actually invoked legal procedures to require the introduction and building of checkpoints at Northern Ireland ports.
The EU’s only legitimate interest in the protocol is to protect its internal market. At present, the threat to its market is imaginary, and in the future any threat would only come from third-country goods which incur a lower tariff to enter the UK than the EU tariff, from goods, if any, which are subject to lower standards in the UK market than are required under EU law, and a minority of those two groups of goods which are actually destined for the Republic. If this Bill provides an equal, or possibly greater, protection against these pretty minor threats, the EU has no pragmatic reason to insist on retaining the complex procedures envisaged under the protocol. Moreover, under Article 24 of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement, to which all EU states adhere,
“where two or more alternative measures are reasonably available for fulfilling the policy objective”,
the least trade restrictive measure must be taken—an obligation which the EU is in fragrant breach of.
But some in the EU have an illegitimate reason for hanging on to the protocol, which is to make sure that Britain suffers for Brexit. That raises the question: can we lawfully, unilaterally, replace the Northern Ireland protocol by other measures which meet the EU’s legitimate objectives, avoid a hard border and protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement? I believe we can do so.
First, the sole justification for the protocol was to uphold the Belfast agreement. As the former Lord Chancellor pointed out, the very first article of the protocol says:
“This Protocol is without prejudice to the provisions of the 1998 Agreement”.
So, as he said, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement takes precedence over the protocol. The UK, as guarantor of the Belfast agreement, has not just a right but a duty to ensure that, where the protocol threatens the Good Friday agreement, it is changed—preferably by agreement, but if not, otherwise—as envisaged in Article 13 of the protocol.
Secondly, the protocol is intrinsically temporary; the EU itself said so. It said that no permanent agreement with a member state can be reached under Article 50 —only temporary and transitional relationships. That is why we had to leave first before we could negotiate the permanent trade and co-operation agreement. The then Solicitor-General told Parliament:
“article 50 of the Treaty on European Union does not provide a legal basis in Union law for permanent future arrangements with non-member states.”—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/18; col. 547.]
So, he went on, if someone were to mount a challenge to the protocol on the basis that the EU said that Article 50 is not a sound basis for a permanent agreement,
“I tell you frankly, Mr Speaker, they are likely to win”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/18; col. 555.]
That was pretty emphatic advice from a lawyer. If the EU now repudiate that doctrine, then the protocol was negotiated in bad faith, which itself is grounds for us to replace it.
The reason the protocol is undermining the Belfast agreement is that it lacks the consent of the unionist community, who see it as undermining the Act of Union itself. Indeed, the court in Northern Ireland has ruled that the protocol “subjugates” the Act of Union.
What should a state do if it finds that its obligations under one treaty conflict with those under another treaty or with its own constitutional law? Let me answer that question in the words of the European Court of Justice in the Kadi case. The court affirmed that,
“although the Court takes great care to respect the obligations that are incumbent on the Community by virtue of international law, it seeks, first and foremost, to preserve the constitutional framework … it would be wrong to conclude that, once the Community is bound by a rule of international law, the Community Courts must bow to that rule with complete acquiescence and apply it unconditionally”—
what is right for the EU is surely right for the UK too.
In short, we have a right and a duty to replace this protocol—preferably by agreement; if not, unilaterally—under EU law because it is temporary, under the EU’s own doctrine that international obligations must be subordinated to supreme constitutional laws by the Act of Union, under the protocol itself which says that the Belfast agreement takes precedence over the protocol, and under the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement, of which the EU is in breach. So I support this Bill.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I am a simple soul, and the argument put forward by the last few very eminent speakers is not one which persuades me. The reason that persuades me that this is a bad Bill which should never become law is that it will not only allow Ministers excessive powers—which have not yet been defended by anyone so far, so I look forward to what the Minister has to say about that—but also put us at serious risk of breaking the rule of law. And it is that, as a simple lawyer a long way back, that concerns me, and I have not heard an argument yet that says that that is a wrong argument.
Of course the other parts of the Bill are astonishing—the Henry VIII powers I have mentioned and the potential effects on human rights too—but, as far as the rule of law is concerned, I remind the House that this is the second time in less than six months that the Government have sought such powers. Noble Lords will remember perhaps how this House resisted on a number of occasions earlier this year that part of the Nationality and Borders Bill which also represented a breach of our obligations under the very well-established refugee convention to which we have always been signatories, and this too was an attack on the rule of law. At length, the Government got their way and the offending clause stayed in the Bill, which is now—shamefully, I would argue—an Act of Parliament. But as my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti said, as she moved for the last time her amendment, if the House of Lords does not defend the rule of law, what are we for? I think that issue arises again today.
And now we have been asked to do it again. The Government claim necessity in law, and the arguments that we have already heard in this debate have shattered that proposition in this particular case. Has there been enough thought, or any thought, by the Government of the difficulty to the reputation of our country and what it stands for, and has done for a long, long time? Does it matter to the Government that other countries will already be reluctant to take our word on anything if we can so callously breach obligations? Why should they listen to a word that we say?
Of course, we all hope for an agreement in the current negotiations, but to me it is essential that we must be firm: we must as a House tell His Majesty’s Government that this Bill is unacceptable. I want to quote—and I have warned him that I am going to—from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, who said on the occasion that I was just referring to, when that last Bill became an Act of Parliament:
“There are not many issues that it is worth going to the stake for, but surely the rule of law is one.”—[Official Report, 27/4/22; col. 299.]
Sometimes we just have to say no.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, yesterday much of the debate in this Chamber concerned the havoc in the markets caused by the Government’s mini-Budget. Confidence in the UK’s financial stability has been badly shaken. The cost is huge for ordinary people in this country with mortgages, and the rest of us will all be paying. But this morning the rout continued: the Bank of England had to wade in again to try and restore a degree of confidence.
Imagine how that loss of confidence in the UK would be compounded if we were to unilaterally tear up an international treaty. Now, it may be, as the noble Lord, Lord Bew, suggests, that international law is not always very clear, but when the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, all see things from the same point of view, I tend to think that they might be right. If this Government so clearly state that the UK’s word is no longer its bond, then what does it mean for the value of our bonds, which are already being trashed?
There is so much to detest about the Bill, not just its contempt for international law. This afternoon, we have heard from so many Members about why it is at risk of breaching international law and is about to breach so many of the rights of Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said that the Bill was about restoring democracy but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, pointed out, the Bill gives so much power to the Executive and shows such little respect for Parliament that it is an insult to democracy. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, pointed out that it is seen as pushing Henry VIII powers further than they have ever been pushed before.
The protocol is not perfect but the threat to impoverish the UK and Ireland, north and south, that we would sustain if we went ahead with the Bill would be appalling. Trade between these countries has flourished post pandemic. For the first seven months of 2022, imports of goods from Northern Ireland to Ireland are actually running 93% higher than in 2019. As the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, pointed out, what Northern Ireland has is the possibility of the best of both worlds. If we can get a negotiated solution to the problems with the protocol, Northern Ireland is the winner.
The Bill not only jeopardises that but contains provisions which are simply not workable. The proposed dual regulation route for regulated goods is deemed a killer by those in agribusiness, in particular; they simply could not cope. As the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said, dual regulation would decimate the Northern Ireland dairy industry. According to the British Irish Chamber of Commerce, the bureaucracy involved would be increased to unmanageable levels.
It is really encouraging that technical negotiations have resumed between the EU and the UK; it is in the interests of both to sort this out. That should be possible; the EU already has veterinary agreements, for instance, with New Zealand and Switzerland. Why not the UK? That would enable Northern Ireland to continue trading without the onerous bureaucracy. The Specialised Committee on the Protocol is already mandated to address any issues with implementing the protocol. If its powers were strengthened, it would be able to respond effectively to the problems perceived by business and provide speedy solutions to smooth cross-border trade, while showing respect for the EU single market.
This may look like a fudge, but fudge is the only way to solve what was always the core problem of Brexit: how to have a border without a border—impossible, so fudge it. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, whose name is on the speakers’ list, is not here this afternoon. I was hoping he would be able to tell us why he supports the Bill when it was only on Christmas Eve 2020 that he tweeted:
“I’m very pleased and proud to have led a great UK team to secure today’s excellent deal with the EU.”
It was not a great deal but, having agreed to it, it is now incumbent upon our Government to make the best of it and not further damage our international reputation.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I was really fascinated when I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Bew, asserting that no one really understands international law. I noticed that there was no challenge when he said that. The noble Lord is someone for whom I have a high regard and high respect. He does not always agree with me and I certainly do not always agree with him, but that does not diminish my respect for him in any way.
When this Bill was in another place, the right honourable Hilary Benn MP said:
“Let us not forget that Northern Ireland is in a unique and favourable position compared with my constituents, precisely because it has access to both the market of the United Kingdom and the market of the European Union”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/7/21; col. 1014.]
The more I have thought about his comment, the more troubled I have become, and the more I wonder whether Mr Benn and those making similar assertions have really thought through the full implication of their position. I do not accept for one moment that the protocol is an economic benefit—in a five-minute speech, it will not be possible to go through all that—but to humour Mr Benn, let us assume for a moment that he is right.
What is the effect of encouraging the people of Northern Ireland to be reconciled to sacrificing their vote as it relates to 300 areas of the lawmaking to which they are subject in return for economic gain? The dignity of our politics is based on the fact that people are ends in themselves, not means to an end. The idea that the guarantee of our equal value—our equal citizenship—can be appropriately traded to any degree as a means of becoming rich is about the most disturbing thing I have ever encountered in all my political life, which now extends to about 50 years. It amounts to encouraging us to sell our political souls for economic gain. That we in this Parliament should be brought so low when we regard our historic commitment to political freedom and democracy is, to say the very least, shameful.
I could quote any number of our great political thinkers to illustrate this point but lest anyone suggest I am too parochial, the importance of keeping friendly with France has already been mentioned here today. I will thus quote a French person by the name of Montesquieu, whose celebrated The Spirit of the Laws AJ Carlyle summarised thus: that in a free state every man and woman who is considered to have a free spirit should be governed by himself, or herself, and therefore the people as a body should have the legislative power but as this is impracticable, the people must act through their representatives, chosen by local election.
The right to participate in your Government, rather than being a passive recipient, is of course also provided for by international law—whoever understands that. The right to political participation can be found in provisions such as Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:
“Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his”
or her
“country, directly or through freely chosen representatives … Everyone has the right of equal access to public service”
in their country. The people of Northern Ireland have lost their ability to take part in the government of their country in relation to some 300 areas of law. They can no longer stand for election to become legislators and make laws in these areas or elect a legislator to represent them in this task because, under the Brexit arrangements, these laws are now made for Northern Ireland by the EU—a polity of which it is not a part and in whose Parliament it consequently has no representation whatever.
In Northern Ireland, of course, these points are greatly compounded by the additional protections of the Good Friday or Belfast agreement, which sets out
“the right to pursue democratically national and political aspirations”.
This additional protection for the integrity of the vote in Northern Ireland reflects our troubled history, where sadly in the past some have been persuaded to trade the ballot box for the bomb, and the need to ensure that the value of democratic engagement is never demeaned or eroded.
Furthermore, the hands of the UK Government are prevented from acquiescing with the erosion of the value of the vote by reallocating the making of their laws in some 300 areas to a polity of which it is not a part and in which it has no representation at all, courtesy of Article 2 of the protocol, which states:
“The United Kingdom shall ensure that no diminution of rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity, as set out in that part of the 1998 Agreement entitled Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity results from its withdrawal from the Union”.
The meaning is clear. There can be no diminution of the rights of people in Northern Ireland to pursue democratically national and political aspirations from the 1998 level that the Good Friday agreement protects. Yet every time legislation is placed on Northern Ireland by the EU legislature, in which Northern Ireland is not represented, the Good Friday agreement is violated. That surely should concern us all, not least those who are strong advocates for the Good Friday agreement.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I rise to express my opposition to the Bill. I am opposed to it both in principle and in detail. Because other noble Lords have developed the arguments, I will confine myself to a summary of my views.
First, I believe that the Bill is a serious breach of our treaty obligations. It will do great damage to our international reputation and thus to our interests. I do not believe that the doctrine of necessity has any application to the present situation. The reasons were eloquently expressed by my noble friend Lord Howard and, incidentally, by Mrs Theresa May at Second Reading in the House of Commons. It should therefore be noted that two former leaders of my party are against the Bill.
We are dealing with treaty obligations entered into very recently, in a treaty that, as most people—other than the then Prime Minister, apparently—correctly understood, created restrictions on trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Such restrictions are the direct consequence of the hard Brexit favoured by present Ministers. To renounce obligations voluntarily undertaken, in full knowledge of their significance, is a serious breach of faith and an act unworthy of this country. A reputation for probity, once lost, is very hard to regain.
Secondly, the Bill confers on Ministers numerous powers to do by secondary legislation what should be done by primary legislation. It enables Ministers to abrogate most of the most important articles of the protocol without any effective parliamentary process. All the regulations will be unamendable, and most will be subject only to the negative procedure. The House should perhaps note that our Delegated Powers Committee recommended that 12 clauses or subsections should be removed from the Bill.
Thirdly, the Bill defies the majority opinion in Northern Ireland. Most Assembly Members, and the public, if the polls are correct, favour the retention of the protocol, albeit modified. The DUP should realise that a failure to compromise on its part will imperil political stability in Northern Ireland and damage the wider interests of the United Kingdom. For that, it will be directly responsible—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Triesman. Being part of the union involves obligations as well as rights. Moreover, the House should note, from the speech of Sir Jeffrey Donaldson at Second Reading, that enactment of the Bill will not by itself lead to the restoration of the local institutions.
Fourthly, the passage of the Bill could trigger some form of trade war with the European Union, our biggest, nearest and most important partner. In the context of the present political and economic difficulties, this would be an act of extraordinary folly.
Fifthly, I treat with the greatest caution the judgment and underlying views of the leading advocates of the Bill. Most of them either were advocates of Brexit or have since advocated an exceptionally hard form of Brexit. These policies have done, are doing and will continue to do immense damage to this country’s interests.
So the way forward lies in negotiation, to seek a consensual outcome to the difficulties that exist. We must work with, not against, our neighbours in Europe. The present mood music is modestly encouraging, but a willingness to compromise on the part of the European Union is unlikely to survive the enactment of the Bill. If a consensual outcome proves impossible, the provisions of Article 16 could and should be triggered. Although that would be undesirable—I agree with my noble friend Lord Howard—it is at least compatible with our treaty obligations. Those in summary are my views. I cannot and will not support the Bill.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. Our spirits, battered by the dreadful war in Ukraine, were lifted last week on learning that meaningful technical talks have finally resumed on efforts to resolve the dispute between the Government and the EU on the protocol. Of course, we all wish them well. None of us here is saying that the present situation with customs and the movement of goods between GB and Northern Ireland is not a problem on the ground for many Northern Ireland businesses and for even more Northern Ireland consumers. In that spirit, thanks must go to the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Morrow, for organising the briefing on this with Peter Summerton today.
However, what many of us are saying is that the Bill is a barely legal, dangerous decoy in the efforts to find a solution to those problems. It also puts in jeopardy the Good Friday agreement. Should the Bill ever become law, it would unilaterally disapply provisions of the agreed Northern Ireland protocol in domestic law. It would give Ministers extraordinary delegated powers to change whichever bits of the protocol they just do not like, as my noble friend Lady Chapman said in her forceful contribution. As many noble Lords have said, the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is so concerned about the sheer scope of these powers that it recommends their removal from the Bill.
The Government are of course aware that the Bill will lead to a shirking of their international legal obligations, but they maintain that this is justified in international law by the doctrine of necessity—rather than invoking Article 16, as the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Howard, my noble friend Lady Kennedy and others have said. The doctrine of necessity has been invoked before, in Pakistan in 1954, to validate the extra-constitutional use of emergency powers. It was invoked in Grenada in 1985 to legalise a court that was trying people for a coup against Maurice Bishop. It was invoked in Nigeria in 2010 to create an acting president and commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Are we really saying that the situation in Northern Ireland, however problematic, justifies a doctrine used in the past for coup breaking and the instigation of martial law? I do not think so, and neither do most people and businesses in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The committee on common frameworks—our chair, my noble friend Lady Andrews, is here—looks at building the new UK single market post Brexit. When it took evidence from businesses and farming organisations operating in Northern Ireland last year, the messages we received were mixed. Yes, we heard about great frustration with the hold-ups and the lack of certainty on the movement of goods from GB to NI, leading to real logistics costs and investment difficulties. But we also heard acceptance of the economic model of the EU single market operating in Northern Ireland to protect that precious land border. We even heard some acknowledgement of the benefits for Northern Ireland businesses of being in the unique position of having access to two major worldwide trading markets, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, powerfully pointed out and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, has just decried.
Since the publication of the EU Commission’s non-paper of October 2021, which was dismissed as irrelevant by this Government, we have seen very practical examples set out by the EU to find solutions to the needs of Northern Ireland business—examples informed by EU discussions with those businesses and a willingness to move quite far on inspection reductions and certification. However much we want to ensure that the businesses and consumers of Northern Ireland are dealt with fairly and with justice, this wretched Bill will not do that, and it needs go no further.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the Bill we are debating today is deeply flawed, on grounds of both practice and principle. Moreover, it is a completely unnecessary piece of legislation, as anyone can see who takes the trouble to read the report of the Northern Ireland protocol sub-committee of your Lordships’ House, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, which was published just before the Summer Recess. That report makes it clear that, on the main issues dogging the implementation of the protocol—the need for a fast-track procedure and the safeguards protecting the EU’s single market in Northern Ireland for trade in agri-food products—the gap between the Commission’s and the UK’s positions is now very small. That seems to be the view of the Commission; is it that of the Government? If so, what is the rationale for this objectionable piece of legislation?
The practical flaws in this legislation are pretty obvious. It is said by the Government to be designed to bring the Commission to accept the UK’s version of the protocol. Has it had that effect? There have been no meaningful negotiations since February, so it does not seem to be working terribly well. Negotiations are now at last beginning; I noticed that the Minister described them as “technical contacts”, which was not terribly encouraging. I hope—we must all hope—that they succeed in bridging those rather narrow gaps that remain because, if the activation of the unilateral measures provided for in this Bill lead to retaliatory action by the EU, both Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK will be left worse off for an indefinite, open-ended period until another lot of negotiations begin.
It is also said by the Government that unilateral action is needed to safeguard the Good Friday agreement—an objective shared by every noble Lord who has spoken. But will this course of action be helpful or will it make things worse? The latter view seems to be that of the Irish and US Governments, the Commission, the non-unionist parties in Northern Ireland who hold a majority of seats in the Assembly and of most reasonably objective observers. Clearly, the views of the unionist community must be listened to with care, but the principal party on the unionist side of the Northern Ireland divide, the Democratic Unionist Party, actually bitterly opposed the Good Friday agreement, so may just possibly not be the best judge of what is now needed to safeguard it.
Then there are the considerations of principle against the course of action proposed. These are, if anything, even more compelling than the practical ones. We are being asked to approve unilaterally changing the protocol in a way for which there is no provision in the text negotiated and ratified by the Johnson Government, and which the manifesto that won the Government their majority in the other place said they were committed to implementing.
What then should we think of the so-called “doctrine of necessity” set out in an official document published in conjunction with the laying before Parliament of this Bill and purporting to provide the legal justification for the UK to unilaterally break the terms of the protocol? If the doctrine does exist—which I seriously question in anything like the circumstances of the Northern Ireland protocol—it presumably applies potentially to all the UK’s international commitments and obligations, ranging from the UN charter to Article 5 of the Atlantic alliance to every other commitment entered into and ratified following parliamentary approval. That is absurd and extremely dangerous. The doctrine of necessity was the doctrine that President Putin applied when he invaded Ukraine and the doctrine to which President Xi would turn if he wished to use force against Taiwan. We should have nothing to do with a doctrine which is so clearly the very antithesis of the rules-based international order to which the Government continue to pay lip service while ignoring its implications.
Overall, this is an unnecessary Bill which, in its present form, will do more damage than good and which thus requires radical amendment or not to be pursued at all.
Lord Godson (Con)
I rise in support of giving the Bill a Second Reading and as another member of the Sub-Committee on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, to whom I pay tribute for his role as chair and for his remarks.
This is also the first time that this House has assembled to discuss the affairs of Northern Ireland since the demise of my late noble friend Lord Trimble. I know it will unify the House to pay tribute to him; he was a friend to many here across many divides. More particular to this context, Lord Trimble’s last great cause was opposing the Northern Ireland protocol and the legislation required here today. He did it for many good reasons, not least of which was his view that it constituted a very serious undermining of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, for which, with the late John Hume, he became a Nobel laureate—the last Nobel laureate for peace to sit in either House of Parliament. He played a key part in the design of that power-sharing model: strand one on the internal governance of Northern Ireland, strand two on north-south and, perhaps most significantly for today’s purpose, strand three on the east-west dimension. All were underpinned by the principles of consent and, perhaps even more importantly in light of the legislation we are discussing today, parity of esteem.
More particularly, the late Lord Trimble negotiated the strengthening of those east-west institutions so that they were defined not solely by a relationship between Dublin and London but by a relationship between Belfast and London and between the other component parts of the devolved settlement in Edinburgh and Cardiff. It also provided Irish recognition of unionist identity and aspiration, as conversely it provided for recognition of many aspects of Irish culture, notably the Irish language.
It is significant that the recent book One Good Day by David Donoghue, the Irish head of the Anglo-Irish Secretariat in Belfast at the time of the Good Friday agreement, makes this very point. He writes that the Ulster Unionist Party
“could contemplate North/South bodies only as a by-product of an expanded East/West relationship … Unionists regarded such a”
British-Irish
“Council as a necessary counterweight to the North/South institutions which nationalists wanted. We had no fundamental difficulty with this. We understood the need for unionists to see their identity given institutional expression.”
I was particularly grateful for the earlier comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, acknowledging Tony Blair’s part in the forging of that settlement. Whatever differences and controversies there may be about his legacy—not least in the Labour Party—there is, as the noble Baroness said, no difference on this matter. It is important for this purpose: Tony Blair understood the late Lord Trimble’s concerns, when he was the Ulster Unionist Party’s leader, on consent for north-south co-operation and, above all, on the importance of the east-west relationship. More to the point, he became a persuader for that east-west relationship because he knew that it was key to David Trimble forging the 1998 Good Friday agreement.
That agreement, with power-sharing, north-south co-operation and strong guarantees for the east-west relationship, is therefore not only part of David Trimble’s legacy; it is part of Tony Blair’s and the Labour Party’s legacy as well. Indeed, he could describe strand 3 as comprising Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, with no mention—incorrectly, if I may say so—of an Irish dimension.
The protocol has damaged this key relationship, as noble Lords all recognise. East-west co-operation is now uncertain. Goods are subject to all kinds of checks and delays, and even a prohibition designed to protect north-south co-operation, without regard to the implications for the east-west relationship. That is not the basis for the harmonious relationship envisaged in 1998. It also, as indicated, contradicts the principle of parity of esteem for both communities. After all, if trade is important for the north-south dimension, it is equally important for the east-west dimension. This Bill is therefore a necessary corrective for rectifying the damaged relationship and restoring the balance—the delicate balance, as many speakers have pointed out— of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. I welcome it wholeheartedly.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I start by observing that today’s debate has seen the House of Lords at its very best, all sides expressing their arguments with force and conviction. We were particularly privileged to hear the blunt political appraisal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, and my noble friend Lord Bew’s intense and passionate plea to the DUP—I hope they heed it.
Like many others, I am fundamentally opposed to this Bill. Echoing my noble friend Lord Kerr, I oppose it for four reasons. First, as has been commonly observed throughout this debate, the Bill is unlawful. The whole weight of legal opinion is that the protocol cannot be overturned under the doctrine of necessity. The unexpected duo of my noble friend Lord Pannick and the noble Lord, Lord Howard, argued that case with ferocious persuasiveness. They are supported by a former head of the Government’s own legal department, who described the Government’s defence of it as “hopeless”, and that surely represents the consensus.
Acting unlawfully is not just wrong but, as others have observed, gravely damaging to the UK’s reputation internationally. Following the death of Her late Majesty the Queen, virtually the whole world was reminded of the power and, indeed, majesty of our constitutional settlement; of Britain’s path-finding route to democracy; of our solemn, centuries-long commitment to the rule of law. The rest of the world made perfectly clear during our period of national mourning just how much they respected us and admired that tradition. The calamitous mini-Budget has done untold damage to the UK’s reputation for fiscal probity. Please, may we not further sully our reputation by breaching a solemn and long-negotiated international treaty.
Secondly, the Bill is deeply offensive to Parliament, conferring as it does breathtaking delegated powers for Ministers to override much of the protocol without Parliament’s express consent.
Thirdly, passing the Bill will damage our relations with the EU when we should be doing everything possible to repair them after the bruising experience of Brexit. Overturning the protocol risks retaliatory action, affecting trade with our closest neighbour, our principal trading partner and one of the world’s largest economic blocs, with six times our GDP. A trade spat with the EU would certainly be a further blow to UK growth.
Fourthly, beyond trade, Putin’s anarchic bellicosity has driven home just how important it is for Europe to stick together, not least because history tells us that we will not always have a President in the White House as ready to defend Europe as Joe Biden.
Northern Ireland is where the Brexit rubber hits the road. Maintaining an open border with the Republic while exiting the EU was and is an enormous challenge, well explained by my noble friend Lord Jay and eloquently by the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Browne. There are real difficulties and they need to be addressed.
The Good Friday agreement was an enormous achievement, as the noble Lord, Lord Godson, just reminded us. Ultimately, it is a credit not just to Tony Blair but to all the sides involved, and we will find a solution to the conundrum of Brexit in Northern Ireland, which we must resolve, only by repeating that process of dialogue—not least with the patently well-intentioned participation of the Irish Government. Of course, the DUP must have a place at the table, but I gently urge the DUP to remember that 56% of the people of Northern Ireland voted in the referendum to remain in the EU, and that a clear majority of the Northern Ireland Assembly have declared themselves content in principle with the protocol, so the DUP must be ready to give and take too.
This Government are now very practised at U-turns. I express the hope that they will soon withdraw this highly destabilising Bill and choose instead the path of negotiation and reconciliation.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Cormack on his amendment and on the way in which he introduced it. Unfortunately, I missed many of the speeches that followed because I was engaged, with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, in a committee meeting upstairs, but I was back in time to hear the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, express his amazement that a British Government should seek to renege on an important part of the treaty that they had negotiated freely, had brought before Parliament and had supported in Parliament. I agree very much with him on the significance of such an action.
I really do not believe that any Prime Minister before Mr Johnson would have introduced such a Bill. I am certain that one Prime Minister who would never have introduced such a Bill, or contemplated such an action, was Margaret Thatcher. I was a witness to many of her disputes with the European Union and one of the most striking features of her approach to these matters was that she believed in the rule of law and always rejected advice to break the law. Thankfully, we have moved on from Mr Johnson and I congratulate the Truss Administration on embarking on serious talks and negotiations with our friends in Brussels and Dublin. I also wish Ministers well in their efforts to sort out matters in Belfast, where the DUP has made such a strong link between the protocol and participating in the governance of the Province.
The EU itself has made constructive proposals, so the atmosphere is quite different from what it was only a short time ago. It seems to me vital, both to the UK’s national interest and, I would argue, to western cohesion in the face of Putin’s war, that the negotiations to which I have just referred should resolve the outstanding issues relating to the protocol. In the face of the escalating Ukraine war and the economic and energy disruption that it is causing, it would be the height of irresponsibility for the British Government to allow the Northern Ireland protocol to drive a wedge between us and the EU, and between us and our friends in Washington.
In these circumstances, I simply cannot accept the Government’s reasons for rushing ahead with the Bill at the present time. Suggestions that it will somehow encourage the EU to reach agreement—that a sword of Damocles hanging over the EU will bring it to heel—bear no relation to any conceivable reality. Far better would it be to negotiate in earnest, as I believe the Government are seeking to do, and demonstrate their good intentions by putting the Bill on ice in the hope that it will not have to be proceeded with any further once an agreement is reached.
I certainly support my noble friend Lord Cormack’s amendments. Should they come to the vote, whenever that should occur, I hope the House will support him too.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, having listened to the debate thus far, I appreciate that DUP-bashing can be a popular exercise for some noble Lords, but I can tell them that we have a good, strong back. But the fact is that not one unionist political party or elected representative in Northern Ireland supports the Northern Ireland protocol. Whenever you speak about the DUP, you are talking about unionism collectively. Noble Lords should never forget that. I also remind the House that the Northern Ireland Assembly is built on the premise not of majority rule but of cross-community consent, which the Northern Ireland protocol does not have.
The human rights provisions in the Belfast agreement provided the people of Northern Ireland with the right to
“pursue democratically national and political aspirations”.
Article 2 of the protocol obliges the UK Government to ensure that there is no diminishment of any Belfast agreement rights following Brexit. Yet the protocol challenges these rights of the people of Northern Ireland head-on, slashing the value of their vote.
I will quote from a letter I received from a lady in Northern Ireland:
“I am eternally grateful for the work of Ulster’s pioneering 19th century female human rights campaigner, Isabella Tod and those who followed her in the early 20th century, like Dora Mellone … My concern, however, is that the work of these great civil rights campaigners is being undermined, and that my civil rights are being infringed, by the Protocol. Tod, Mellone etc did not campaign for us to have the vote, only for the meaning of that vote to be substantially eroded compared with people living in Great Britain or in the Republic of Ireland. That, however, is the effect of the Protocol because in some 300 areas of law, in relation to which I previously was represented through my legislators, I have now become voiceless. This has immediate, direct and distressing equality implications because it means that I no longer enjoy equality with respect to UK citizens living in Scotland, Wales or England or indeed with citizens of the Republic of Ireland. In the same way UK citizens in Scotland, Wales and England can stand for election … or elect MPs to make their laws in the 300 areas, so too can citizens of the Republic … vote for TDs, Senators and MEPs to make laws in all these areas. The citizens of Northern Ireland are, therefore, uniquely discriminated against.”
Can anyone in this House support or accept that? When we read that letter in the context of the human rights provisions in the Belfast agreement and the obligations in the protocol on the British Government to ensure that there is no diminution of those rights because of Brexit, the case is unanswerable.
I make an economic point. The EU thinks we should be happy because we are offered reduced checks of 80%. If checks were reduced by 90%—
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Does he accept that the DUP is currently preventing the restoration of all the political institutions in Northern Ireland at a time when the people are facing a cost of living and cost of business crisis and urgently need local governance to make decisions?
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
I accept that the DUP has made it abundantly clear that it will not go into the Executive. Have no doubt about that; let the House hear it clearly. I will refer to the speech of my right honourable friend, the leader of our party, on Saturday to his party conference.
As I was saying, if checks were reduced by 90%, it would make no difference because they are not the problem. The problem is the paperwork, which still has to be done whether a consignment is checked or not. Some might respond, “Why is that such a problem? Different countries export to each other all the time. Why should treating Northern Ireland as a third country in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom be economically devastating?” To answer that question, we have to understand that, although we talk about living in a globalised economy as if it was all one, in reality, while there are all manner of links between different state economies, the links within them are none the less qualitatively quite different.
Shipments in lorries between countries tend to be of one product in bulk; as there is only one product, you need only one set of paperwork, which is manageable. However, for shipments in lorries within integrated economies, the contents are quite different. Rather than being overwhelmingly one product, they tend to include multiple products, which means that if you try to treat them as exports, they need multiple pieces of paperwork. That costs money. It is why a number of firms state that they do not believe they can trade with Northern Ireland if the protocol goes on and is furthered by the desire for its full implementation.
Finally, because of time, since it has been raised today, I draw noble Lords’ attention to where the DUP stands. Our leader made this clear on Saturday:
“Let me be clear—either the Prime Minister delivers the provisions of the Protocol Bill by legislation or by negotiation and ensures that our place in the United Kingdom is restored... or there will be no basis to re-enter Stormont.”
That is clear. He continued:
“On this issue it is not words but actions we need to see and we will judge any outcome on the basis of actions not words.”
I say this to the Government tonight: get on with dealing, get on with action, enable us to get on with being equal citizens within the United Kingdom and let our people prosper.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lady Nicholson, for allowing me to speak out of sequence so that I could give evidence to the European Affairs Committee. I reassure my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft that I have been following as much of this very important debate as I can. It is a huge pleasure to be here to support the Government on this Second Reading of the Bill.
The House heard my views on the sad deterioration of the situation in Northern Ireland many times when I was on the Front Bench. I do not need to repeat them, as many noble Lords have made the point this afternoon. Clearly, the attempt to apply the protocol is no longer delivering the original intention of supporting the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, but undermining it. Unionism has lost confidence in it, the status quo is highly unstable and risky, and change is needed.
That change is needed for economic as well as political reasons. Those who argue, as some have today, that Northern Ireland is benefiting from the protocol are simply wrong. Since the entry into force of the protocol, the UK’s economy has grown by 7.5% and Northern Ireland’s by 5.5%. PMI surveys in Northern Ireland have been consistently lower than the UK’s, and have actually been negative in the last four months. Exports from Great Britain to the EU have grown faster than those of Northern Ireland to the EU, which suggests that the supposed export boom from Northern Ireland to Ireland is a bit of a fantasy or an artefact of trade diversion. The Government are well within their rights to try to remedy this situation and bring forward this Bill. I note that it passed the other place unamended; that fact must influence the approach taken in this House.
The Government have made their view clear too, in their statement on 13 June, that the Bill is
“justified as a matter of international law.”
Of course, it is possible to find lawyers who take a different view—we have heard many distinguished lawyers today—but the Government are entitled to proceed on the basis of their own legal analysis, and that analysis is not disproven just by the existence of alternative opinions.
This Bill is essential not only on its own merits but in order to strengthen the hand of the British Government in their negotiations. If a negotiated agreement can be reached, that is obviously much better, but it is very hard to see that an agreement that does not amend the protocol very significantly will do the job. I work on the assumption that it is the intention of the Government to achieve a negotiated settlement of that level of ambition. The Prime Minister said in Parliament on 7 September that she preferred a negotiated solution, but
“it does have to deliver all the things that we set out in the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill.”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/9/22; col. 237.]
Some of the more recent mood music from the Government has been less clear-cut on that point, so perhaps in winding up my noble and learned friend the Minister will confirm that is still the Government’s approach and that they are not looking to endorse a negotiated settlement that delivers less than that. On the assumption that is still the Government’s policy, it is absolutely clear that they will need this Bill to deliver it. I will conclude by saying why.
As has been pointed out on several occasions and is well known, I was responsible for negotiating the protocol as we now have it. That negotiation, such as it was, has an important lesson for today. The crucial point is that any negotiation, if it is to find the right balance between the parties, needs to have a meaningful “walk away” option for both sides. We did not have that in 2019. This Parliament and this House had passed a law prohibiting us from leaving the European Union without a deal. The choice we faced, therefore, was on the one hand to see the endless continuation of negotiations with the EU from a position of weakness, some subversion of our efforts by Members of this Parliament and others in the political scene and perhaps see the referendum overturned altogether, or on the other hand do the best deal we could, accept the risks, and deliver the referendum result. I make no apology for choosing the latter, even though our forebodings have been amply justified by events.
The point of this Bill is to avoid that situation being repeated. If this Bill becomes law, the British Government—
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
Will the noble Lord confirm that what he has just said amounts to saying that he was negotiating under duress in 2019 and the duress was applied by the British sovereign Parliament?
Lord Frost (Con)
I have made the point many times that we were operating within the constraint of a law that usurped the functions of the Executive and prevented us conducting negotiations. I have made that point many times, and I make it again today.
If this Bill becomes law, the British Government will regain agency over events. If they cannot reach an agreement through negotiation, they will be able to use the powers in this Bill to correct the current unsatisfactory situation under international law. The incentives on both sides will still be to reach agreement, but there will still be a “walk away” option, which means that a proper negotiation can take place.
If noble Lords prevent this Bill passing, they will put this Government into the same position I faced in 2019. Once again, there will be no “walk away” option. The Government will have to try to get the best negotiated outcome that the EU will allow them to have. They will be a petitioner for the EU’s grace and favour, not a negotiating partner. If the Government are not happy with what is on offer, the outcome will be even worse—the continuation of the current unsatisfactory situation and the current protocol.
I urge noble Lords not to make the same mistake as in 2019. Give the Government the powers they need to conduct a meaningful negotiation. Do not make them a supplicant in Brussels. Allow them to get the job done.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I am a member of the European protocol sub-committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, who tries to guide us at every meeting with great diplomacy. It is a great pleasure to serve with my colleagues on that committee. I welcome my great friend the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, to the Bench and am so pleased that he is still here answering on this and on other issues—not just on PSVI for us today, or the Year of the Girl, but on this issue too. I further thank all those outside organisations which have sent very helpful information and offered to have meetings.
The Northern Ireland protocol is part of the EU withdrawal agreement—a formal, international treaty—that attempted to deal with several specific problems that Brexit generated for relations between Ireland and the United Kingdom, between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and within Northern Ireland. Overall, the protocol has three main objectives: to preserve the integrity of the EU’s single market, ensuring that Ireland’s relations with the rest of the UK remained significantly unaffected; to prevent the creation of a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland; and to protect the Good Friday agreement in “all its dimensions”. As part of protecting the Good Friday agreement, Article 2 of the protocol aims to ensure that there is,
“no diminution of rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity, as set out in that part of the 1998 Agreement”
that deals with these issues.
The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill would break international law by the unjustified, unilateral breach of an international treaty with the European Union and thereby threaten a trade war between the UK and the EU. One central purpose of the Bill is to unilaterally disapply the trade and customs provisions of the protocol, which require some customs and regulatory checks on exports from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, but it also gives “extraordinarily sweeping powers” to Ministers —to quote Theresa May—and weakens the Article 2 protections for human rights in Northern Ireland. I have heard much evidence of this in the committee.
The Bill is unjustified. The legislation is unnecessary, because the purpose could be achieved through negotiation. The resumption of talks between the UK and the EU, halted since February, is welcome, and I hope that they will continue. The comment last Thursday by the Tánaiste that the implementation of the protocol might have been “a little too strict” allows a willingness to compromise.
The protocol does not threaten the Good Friday agreement, as alleged by some unionists and the Government; its main purpose is to protect it. Some have argued that the Good Friday agreement requires the consent of unionists to any significant political change in Northern Ireland, arguing that the protocol is designed to offset the dangerous impact of Brexit in such a change. That contradicts the fact that the consent of the people of Northern Ireland as a whole was not deemed necessary for Brexit itself; now it is held that the consent of one of Northern Ireland’s minorities is needed for an aspect of its outworking. There is nothing in the Good Friday agreement that requires that, although the protocol itself requires the consent of the majority of the Assembly after four years—cross-community consent if possible; otherwise a simple majority. The protocol will be subject to a democratic vote in Northern Ireland.
The Government have to seek to justify their breach of international law by reliance on the doctrine of necessity, which allows some breaches of treaties if an essential interest is threatened by grave and imminent peril. That is hardly the case and, as David Lammy argued when the Bill was first debated,
“there is not a serious Queen’s Counsel in the country who would support the use of the doctrine of necessity in the way in which the Government have sought to use it.”—[Official Report, Commons, 27/6/22; col. 51.]
The Bill weakens Article 2 of the protocol and hence allows a diminution of human rights in Northern Ireland. This is absolutely vital. As we have noted, human rights and equality protections are included in Article 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol to prevent the diminution of rights protections in Northern Ireland after Brexit and to provide remedies in local courts for breaches of this obligation. It references the list of human rights and equality provisions in the Good Friday agreement and backs them up by specifying the EU legislation that underpins them. The UK Government have claimed that the Bill does not undermine these provisions of the protocol, but that is not the case. It is true that the Bill excludes Article 2 from some of the powers that the Bill provides to Ministers to revoke other provisions in the protocol. But this apparent protection is misleading, because the Bill fatally undermines the operation of Article 2 in several other critical respects.
Because of time, I will just say that we have a piece of legislation involving a breach of the international rule of law itself, which is unnecessary and unjustified, which could provoke a disastrous trade war and which allows for the weakening of the structure of human rights and equality which underpin the Northern Ireland peace process. It should not be supported.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I, too, am a member of the Sub-Committee on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Jay.
The noble Lord, Lord Frost, has just demonstrated to us that he would not get an O-level in the constitutional law and practice of the United Kingdom. He told us that this unconstitutional Bill was drafted to strengthen the UK’s bargaining position with the EU. It is an attempt to bully the EU into making changes to the Northern Ireland protocol. In saying that, he of course concedes that the UK lacks bargaining power against the 27 other members of the union. The UK does not have a large enough shillelagh.
However, there are problems. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, referred to the barriers to trade, while the noble Lord, Lord Godson, took the opportunity to praise Tony Blair for his understanding. On 9 June 2016, in the course of the referendum campaign, Tony Blair, speaking in Londonderry, said that a vote to leave would mean that the only alternative to controls on a land border
“would have to be checks between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK”,
which, he added,
“would be plainly unacceptable as well.”
This was described by the then First Minister, Arlene Foster—then leader of the DUP—as “a deeply offensive scare story”, but it came true.
We are all familiar with what happened. In October 2019, Mr Johnson described his deal as
“a good arrangement … with the minimum possible bureaucratic consequences”.
This was in direct contradiction of a contemporaneous document drawn up by the Treasury, which warned that
“customs declarations and documentary and physical checks … will be highly disruptive to the NI economy.”
That was the advice he had received. But he advised traders to throw paperwork into the bin. Famously, he said:
“There will be no border down the Irish Sea—over my dead body.”
But there is, and he is politically no more.
The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, raised the point—the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, followed him—that there has been no attempt to trigger the dispute resolution mechanisms contained in Article 16. It would have forced the UK into detailed negotiations with the EU, not breaking the protocol but taking place within its architecture. Instead, the Government promoted Article 16 as though it were a nuclear threat that, if employed, would obliterate the protocol altogether.
In particular, the DUP and, as the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, told us, all other unionists were misled into believing that the protocol was everything—“Break the protocol”—and that triggering these unremarkable dispute resolution procedures would somehow end the virtual border in the Irish Sea. As a result, they continue to block a new Executive, perhaps hoping for a rerun of last May’s election when time runs out on 28 October. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, pointed out, there have been demographic changes. Indeed, the last opinion polling on 25 July in no way pointed to a resurgence in DUP or unionist support. The Alliance Party is on track to overhaul them.
Why has the agreed machinery of Article 16 not been used? What Boris Johnson agreed through the withdrawal agreement, of which the protocol is a part, was that any issue of EU law arising in Article 16 arbitration procedures should be decided by the European Court of Justice. The Conservative Party opposite has a completely irrational hatred for that court, despite UK advocates having historically the greatest degree of success of any EU country before its judges. Mr Johnson pushed this concession through Parliament with his majority because they did not understand what he had conceded. In all probability he did not understand it, either, but the noble Lords and noble Baronesses opposite strewed flowers in his way. But they do not have to pick up Johnson’s leavings by continuing with this mis-sold Bill which shames our country. They can start again.
Take the European Court of Justice. In a debate entitled “Brexit: Dispute Resolution and Enforcement”, I suggested that the Government should negotiate for
“a special chamber of the European Court of Justice”—
they have the power in their constitution to create one—with an equal number of UK and EU judges. As I said, it could deal with
“disputes arising out of the special circumstances of our leaving the EU”.—[Official Report, 17/10/18; col. 466.]
I developed that argument at the time and will not repeat it, but that solution would deal with the issue that the CJEU is the court of one of the parties to a dispute.
If the current Prime Minister wants to make her mark in history in the limited time available to her, she should withdraw this ignominious Bill and get down to sensible negotiations immediately. Trade barriers and the democratic deficit are genuine problems that must be resolved by agreement fashioned with good will. In the past two weeks, her Government appear to have been making a start.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, recently, the work of the European Affairs Committee has been heavily overshadowed by the Northern Ireland protocol. While work on the protocol itself is carried out by our sister Northern Ireland protocol committee, we concentrate on the many other matters that remain open in the large and complex relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union.
Many things are in the deep freeze. To name a few examples, there is the unresolved position on the Horizon programme, the unresolved agreement for regulatory co-operation in financial services and the issues relating to the movement of both creative professionals and people in education. The 32 committees set up under the withdrawal agreement and the trade and co-operation agreement are not operating at full pace to adjust matters to the benefit of all concerned because of the protocol impasse.
The circumstances where a Bill along the lines of the one before us might be warranted would be, I feel, very dire. I do not believe that we are even close to such circumstances today. I note with optimism the recent warm words from many of the parties involved in discussing the protocol and the restarting of discussions between the principals. However, this Bill is before the House and I will briefly comment on three areas that I feel need amendment.
The first concerns the sanctity of treaty. We have recently discussed in this Chamber a number of times recently the importance of living up to treaty obligations and obligations under international agreements in general; it has been a strong theme this afternoon. In my regular interactions with my opposite numbers as chairs of the European affairs committees of other European countries—and that goes a lot wider than just members of the European Union—in particular as the UK has assumed such a leadership position in the current war in Ukraine, the most common comment made to me is of the importance of the UK especially showing leadership in living up to the spirit and letter of international agreements.
In the Ukraine/Russia context, there are many international agreements that all depend on: the NATO treaty, agreements over sanctions and agreements relating to energy, for instance. The rules-based order within the western liberal democracy world depends on the leading players showing example. This point has been made to me by pretty well every country’s representative I have met in recent times. We meet formally as chairs of European affairs committees face to face four times a year; thus I feel it is important in these circumstances to underline the UK’s commitment to the sanctity of treaty and to living up to the letter and spirit of international agreements, including in this Bill.
The second area concerns the involvement of Parliament in the making of, or the variation of, international agreements and treaties. In the period before Brexit, the UK citizen in the street had the benefit of parliamentary representatives being able to scrutinise international agreements at the European Parliament level and, through the operation of the scrutiny reserve resolutions, the Westminster Parliament level—both from the start of the negotiating process and throughout it. Indeed, many here today will have served on the European Union committee structure and will have engaged in the scrutiny of international agreements. In addition to those meaty scrutiny arrangements, the CRaG arrangements allow for limited scrutiny processes right at the end of the agreeing of a new treaty. Following Brexit, this scrutiny structure has fallen away, and we are left only with the highly unsatisfactory CRaG processes.
The European Union Committee scrutinised the many new trade deals concluded by the United Kingdom during the Brexit period—I think there were just under 100—and in June 2019 we wrote a report, Scrutiny of International Agreements: Lessons Learned, in which we laid out a firm recommendation as to how international agreements could and should be looked at by both Houses of Parliament. This Bill would see major changes to an international agreement being made simply by decision of a Minister without any reference to Parliament. For the reasons in our report of June 2019, I do not believe that is right. Something akin to what we then recommended should be instituted and the Bill amended accordingly.
Thirdly, and finally, I come to the importance of dealing with the various traditions and groupings in Northern Ireland in an even-handed way with good consultative approaches. As we have heard from many speakers today, this approach is the secret of the great success of the Belfast/Good Friday agreements, which use this approach consistently in their mechanisms. The very first report of the EU Committee after the Brexit vote in December 2016 was Brexit: UK-Irish Relations. We commented on the importance of that dynamic very heavily in that report. I reread the report over the weekend and I have to say that it is as fresh today as it was in December 2016.
I do not feel that the Bill today makes this simple and effective approach a commitment for a Minister. In his opening speech, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, made it clear that there was a considerable consultative process but this is another instance where the face of the Bill must have the comfort that even-handedness and consultation will remain at the heart of any changes. Perhaps the Minister could comment.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, there is much to be learned from the speech of the noble Earl and I am grateful to be able to follow him.
I want to refer to the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. There one can find 11 devastating and fundamental criticisms of the Bill, not one of which has been satisfactorily been dealt with by the Government outside Parliament, in the other place or, I fear, despite his charm and undoubted integrity, by my noble friend the Minister earlier today. That any relatively short Bill, but certainly one of such legal and constitutional importance as this one, should provide so many powerful reasons for criticism is shocking, although, since the change of Prime Minister in July 2019, perhaps unsurprising. One might have hoped that his departure would have made a difference. As for my noble friend Lord Frost’s suggestion that the Bill gives the Government agency, I am, unusually, lost for words.
The Bill is the ugly constitutional twin of the ill-starred UK Internal Market Act, which in December 2019 the then Northern Ireland Secretary admitted deliberately broke international law. This Bill breaks the same treaty but adds to that by permitting government Ministers to make laws, to amend them or to disapply them and our treaty obligations. That Secretary of State is now the Lord Chancellor, the guardian in Cabinet of the rule of law and our constitution. What is the point of making treaties if our Government think they matter only at and for the moment a Prime Minister signs them? What is the point of Parliament if elected Members of Parliament are prepared to delegate to Ministers the most important constitutional duty they have—to make considered statute law and to hold government to account? Of course I understand the politics affecting the Bill, but is it not ironic that it requires your Lordships’ House to uphold democratic and constitutional propriety?
Of course, some will say that the end justifies the means: that the preservation of the union of the United Kingdom is more important than constitutional or legal purity. Even if one tries to ignore the slippery slope that suggests, it is a false dichotomy. As the Minister of State for Northern Ireland, my honourable friend Mr Steve Baker, recently accepted, extravagant posturing is less productive than diplomacy. The end does not justify the means, because the means are not the road to the desired goal. Worse, if we want to throw petrol on the angry fire of communalism and of separatism within the United Kingdom, look no further than this Bill for the jerrycan.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, whatever one may think of Northern Ireland politics, peace and political stability is thanks to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It is quite clear that this is being damaged by the protocol and it has resulted in political chaos. This Bill is designed to address the political challenges.
Just recently it has become apparent that the European Union recognises the problems created by the protocol, which has resulted in a softer attitude from the European Union. The Bill we are discussing today has been a key element in this change of attitude. It is essential for the sake of a harmonious solution to the Northern Ireland situation that His Majesty’s Government have the Bill to add strength to their arguments. It is this which has encouraged the EU to recognise how the protocol is making the Good Friday agreement unworkable. As my noble friend Lord Lilley pointed out, it is contrary to the intention of the protocol. If I may quote:
“Nothing in the Agreement should undermine the objectives and commitments set out in the Good Friday Agreement.”
To argue against the Bill and therefore against the Government’s ability to seek a solution, as has been done today, is to work against a harmonious solution. I urge all noble Lords to get behind the Bill for the sake of everyone concerned: the European Union, Northern Ireland, southern Ireland and the United Kingdom. When my noble friend Lord Cormack argues for a delay to allow a negotiated settlement, he is only reducing the chances of such a settlement. This country is no longer part of the European Union, and to oppose the Bill will not change that.
Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)
My Lords, no matter his verbal dexterity and acknowledged charm, the Minister was unable to present this Bill as anything other than what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, called “a manifest breach of international law”. Many noble Lords taking part in this afternoon’s debate have urged the Government to reconsider. I add my voice to theirs, for three foreign policy reasons.
First, the UK’s reputation for standing by the agreements it signs is as important to its standing in the world as the excellence of its Armed Forces. For my whole career at the Foreign Office, the UK made the case for a rules-based international order. Without rules—all rules, not just the ones you like—the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must. Many of the foreign diplomats on the other side of the negotiating table in my career were unhappy with British advocacy of rules; they pointed out that my wily predecessors had written many of those rules expressly to suit British purposes. Now, the Government propose to set aside an agreement which they co-wrote less than three years ago. At the very least, we invite bemused puzzlement.
Secondly, the Bill not only damages our overall reputation but specifically damages relations with key external partners. We have definitively left the European Union but it remains our neighbour. We benefit from a constructive relationship with our larger neighbour. Brussels has repeatedly made clear two things: first, its willingness to negotiate implementation of the protocol, and, secondly, its settled view that a unilateral move to set aside the protocol would be seen as an act of bad faith. We hear a lot these days about a reset in London’s relations with Brussels, about improved atmospherics and better personal relations. This Bill imperils all that and the Government must know it. If the Bill passes and is implemented, the EU would feel justified in retaliating; after all, it has warned us often enough that that would happen.
Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, referred to the President of the United States and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, disputed the importance of his role. Yet President Biden identifies himself as an Irish Catholic. He takes a close interest in what happens in all of Ireland. His Administration have signalled repeatedly their unhappiness with this unilateral action. Having left our regional club, the views of our main ally and partner should loom even larger in our calculations.
Parliament is sovereign but it is not immune from the consequences of its actions. Although Parliament can pass this Bill, it should weigh the international consequences before doing so. If the Government are wise, they will drop the Bill. Negotiation, without the threat of unilateral action, would be far more likely to deliver the result which everyone in your Lordships’ House desires.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend, his department and our Whips for their engagement with my serious concerns about this Bill. I have great sympathy with my noble friend on the Front Bench; I cannot imagine he has been in a very comfortable position recently given what is contained in this Bill. As my noble friends know, I cannot support this Bill but I am delighted that there are negotiations and that we are, I hope, going to be able to reach some kind of negotiated settlement.
The UK that I have grown up in and that I love, and that so many global nations respect, is a parliamentary democracy that defends the rule of law and the international rules-based order; it has a reputation for integrity, trustworthiness, honesty and morality. This Bill undermines all these traditional elements of our international standing. I am ashamed that this legislation is before us and find its measures baffling, frightening and indefensible.
As has been said, the clauses of the Bill dismantle an international agreement, recently signed, which has been operating as described by the 2019 impact assessment. The doctrine of necessity cannot be used here for reasons eloquently explained by my noble friend Lord Howard, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others. The problem is our decision to leave the EU and, in particular, the decision to adopt a hard Brexit, leaving the EU single market and customs union while having a land border with the EU. The un-British belligerence contained in this Bill and the fantasy thinking that the UK can dictate its own terms to other countries by threat and wish away geographical realities and international law are, quite frankly, shocking.
In a world where Northern Ireland was no longer attached to Ireland, no border checks would be needed and goods could flow freely into the single market. In a world with the promised alternative arrangements, there might be no need for border checks as technology—which, by the way, is not available anywhere in the world—would magically solve the problem which the Northern Ireland protocol aims to deal with. There may be a world, but it is not one that I recognise, where countries can sign international co-operation agreements with fingers crossed behind their backs and tear them up soon afterwards to please a political party, but that surely is not our country.
However, the most egregious element of this Bill is not the legal element; for me, it is that it overrides our parliamentary democracy. It seeks to enshrine in law our country becoming an elected dictatorship where Ministers can bypass Parliament and simply decide even to break international law should they so wish. The breathtaking, untrammelled powers putting our international standing at risk, potentially overriding human rights—as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, has explained—and risking starting a trade war with the European Union should this Bill pass, are, quite frankly, baffling.
My noble friend Lord Frost may have been in earnest when he told us that we must not repeat the mistakes he was dealing with where Parliament was usurping the power of the Executive. But since when do we have a system of government where Parliament has no right to stand up against measures damaging our national interest. Having listened to the hours of debate thus far, I have to say that it is clearer to me than ever that this House has a duty to oppose this Bill.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after my noble friend. I welcome this Bill and support it wholly. There has been much talk of international law in the course of this debate and I trespass on that territory with some trepidation because I am not a lawyer and claim no expertise in jurisprudence. However, it seems to me that one should question some of the claims that have been made.
It is easy to imagine, given the way that it has been discussed, that international law simply because it is international is some sort of supreme law, rather like FIFA outranks UEFA and UEFA is somehow higher than the Football Association. But that of course is not the case at all. And it is easy to imagine, given the way it is spoken of, that a breach of international law is somehow akin to a criminal offence.
International law does of course create some criminal offences—the waging of an illegal war is one of them. But most of international law is much more akin to a sort of civil contract between parties agreeing how they are simply going to conduct their business on something as mundane as the quality of sausages, for example. That is where we are in this debate, and comparisons with Putin and other such extravagant claims are wholly grotesque and misleading.
In my view, there are other laws higher than international law; one of them is the law to maintain the integrity of our own state. The protocol is a clear wound and severance in the integrity of the United Kingdom. That is why this is a matter of interest not simply to the people of Northern Ireland but to all the people of the United Kingdom.
There is nothing new about this. Shakespeare, of course, had quite a lot to say about it. He envisages an onerous contract, freely entered into, that can be satisfied only by an irreparable wound in the body, possibly a fatal one. He specifically asks the question: how should the law deal with this? It is very easy to say that the answer is that the pound of flesh has got to be paid. In my view, there are too many noble Lords in the Chamber today who have been insisting on the right of the European Union to demand its pound of flesh; there are not enough lawyers who share the wisdom and humanity of Portia.
Apart from the harm to the body politic that the protocol does, there is the question of whether the protocol, far from being a shining pillar of international law, is not in fact in flagrant breach of it. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, gave a number of examples of how the protocol conflicts with other treaties that we and the Republic of Ireland are obliged to. None of the legal experts that I have heard speak in this debate has addressed satisfactorily the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, and others, of whether it complies with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European convention, both of which guarantee a democratic and representative say to people on the laws under which they live. That is denied to the people of Northern Ireland in respect of a large swathe of significant laws. That democratic deficit is recognised by our own Sub-Committee on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, but no answer has come on whether the protocol is defensible.
That is also a point that goes to those who say that we should be using Article 16. Article 16 is a mechanism for adjusting the implementation of the protocol, but the democratic deficit in the protocol is not due to its implementation; it is at the very heart of the protocol, and this Bill is necessary to deal with it. Nor is the matter addressed by saying that the people of Northern Ireland through the Assembly in Stormont have an opportunity to vote on it. One cannot vote away, and one’s parliament cannot vote away, fundamental human rights.
To those noble Lords who wave about the notions of the rule of law and international law as if they were simple, straightforward, knockdown arguments against this Bill, I say that in my view the whole matter is a great deal subtler and a less robust platform for them to rest their case on than they might think. Although there are only a few speakers left on the list, I am still open to hearing someone defend how the protocol is consistent with international law on human rights.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, this is the first opportunity that I have had to address your Lordships’ House since the untimely death of my friend Lord Trimble. The noble Lord, Lord Godson, spoke at length, and rightly so, about the enormous contribution that David Trimble made to the community and to political life in his native Northern Ireland, not least in his critical role in implementing the Good Friday agreement.
I was Ulster Unionist Party chairman in the period up to and beyond the signing of the Belfast agreement. I witnessed at first hand the pivotal role that David played, not only in finalising that deal but in keeping the peace process on track at moments of great crisis. This included the aftermath of the Omagh bomb, on 15 August 1998, which claimed the lives of 29 innocent people and two unborn twins. Four days later, I accompanied David to the funeral mass, in Buncrana, County Donegal, for eight year-old Oran Doherty, and James Barker and Sean McLaughlin, both aged 12. There was some media furore at the time on the basis that David and I were members of the Orange Order, but we wanted to stand united with the wonderful people of Donegal in their time of unspeakable grief. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that all of us stand with the people of Donegal today as they come together in tragic circumstances for the funerals of Jessica Gallagher and Martin McGill, in Creeslough. David Trimble was a great man, a family man, a wise man, a brave man and a fine parliamentarian. His death is a huge loss to Northern Ireland and, of course, to this House.
I turn to the Bill before us today. It will not surprise your Lordships to know that I continue to thoroughly resent the existence of the Northern Ireland protocol. His Majesty’s Government have spent almost three years blaming the European Union for its sheer awfulness. However, what Ministers frequently neglect to mention is that the protocol was agreed by Boris Johnson with the full support of his then Foreign Secretary, Liz Truss. Northern Ireland was sacrificed for political expediency by a Prime Minister in a hurry, with the backing of his eventual successor. The Bill before your Lordships today is merely a diversionary tactic—a sticking plaster to pretend that it was the other side’s fault. Not only that but Ministers have openly acknowledged, initially from the lips of the now Justice Secretary, Brandon Lewis, that the legislation itself contravenes international law.
I have spent my life celebrating and defending Northern Ireland’s position as an integral part of the United Kingdom. The Good Friday agreement was a huge moment for us, as it should have been for everyone who cherishes Northern Ireland’s place in the heart of the union. The Belfast agreement states very clearly that
“it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland, save with the consent of the majority of its people”.
It was on that basis that the Ulster Unionist Party campaigned vigorously and successfully for a yes vote in the subsequent referendum. This situation should never have been changed without their consent, but Boris Johnson, supported by senior Ministers, including Liz Truss, thought otherwise. In an essay first published by the Belfast News Letter in 2021 and reproduced following his untimely death in July, David Trimble wrote:
“I feel betrayed personally by the Northern Ireland Protocol, and it is also why the unionist population is so incensed at its imposition. The protocol rips the very heart out of the agreement, which I and they believed safeguarded Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom and ensured that democracy not violence, threat of violence or outside interference, would or could ever change that.”
We are where we are. My noble friend Lord Empey, who is unfortunately unable to be in his place today because of family commitments back in Belfast, has previously outlined some of the common-sense solutions that the Ulster Unionist Party has put forward to try to ease the burden faced by businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland because of this protocol. We want to be constructive, and we genuinely wish the UK and EU negotiating teams every success following the resumption of talks last week. But the people of Northern Ireland should never have been placed in this invidious position. No one voted for an Irish sea border.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I regret the Bill before us this evening. On its passage through this place, I will oppose the provisions in it, on both legal and political grounds.
My starting point is that we cannot resile from or breach an international agreement that we freely entered into only three years ago. Moreover, the protocol is not a standalone agreement. It forms the centrepiece of the EU withdrawal agreement. By pursuing this Bill today, we risk reopening the whole agreement on which we left the European Union. In summing up the debate, what assurance can my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart, the Advocate-General for Scotland, give us that there will be no retaliatory measures following the passage of this Bill? I do not believe that he or the Government are in a position to do so. What I fail to understand is why those on these Benches who negotiated the protocol and the EU withdrawal agreement now jeopardise the very foundations on which they were built.
Politically, I welcome the positive engagement that the Prime Minister has undertaken with our European neighbours in attending the Prague summit of the European Political Community. I welcome the fact that—as my noble friend Lord Ahmad said in a conversation that I am pleased he took the time to have with me yesterday—the mood music has indeed changed. He gave an assurance to the House today that technical discussions on the protocol between the UK and EU have commenced, with a view to resolving the issues where they are not seen to be working under the protocol. I note that, in his words, the tone is cordial and that substantive practical measures are being considered.
The economy of Northern Ireland has flourished in the past three years. The economic activity has increased at a higher rate of GDP than that enjoyed in the rest of the United Kingdom. There must be a reason for that, and I suggest that it might be that Northern Ireland remains within the single European market.
As my noble friend Lord Howard put to the House this evening, the doctrine of necessity is not appropriate in the context of this Bill. Perhaps that legal basis has been chosen so that the Government can adopt a select, pick-and-mix approach to those areas where they believe that the protocol is not working, as opposed to those areas where they believe that it is working quite well. The fact that Article 16 has not been chosen as the legal basis proves in my view that the protocol has not fundamentally broken down.
I associate myself entirely with those such as my noble friend Lady Altmann and others in the Chamber today who have said that the Bill will allow an unacceptable level of delegated legislation. I also support the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, who described the mess of dual regulation that will flow from the provisions of the Bill before us this evening. I share her concern for what the Bill will mean for dairy movements between Northern and southern Ireland. I will add that there are other implications for farmers. I ask my noble and learned friend the Minister why the trusted trader scheme, the digital customs arrangements and data sharing have never been realised; why the principle of equivalence has never been agreed, to the detriment of many UK exports; and why the nonsensical prohibition of exports of seed potatoes into the EU and Northern Ireland from Britain remains in place.
Never in recent history have there been more pressing reasons for co-operation between European nations, because of the hostilities in Ukraine and the global threats to energy and food security. I urge the Government to prioritise negotiations on the protocol over the provisions of the Bill and to pause their proceedings after Second Reading today. I sympathise with the arguments put forward on democratic deficit by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and other noble Lords—who I consider noble friends—on the Democratic Unionist Benches. Those arguments were as valid at the time that the protocol was adopted as they are now. Perhaps the tragedy is that the Government of the day forged ahead with what this Government now consider to be, in part, a flawed agreement.
Negotiations are a two-way process. I very much welcome that current negotiations have commenced. I cannot support the Bill this evening. I will give it a Second Reading but I hope that it goes no further at this time. I urge the Government to think again and pause the Bill after today.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, believe it or not, we are only five weeks into His Majesty’s new Government. I suspect that, if others around the Chamber feel like me, it probably feels more like five months. However, in effect, the Government have been in office for only three weeks because of the unfortunate death of Her Majesty. One might have hoped that that would have given the Administration time to think through some of the things they were trying to do.
The Government have a range of huge political and economic challenges. At the beginning of the debate, I was amused in the wrong way when the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, appealed for unity across the House. I thought that was a slight case of the pot calling the kettle black, given the current problems there appear to be within his own party.
In order to calm things down, the Government have decided to push forward with this Bill—to negotiate with, in effect, an unstable hand grenade in one hand and a pen in the other. That is not a particularly compelling negotiating position. So how do we get out of jail with this particular problem? I have four suggestions to make to your Lordships for consideration.
The first, quite simply, is to be honest, and to remember the huge diaspora that the Government are talking to. They are not talking only to the 81,326 members of the Conservative Party who voted for the new Prime Minister, nor the 113 Members of the other place who voted for her. They are talking to the entire UK. If one puts all the different components of the so-called “anti-growth alliance” together and does the arithmetic, it makes up a majority of those qualified to vote in the UK—so that is not a great place to start.
One is talking of course to all of Northern Ireland. I heard today of the concept of “wise unionists”, which presumably means that there are less wise or unwise unionists. I will not opine which is which—others have done that for me. Clearly, we are talking to the EU, but we are also talking to the United States. I remember vividly, in February 2019—which was the first time I heard the subject raised in an intelligent way in your Lordships’ House—the noble Lord, Lord Putnam, talked about the fact that he spent a very large part of his professional time in the United States and had many friends there, and was conscious of how strong the Irish-American vote and political lobby were. He advised the Government to remember that and be careful. Unfortunately, that does not seem to have happened.
The second point is to admit your own mistakes, quickly and with contrition. People will be more ready to forgive and forget if you are honest. Do not obfuscate or evade. I thought some of the comments by some of the wise—or unwise—unionists, effectively saying, “The protocol was nothing to do with us”, were perhaps a trifle disingenuous.
Thirdly, do not needlessly antagonise those you need to do business with. The Government have managed to piss off the EU, this House and, even more formidably, the Delegated Powers Committee. Can one learn from the past, I wonder? I googled some of the ruminations of the noble Lord, Lord Frost, on how we got here. In his Churchill lecture in Zurich last year he said:
“We never wanted this appalling bitterness and it is frustrating to Brexiteers that we have somehow attracted much of the blame for it.”
The bit I particularly liked in that sentence was the “somehow”. I was not impressed by him effectively saying that Parliament had subverted his ability to negotiate. What is Parliament for if not to decide what we should be negotiating for and how we should negotiate?
Fourthly and lastly, I am not a Northern Ireland expert; my first degree is in history. It is often said that in Ireland there is no present and there is no future; there is only the past, endlessly repeating itself. It is clear that the sociodemographics of Northern Ireland are changing. The recent census has demonstrated that. Sentiment about the future of Ireland is beginning to change quite rapidly. I say that having spoken to various people who live in Northern Ireland and are observing what is going on. I suspect that part of that sentiment is that a large part of the population, I suspect particularly the younger part, want to look towards a future that is not defined by a wish to extend or recreate the past. I am reminded of King Canute trying to stop the tide coming in.
It is not on my CV, but in my early years I was a gravedigger. If you are a gravedigger, you know that at a certain point, if you go too far, the walls will fall in. I appeal to His Majesty’s Government: please stop digging.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, by this late hour we have heard many articulate, passionate and, dare I say, tetchy speeches. Accusations abound. We are told that the Bill is constitutional vandalism, no less—a law that will give succour to Putin. Surprisingly, the anti-Brexit coalition seem to have become fans of invoking Article 16, all as a stick to beat the Bill with.
Although we have listened to a plethora of lectures about tarnishing the UK’s international reputation, many of us who support the Bill’s aims emphasise the importance of UK politicians not further tarnishing their reputation at home among their national electorate. I make no apology for focusing on democracy and lawmaking within UK borders. My priority is national and popular sovereignty. As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, reminded us, it is jarring when those ideals are cheered when they are bravely fought for in Ukraine but sneered at when they inspire voters or law changes at home.
A quick back to basics, lest we forget: in 2016 the UK as a whole, and that includes Northern Ireland, voted to leave the EU. Millions voted to take control of our laws, our borders and political decision-making. Lest we forget, many Brexiteers knew then that the protocol was a desperate, flawed fudge. Why? To get Brexit over the line. Why did we need to get Brexit over the line more recently? Because for years sections of the establishment tried to thwart and overturn the democratic decision of their own citizens, in flagrant disregard of the rule of law and any sense of democracy. Now that imperfect protocol, which has been inflexibly interpreted by one side, insists that the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the EU will hold sway over some UK citizens and compromises the integrity of the borders of the UK’s internal market.
When there has been a nod to democracy in this debate it has been when we have heard from, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that the majority of Northern Irish parties object to the Bill. Similarly, we are reminded that, to quote one critic of the Bill in the other place,
“the majority of … Northern Ireland have not consented to Brexit in any form, and a majority of voters and MLAs reject the Bill in the strongest terms.”—[Official Report, Commons, 27/6/22; col. 76.]
But surely a UK-wide referendum means just that, not a balkanised, divisive approach to geographic political differences. The majority of London voted to remain, and the same in Scotland. Would it be okay if Greater London and Scotland declared UDI, saying that they preferred to stay in the EU single market and take instruction from the ECJ? Indeed, is this not just the approach that Nicola Sturgeon is adopting now in her demands for yet another independence referendum?
I note a certain double standard in respecting the wishes of the voters in devolved areas. My fellow Welsh citizens voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU. That did not stop Labour’s Mark Drakeford and the Senedd continually declaring that the electorate had made a grave error and trying to undermine that majority decision.
Of course, we can all note that the union is under strain at present. Since 2016, lots of British politicians seem to have noticed that the border between the six counties and the 26 counties is rather troublesome, let me say. Well spotted, if belatedly.
Yes, some in Northern Ireland are now arguing that that border is artificial and are calling for a border poll. It is absolutely legitimate to campaign for that border poll and, indeed, to campaign for a united Ireland, but that is a completely separate question from this one. The borders in which the majority voted to reclaim democratic sovereignty from the EU were the borders of the United Kingdom as is, and that is why, whatever our substantial differences on many matters, I give solidarity to the DUP and the unionist community, they may be surprised to hear.
A blame game has taken place in this Chamber that suggests that it is the DUP who are the anti-democrats here, expressed bluntly by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. That felt to me cheap, misplaced and ironic. Yes, ironic because actually all the DUP speakers were the ones who talked about civil liberties and equal treatment under the law, which are thrown out by the protocol. I am also rather worried when a government Minister, Chris Heaton-Harris, chides the DUP, saying,
“Whatever issues there are with the protocol, there are very important functions and services that the people of Northern Ireland need to work”—
as if the DUP had not noticed. However, when he says,
“whatever issues there are with the protocol”,—[Official Report, Commons, 7/9/22; col. 220.]
if the Government do not understand that these issues are not second-order, if they do not understand that these issues are crucial, it does not give me much faith that this Government will see the Bill through. I hope I am wrong.
Why attack the DUP? I appreciate that politicians who will not be bullied into U-turning and abandoning their mandate may be a rarity in this unelected Chamber, but I think it is admirable, and while I listened carefully to the wise words of the brilliant speech by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, if noble Lords here are really motivated by a desire to restore the power-sharing Executive, then it is simple: vote for the Bill. I certainly will, and I will be doing so on behalf of British voters as well.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I was not sure whether to speak in this debate on a Bill which I simply do not like, but after all the efforts to conclude the internationally acclaimed Good Friday agreement and then the withdrawal agreement and protocol with the EU, in which some noble Lords were involved, I was very disappointed to see this Bill being presented. My noble friend Lord Frost, who was much involved, describe the withdrawal agreement and protocol at the time as a carefully negotiated agreement. In the light of some of his remarks earlier this evening, I think he perhaps might want to revisit that quotation, but I think it probably was. The then Prime Minister, my right honourable friend Boris Johnson, called it
“a great deal for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland”,—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/19; col. 591]
but we are now trying to unpick it just as our negotiators, to whom I pay full tribute, are hoping to achieve the flexibility to alleviate the known concerns of all the communities in Northern Ireland, as well as the interests of the EU, the Republic of Ireland and the USA.
In considering the effects of our contributions today and bearing in mind the sensitivities, I hope nothing I say or others say will have harmed the progress being made. It would have been better if we had held off while the process is so active. However, we have had the chance to speak on the proposals in the Bill, and although it is inevitable that what I say will involve a lot of repetition of remarks made by others, I hope the Government will take note of all the remarks.
The Bill is unnecessary. Its provisions and the extra powers it gives to the Executive are unnecessary. At Second Reading in the other place, a long discussion took place as to whether necessity kept this measure within our international law obligations. The doctrine of necessity—noble Lords have heard from distinguished lawyers—requires a solid evidential base showing “grave and imminent peril” as a reason for such a measure. That, I would say, was not present at the time when the Bill was in the other place, and it certainly is not present now. To meet that test, there must be no alternative available. Here there is an abundance of alternatives, including the negotiations and Article 16.
In the other place, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, then the Foreign Secretary, cited the refusal of the EU to co-operate as evidence of necessity. That was, and is, in my view, incorrect. Otherwise, how are we in the current situation? The Government cited the opinion of mainly outside lawyers to support their proposals that seemed to ignore the views of their own First Treasury Counsel. If breaking international law is not of concern, then how could we lecture others such as Bolivia, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, South Sudan, Ethiopia and, of course, Russia and China?
What about Article 16? As my right honourable friend Theresa May said in the other place,
“Article 16 does not justify this Bill … Article 16 negates the legal justification for the Bill.”—[Official Report, Commons, 27/6/22; col. 63.]
I agree. As long as we are negotiating, we do not currently need either Article 16 or this Bill.
My second concern is with regard to the extensive extra powers given to the Executive by the Bill. This is not the first time we have debated this trend. Trying to exclude proper parliamentary scrutiny of sensitive and important matters is undesirable. This Bill would have Henry VIII seething with envy. No less than 15 of the 26 clauses give the Executive new powers to amend Acts of Parliament, disapply part of the Northern Ireland protocol and increase secondary legislation to avoid scrutiny, and Clause 19, in particular, allows for a new deal with the EU without any primary legislation. This is a serious overreach by the Executive and our Ministers.
The current negotiations must be carried on in a calm manner, while recognising the fears and concerns of all those communities in Northern Ireland, which I greatly respect. The UK must retain its position as a trusted and responsible power in the world. Leading roles in the G7, the United Nations and with our European and American friends can exist only with adherence to a rules-based system, in which we, this country, set the example. There is great potential for this country, but the rule of law must always prevail.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, no one had proposed anything like the Northern Ireland protocol until the second half of 2017. It is worth recalling the genesis. I was a Member of the European Parliament at the time and following the negotiations. In the immediate aftermath of the referendum, no one in Brussels proposed that Northern Ireland should remain under EU jurisdiction for regulatory purposes. They understood that sovereign countries are not in the business of ceding part of their territory to foreign control. They understood that sovereign countries do not usually allow internal borders. All of the talk then was about finding technical solutions: Enda Kenny’s Government in Dublin negotiating in good faith with British authorities to try to find ways to keep the border open, on the basis that the UK and EU had pretty similar regulatory norms and could trust each other’s standards.
What changed? It was a very sudden moment, around October 2017. I remember Guy Verhofstadt coming to the Constitutional Affairs Committee with his customary self-satisfied grin, saying, “We have now made it part of our negotiating mandate that there must not be any change in the EU side of the single market regulations as pertaining to Northern Ireland.” What had changed? We all know the answer: what had changed was that, on 8 June 2017, there was a general election that altered the balance in the other place.
From then, it became clear that a majority of people in both Chambers here were not prepared to leave the European Union except on terms that Brussels liked. That was not the phrase they used; the phrase was that they would not “permit a no-deal Brexit”. But let us think about it for five seconds: that is exactly the same, is it not? So, of course, the European Union—not unreasonably; I do not blame them—started putting on the table all sorts of outlandish demands that, up until then, it had not occurred to them to make.
Plenty of people have said, “Parliament ought to assert itself in this situation.” That is fine, but it strikes me as a little inconsistent for noble Lords who were strongly in favour of this no-deal Brexit stance, who then, if you like, ensured that this treaty was signed under duress, now to turn around and say, “You told us it was a great treaty. How come you have changed your mind after three years?” It was signed in a moment of EU overreach and it was bound to be corrected when the majority in another place changed. I am bound to add that there is something slightly odd about saying, after three years of negotiations, “Shouldn’t we have a little bit more time to talk?” What do noble Lords think we have been doing for the last three years?
I would like to put a question. I am one of the last speakers; some 54 noble Lords have spoken and, as far as I can tell, no one has taken issue with the contents as set out by my noble friend the Minister. Noble Lords will correct me if I am wrong. The aims of the Bill are that companies in Northern Ireland that do not export should be free to follow either UK or EU regulation; that there should be a green channel so that goods not intended for onward export are not subject to additional checks or tests; that Northern Ireland should be part of the general principle of “no taxation without representation”; and that the treaty should be arbitrated in the same way as all other international accords. Are those unreasonable demands? I see a couple of Lib Dem Peers theatrically pulling Paxmanesque leers of incredulity. I shall, of course, give way.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way since he was obviously referring to me. I am wondering about the noble Lord’s assertion—a serious one: that Parliament was misled by the Prime Minister of the day; that the deal that they presented to Parliament was made under duress. We were not informed about that being the case, but that is the case that he is making. Is that correct?
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
There is absolutely no question that the Northern Ireland protocol would not have been agreed had there not been an anti-Brexit majority in another House that was saying in terms, and had taken the legislative agenda and legislated to say, that they would not permit Brexit to happen except on terms that Brussels liked.
I finish by saying that if there is a conflict between respecting the basis of the Good Friday agreement—which rests on the idea of devolution and power sharing—and an overseas treaty obligation, I hope that any British Government would pursue the former objective. That should go almost without saying. If we were not in this situation where a large chunk of the country will automatically want to side with the EU, whatever its position is, that would be an almost banal statement. If there is a conflict between the protocol and our obligation to the people of Northern Ireland, I hope that any British Government would honour their obligation to the people of Northern Ireland.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a fact that the protocol has downgraded Northern Ireland’s position within the union and left it out on a limb, subject to still being part of the EU single market. It is a fact that it leaves our fellow British citizens there subject to foreign laws and foreign courts and under the constant enforcement of new EU regulations, with businesses in Northern Ireland forced more and more to buy from the Irish Republic rather than Great Britain. Increased bureaucracy, staff resources, cost and delivery times have, as we all know, made many businesses refuse to trade in Northern Ireland.
For me, this is a very simple debate. Our Government decided that protecting the EU single market was more important than protecting the sovereignty of their own country and the internal market of the UK. The Irish Government made threats about the return of violence if there were ever customs posts or anything at the border. They got the EU to weaponise the border, and our Government then decided to put a border between parts of their own territory. Now they are recognising, quite rightly, that they got it wrong and it is not working. As the Prime Minister said at Second Reading:
“The reason why I am putting the Bill forward is that I am a patriot, and I am a democrat. Our No. 1 priority is protecting peace and political stability in Northern Ireland and protecting the Belfast … agreement.”—[Official Report, Commons, 27/6/22; col. 45.]
We have heard much today about the Belfast agreement, but a great deal of it is a bit hypocritical. We constantly hear about protecting it in all its aspects and all its parts, but somehow the part whereby the principle of consent is supposed to protect the constitutional status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom is not mentioned by many. Where is the concern about those parts of the agreement when the protocol subjugates the Act of Union—not my words but those of the High Court judge in Belfast—which is the very constitutional basis of the United Kingdom, or when the protocol consent vote expressly disapplies cross-community consent in order to deprive the unionist community of that protection?
When many in your Lordships’ House and elsewhere talk about protecting the Belfast agreement, it seems to mean that they are concentrating on protecting the north-south aspect of it and the nationalist interests within it, yet the citizens in Northern Ireland, who put up with over 30 years of terrorists and everything that was put upon them because of their loyalty to the UK, seem to be ignored. How do we repay them for that loyalty? We do so by abandoning Northern Ireland and leaving it in the European Union single market.
Now, when the Government at long last bring forward a Bill to correct that historic and shameful injustice, we have Peers here in this House who want to torpedo it. They use the language of “pause”, which sounds much better than “torpedo”, but I ask those Peers: whose side are you on? We are Peers in the British Houses of Parliament who are here to represent our national interest, yet some seem to want to represent only the interests of the European Union.
This Bill finally gave hope to people in Northern Ireland, but unionists generally are not naive. We have been sold out before; we do not forget how our Government defended the subjugation of the Act of Union in court while at the same time saying publicly that they would fix the injustice. When we get to the Supreme Court in November, it will be very interesting to see if His Majesty’s Government take a very different view.
What other country would abandon sovereignty over a piece of its territory in this way? Have the Bill’s opponents no sense of patriotism or any care for national interest? Would Zelensky agree such a deal for the Donbass—ironically, described as the “Ulster of Ukraine”? I speak with anger today because I believe that you all need to understand what a grave injustice has been perpetrated on your fellow British citizens in Northern Ireland, and whether you like it or not, efforts to stop this Bill constitute taking a side; it is lining up with the European Union and the Irish Government, an Irish Government who stand up proudly for their nationalist community in Northern Ireland but demand that the British Government be neutral. It is betraying the British people that live there who have the fundamental right to equal citizenship.
I was ashamed when Parliament passed the grave injustice of the protocol. The only thing that will top that is sitting here, watching Peers wanting actively to try to keep Northern Ireland in captivity by preventing the progress of this Bill, which does nothing other than seek to restore Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom. On the breaking of international law—I think the noble Lord, Lord Bew, dealt with that brilliantly—while I accept the Attorney-General’s view, I care more about the fundamental constitutional law of the United Kingdom. After 300 hours of negotiations already, does anyone think that the EU will change its views if this House delays this Bill? It will not even widen Šefčovič’s mandate. I believe that it will be helping to put an end to power sharing in Northern Ireland possibly for ever. No self-respecting unionist will return to Stormont until the protocol is removed. As for those who are attacking the DUP, I look to see whether they attacked Sinn Féin when it took Parliament down in Stormont for three years.
Already we have no north-south ministerial councils, no Executive and no Assembly. How can anyone argue that the protocol is not a threat to the Belfast agreement? Please remember that when you vote tonight.
I finish by paraphrasing one of the greatest men to sit in our Parliament, Sir Edward Carson: “There are none so loathsome as those who will sell their friends for the purposes of conciliating their enemies.” Sadly, that is true just as much today as it was over 100 years ago.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I am totally opposed to this Bill. I do not like the idea of “excluded” provisions in it, with this meaning that they would no longer apply in domestic law. These would include provisions dealing with customs and movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, state aid and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice over the protocol. The Bill would give Ministers delegated powers to change which parts of the protocol would be “excluded provision” in domestic law. They would also have delegated powers to make new law in connection with the protocol, such as on the movement and regulation of goods. The wide scope of these powers has been criticised by our House of Lords Delegated Powers Committee, which has recommended that many of them be removed from the Bill.
The Government have argued that the Bill is needed because the protocol is failing to achieve its objectives and has led to disruption to the economy and challenges to political stability in Northern Ireland. They say that discussions with the EU over many months have not resulted in any agreement to change the protocol.
In proceedings in the other place, Simon Hoare, chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, said that the Office of Speaker’s Counsel had provided a legal opinion to his committee that
“raises enormous concerns about this Bill’s legality”.
He said that the Bill was based on arguments that were
“flimsy at best and irrational at worst”
and that the Bill risked “economically harmful retaliation” and
“shredding our reputation as a guardian of international law.”
Julian Smith, a former Northern Ireland Secretary, feared that the Bill was
“a kind of displacement activity from the core task of doing whatever we can to negotiate a better protocol deal”.
He said that it risked
“creating an impression to Unionism that a black-and-white solution is available when the reality is that … compromise will ultimately be needed”.
At the same time, he feared the Bill risked “toxifying further” discussions with the EU as well as
“prolonging instability for Northern Ireland business, not to mention putting the whole of the UK at risk of trade and tariff reprisals”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/6/22; cols. 55-70.]
At the heart of the NIP Bill is the interpretation of the 1998 Belfast/Good Friday agreement by the UK Government. While it seems to some that constructive ambiguity is the most essential feature of that 1998 agreement, this approach is much harder to apply to the issues arising from Brexit. What the UK Government have to face as a consequence of leaving the single market is a choice as to where EU checks and controls on the movement of goods should apply.
The Northern Ireland protocol, signed in January 2020 by the EU and the UK Government, was a compromise that followed lengthy and detailed negotiations which had produced no better option. Finding a realistic and practical way ahead now depends on being able to identify the real problems that need to be addressed, taking account of the constitutional position of Northern Ireland and understanding how the present real difficulties relating to this developed.
The NIP Bill is said to be essential because unionist opposition to the protocol is preventing the operation of the institutions created under the Good Friday agreement. However, the issue of the checks and controls on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland was known and understood when the protocol was adopted. The UK Government have given contradictory signals about that issue. Unionists claim they were promised unfettered access for goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, but there is no way that any such promise could be reconciled either with the protocol itself or with the agreements reached in December 2020 on how it would be applied. Hence, I fear the UK Government have clearly contributed to the sense of grievance strongly felt by many unionists over the protocol.
In claiming to address the issue of unionist disengagement through the NIP Bill, the UK Government have in my view adopted a one-sided analysis of the Good Friday agreement. While arguing that the Bill is needed to uphold that agreement, the solution it seeks to impose does not take into account the views of the majority of the people in Northern Ireland who are not opposed to the protocol, nor would it have the agreement of the EU or the Irish Republic Government.
The EU made significant concessions in 2021 to try to make progress in sorting out the problems arising from the protocol for the UK. These included less onerous checks on lorries transporting different food products. A business importing products of animal origin into Northern Ireland from Great Britain will also no longer be subject to the same level of checks and controls. Certain products that are generally prohibited from import into the EU will now be allowed to be imported into Northern Ireland from Great Britain, subject to them carrying certificates for which specific models will be provided. A Northern Ireland business buying goods from Great Britain will have a much simpler process of customs clearance. A smaller Northern Ireland business importing wood and other raw materials from the UK will have much simpler customs formalities. Food manufacturers and retailers exporting from the UK to Northern Ireland will also have simpler or no customs formalities. Finally, British wholesalers of medicines will be able to continue to supply Northern Ireland from the current British base without relocating infrastructure. I am glad to read that protocol negotiations have resumed and hope that the Government really take on board these concessions.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, in a recent speech the vice-president of the European Commission, Maroš Šefčovič, said:
“You may not hear this often from a European Commissioner, but it is high time we got Brexit done”.
The irony of this Government’s position on the protocol and this Bill is that they seek to overturn an instrument that was part of the package their party so triumphantly said got Brexit done—whatever rewriting of history we have heard tonight. Perhaps Mr Šefčovič’s answer came last Friday when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Chris Heaton-Harris, said:
“I want to be very positive about the chances of getting a negotiated solution. We are working in good spirits and in good cooperation … We need to show some progress on that”.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, reminded us that the gap is pretty small. The noises are hopeful and these Benches urge a rapid and constructive result to the negotiations on possible adjustments to the implementation of the protocol, instead of this unacceptable unilateral abrogation of a treaty.
I note that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, referred to “technical talks”, which makes the point that the protocol is not being reopened. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, spoke of the impasse in the wider UK-EU relationship, not least the blockage of our access to Horizon, a very unfortunate spillover. The original mistake was pursuing the hardest of hard Brexits and cutting the UK out of the single market and customs union, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, emphasised. Let us hope that sense will prevail on that score in years to come.
But that original mistake of policy was accompanied by a complete absence of integrity. As my noble friend Lord Bruce said, it was starkly clear that “Get Brexit Done” was a great electoral slogan for a weary electorate, but at its heart it was, and is, a deliberate deception. My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford recalled that Mr Johnson advised traders to throw paperwork into the bin. So, when the Government now complain of the protocol’s “unnecessary checks and paperwork” and “burdensome bureaucracy”, we are entitled to point out that this was their sovereign choice. But, as my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed recalled, Liberal Democrats, along with our partners in the Alliance Party, were ridiculed and condemned when we repeatedly warned of the implications of the protocol for trade and business. Professor Katy Hayward of Queen’s University Belfast said:
“This is a bill that is purportedly intended to protect the 1998 Good Friday (Belfast) Agreement, but as it stands it looks set to bring new levels of economic and political uncertainty for Northern Ireland”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, said, the present uncertainty is destabilising.
My noble friend Lady Suttie pointed out that the Bill is not something that the majority of people in Northern Ireland or the business community actually want. My noble friend Lady Doocey drew attention to the problem that a dual regulatory regime would cause for dairy farmers, since, if animal feed from the EU and the UK were mixed up, it would be impossible for vets to certify that an animal’s milk genuinely met EU standards. In fact, a dual regime may lighten the red tape load on GB exporters, but it will increase it on Northern Ireland businesses, and all the loose talk about regulatory divergence can only make matters worse.
If the internal market Bill would have broken international law in a “very specific and limited” way, the current Bill’s breach of it is absolutely blatant and comprehensive. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, dealt fully with this subject, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier—all of them distinguished lawyers. The noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, recalled that Margaret Thatcher was committed to the rule of law.
It has been pointed out that Article 16 provides a legal mechanism for safeguard measures within the scope of the protocol, but the Government have declined to use this, as the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said. He recounted how the former Attorney-General told him that Article 16 was not being invoked because it only allows measures that are “proportionate”. For a country such as the United Kingdom, with its web of treaties and global connections both public and private, to be so cavalier about breaking international law is a very serious error and reputational own goal. Who in the world will trust our Government and even our businesses to keep their word in future? The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, was eloquent on this point.
The noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, warned that this is a very dangerous time internationally and a moment for unity and solidarity in the alliance backing Ukraine, not divisions between the UK and the EU. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, warned of the effect on the financial markets. The noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord McDonald, noted the welcome reset in relations with the EU, with Prime Minister Liz Truss, when taking part in the inaugural meeting of the European Political Community, even able to bring herself to call President Macron a “friend”. This welcome reset would be torpedoed by this hostile Bill, and the mooted bilateral UK-France summit for next summer would surely go in the bin. With our economy in a very fragile position, the last thing we need is a trade war with the EU, and the last thing that Northern Irish traders need is the loss of ready access to the EU single market.
Other noble Lords have adequately covered how the Bill represents an almighty power grab by the Executive, as have the excellent reports from our Delegated Powers Committee, so I will not repeat that point. However, I will quote the Conservative chairman of the Justice Select Committee in the other place, Sir Bob Neill, who said,
“the reality is that there are Henry VIII powers and Henry VIII powers; and this is Henry VIII, the six wives, Cardinal Wolsey and Thomas Cromwell all thrown in together”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/22; col. 370.]
I also point—as did a stellar quartet of the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie, Lady O’Loan, Lady Kennedy and Lady Goudie—to the very legitimate concerns of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland about the impact of the Bill on the implementation of Article 2 of the protocol, the commitment by the UK Government to ensure
“no diminution of rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity”
protections as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. If the Bill progresses, that will need detailed examination.
I conclude with what the former Prime Minister Theresa May said in the other place—words widely echoed across this House today, including by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope:
“In thinking about the Bill, I started by asking myself three questions. First, do I consider it to be legal under international law? Secondly, will it achieve its aims? Thirdly, does it at least maintain the standing of the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world? My answer to all three questions is no. That is even before we look at the extraordinarily sweeping powers that the Bill would give to Ministers.”—[Official Report, Commons, 27/6/22; col. 63.]
We have two previous Conservative female Prime Ministers, Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May: one who cannot now give her opinion but would surely not have approved of this Bill, and another who has said that she does not approve of this Bill. The most recent previous Prime Minister did his Government and country no favours in bringing it forward. In words he might have spoken, it is time for the present Prime Minister to “donnez-nous un break”—indeed, to give herself a break by ditching it.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Chapman dealt with some of the political and practical considerations of this Bill, and a number of speakers have since mentioned the important challenges in relation to legality, precedent and the UK’s reputation as an actor operating in good faith. The noble Lords, Lord Howard, Lord Pannick and Lord McDonald of Salford, my noble friends Lord Bach, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and Lord Triesman and many other noble Lords have commented on the legality of the Government’s position. However, we cannot forget how the protocol came into force in the first place: the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and his then boss, Boris Johnson, decided that this was the solution to the question of Northern Ireland’s future. Three years ago, the Government had a large majority of 80 and this was presented as a solution to Parliament. The UK signed the protocol, as well as committing in Article 4 of the withdrawal agreement to ensuring that domestic law is consistent with the agreements made, only to claim post ratification that it was only ever intended as a stop-gap until something better could be agreed.
As the Bill gives powers to UK Ministers unilaterally to override the terms of the protocol, it cannot possibly be consistent with the UK’s obligations under international law. The Government lean on the doctrine of necessity, as we have heard, but there are severe doubts, as we have also heard, about their legal position. Indeed, some government lawyers were asked for only a selective opinion on the protocol, and other lawyers were not consulted at all. The doctrine cannot possibly apply to a state in cases where the necessity has been brought about—even partly—by the state’s own actions. That point was made brilliantly by a number of speakers.
The now Lord Chancellor famously said that the internal markets Bill, which is of course related to the protocol, broke the law in only a “limited and specific way”. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, referred to this in his powerful speech. I sit as a magistrate at Westminster Magistrates’ Court and if, on a Monday morning after a busy weekend and as the cells are emptied, a defendant came in front of me and said that he had broken the law in only a “limited and specific way”, I would take that as a plea of guilty and would sentence accordingly.
Nobody thinks the protocol is perfect but, as my noble friend Lady Chapman and others observed, the majority of Northern Ireland businesses have confidence in it. Our concern is that by acting unilaterally, the Government run the risk of harming the economy and destabilising community relations. I pay tribute to two noble Lords who will not be expecting me to pay tribute to them. One is the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, and the other the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. Both gave very thoughtful speeches about the practical destabilising provisions of the Bill.
The political situation in Northern Ireland is well known. It is difficult, which is why the Government should have been seeking a negotiated outcome all this time, as well as engaging with all communities in Northern Ireland about the future they want to see. We welcome the more productive tone witnessed in recent UK-EU discussions and hope that, as a result of that shift, Northern Ireland will soon have a functioning political system. Residents want their concerns about the cost of living, public services and other matters addressed, a point very ably made by my noble friend Lady Ritchie.
I want to comment on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Frost. He was very explicit when he addressed the House that he wants the Bill to provide a “walk away” option for the Government. He repeated that phrase several times. I want to give the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, an opportunity to say whether he recognises the Bill as providing a “walk away” option. His noble friend Lord Ahmad was not so explicit when introducing the Bill. I want to comment, as somebody who has done many business-type negotiations, that I have never entered a business negotiation where I accented the “walk away” option. It may have been in the background, but it was not something I said when I wanted a successful negotiation. I think it is the wrong approach.
In his comments the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, seemed to downplay the importance of the US and President Biden’s interest in the Bill. It may be interesting for the noble Lord if I tell him that at the Labour Party conference, I was lobbied by US diplomats on this Bill. That did not happen by accident; it happened because they were very concerned.
Moving on, we have been given a number of concrete assurances during the passage of earlier Bills that this or that piece of retained EU law would be protected, yet now the Government have set a hard deadline for revoking some regulations. With that in mind, it seems that we can no more accept assurances about the use of delegated powers than our international partners can when UK Ministers put their signatures to binding agreements.
My noble friend Lady Chapman described the Bill as an insult to our political and legal traditions. We have heard, from both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that we will not be voting on their amendments tonight, but I very much hope that there will be constructive discussions across the House as we move towards Committee.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, I begin by expressing my appreciation for the very large number of thoughtful and informed contributions we have heard during this debate. It has been an honour to have heard it and now to become a part of it. It has grappled with not only the grave political and constitutional matters before us but has cited the Marquess of Salisbury, by my noble friend Lady Nicholson, Montesquieu and The Spirit of the Laws by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice” by my noble friend Lord Moylan and that peerless advocate and exemplary parliamentarian Sir Edward Carson by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. The debate also heard the expression “Piss off” used by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, which I had perhaps not anticipated hearing in a debate in your Lordships’ House.
On behalf of the whole House, I am sure, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and others on the loss to our counsels constituted by the death of Lord Trimble. I also echo his comments on the loss to Lord Trimble’s community, the whole of Northern Ireland and his family.
Before I turn to the points raised by various noble Lords, I will briefly restate the reasons for introducing the Bill. The Northern Ireland protocol was agreed with the best of intentions, to ensure that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement was protected in all its dimensions as the United Kingdom left the European Union. The departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, put it so trenchantly, a UK matter. It is not to be balkanised in terms of how it played out in London, Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales. It is a United Kingdom matter.
But in its practical operation, the protocol is causing practical problems for people and businesses in Northern Ireland, including disruption and diversion to east-west trade. That disruption is present in the rest of the United Kingdom and it is causing significant costs and bureaucracy for businesses and traders.
Moreover, political life in Northern Ireland is, as your Lordships have heard on numerous occasions, built on compromise and power sharing across communities. However, as noble Lords have also heard, the protocol does not have the support of all communities in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, was but the first to explore this point. As a result, we are seeing political and social stress in Northern Ireland, including the non-functioning of the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly. It is clear that the protocol is putting strain on the delicate balance inherent in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
It remains the Government’s preference to reach a negotiated agreement on the protocol. I could not associate myself more with the comments from all sides of your Lordships’ House—the noble Lords, Lord Triesman and Lord Bach, on the Benches opposite, the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and my noble friend Lord Tugendhat—on the importance of negotiation and the hopes the Government have that it will ultimately bear fruit. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has reiterated this. He and Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič have agreed that officials should meet to discuss technical solutions. The Bill contains provisions to implement any future negotiated agreement with the European Union. I can give an assurance at this stage to my noble friend Lord Frost that we are clear that negotiations must be able to address the full range of serious issues caused by the protocol. The Bill is set up to enable us to do precisely that.
In answer to a point raised quite early in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, our EU partners and friends are aware of this Bill. They are aware that negotiations continue and recognise that there are problems to resolve.
My noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean spoke early in the debate about the manner in which the protocol has been operated. I will revert to that point when I discuss, at a level I think appropriate to Second Reading, the implications of the Government’s stance for international law. However, I must stress to your Lordships’ House that the problems created by the protocol are urgent and require swift action. The Taoiseach, the Irish Premier, said publicly last week that the protocol as it was originally designed was a little too strict. These problems are of long standing and we now seek to address them. But while we engage in dialogue with the European Union, we must also ensure that we have covered all bases and that the United Kingdom Government have the ability to implement durable solutions in any scenario.
I now propose to turn to some of the specific themes and questions raised in this evening’s debate. I do that against the undertaking that if I should fail to refer specifically to the contributions of any of your Lordships or fail to give consideration to any of your Lordships’ arguments proper to this stage of Second Reading, I am happy to engage with your Lordships in writing or in person in the corridors of this place, or for that matter, elsewhere.
The matter that featured most strongly in your Lordships’ deliberations today arose out of the matter of international law and the argument from necessity. The Government have already published a statement of their legal position on the Bill and their position is that it is lawful and necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Birt, from the Cross Benches and my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate seemed to suggest to your Lordships that the voice of the legal profession was as one in saying that this was not the case. That is not so. The Government have a worked-out position in international law and there is no reason why we should not take it forward.
The United Kingdom exercised its sovereign choice to leave the European Union single market and customs union. I discern that that course was not universally approved by your Lordships’ House. But the peril that has emerged was not inherent in the protocol’s provision. As to the universal opposition, which some of the contributors to this debate seemed to throw up, it is in the nature of law that it is often adversarial. It is in the nature of law that parties will have different approaches, just as it is in the nature of sincere friendship that sincere friends will often disagree, even on the most fundamental matters.
The strain that the arrangements under the protocol are placing on political institutions in Northern Ireland, and more generally on socio-political conditions, will leave the Government with no option but to take action if they cannot reach a negotiated solution with the European Union.
I listened with great interest to the comments as to law made not only by the many distinguished lawyers on the Benches of this place but from lay people concerned about the implications of the step that the Government were proposing to take. Opening for the Opposition from the Front Bench, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, began more correctly—or less wrongly—by saying that it was “likely” that this would amount to a breach of international law. Then she recovered the party line and said that it did breach international law. The curiosity was that I think that the lay people contributing to this debate about international law were, in fact, nearer to the truth than distinguished commentators such as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, or my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne, because the fact of the matter is that it is not possible—
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I hear the noble Lord and will revert to him in due course. It is not possible to equiparate international law with domestic law. There is simply not enough of it and it is too dependent on facts and circumstances which will not apply from case to case to come up with a precedent which would allow noble Lords who have spoken in these terms to speak with such certainty.
Should I address the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, at this stage? At an early stage in these proceedings, he spoke about the nature of the plea to necessity. I say again that it is very different from the interpretation of a domestic statute. Of course in international law there are similarities with domestic legislation, and of course in international law, often being a matter of paction, there are similarities with the law of contract. But it cannot be equiparated with, to use a metaphor that emerged from the Cross Benches, a contract for the sale of sausages. It is too complex and too fact-specific. That point was continued by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, my noble friends Lady McIntosh of Pickering, Lady Altmann and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier—I am sure that I have missed others out; as I said, my undertaking is to engage with your Lordships to assist them in moving this forward—and, I decipher from my scrawl, the noble Lord, Lord McDonald of Salford, speaking from the Cross Benches. The assertion that the Government’s position breaches international law is too bold and lacking in nuance. I submit that we are entitled to proceed on the basis that we anticipate that the protocol will be operated in a manner that reflects the unique and serious circumstances against which it was drawn up.
The doctrine of necessity was approached by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and my noble friend Lord Hannay of Chiswick in particular, who equiparated—if I misattribute this to my noble friend, I apologise to him and will happily correct it—invocation of the doctrine of necessity with the law of President Putin. Far from it: there is authority for the existence of a defence of necessity dating back at least to the early 19th century. It was recognised by the International Court of Justice in 1997 in a case between Slovakia and Hungary regarding a dam on the Danube. It formed part of the International Law Commission’s articles on state responsibility, drawn up in 2001, as the Government’s statement on their legal position notes. In 1995, the Government of Canada justified steps taken to protect the Grand Banks fisheries on the basis that it was necessary to do so. If fisheries in the Atlantic are important, how much more so is the extension of democratic rights across the whole of this United Kingdom?
Invoking the doctrine of necessity does not repudiate international law or the international rules-based order. It is part of the international rules-based order. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and my noble friend Lord Tugendhat stated that the Government were undermining the rule of law and that this constituted a flagrant breach of the rule of law. Again, by invoking the doctrine of necessity, we operate within the framework of international law and—
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
Is not my noble and learned friend rather missing the point? None of us has suggested that the doctrine of necessity plays no part in international law. What we are saying is that it is not justified by the Government’s approach in this particular instance.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I respond to my noble friend by saying that the assertions that it breaches international law simply cannot be determined at this point because it is a matter of exploring the complex background of facts and circumstances, including the manner in which the protocol has been operated.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
Can the Minister define in a few words what the necessity is in this particular instance?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I think it would be wrong of me at this stage in the Second Reading to engage in a deeper debate. I refer the noble Lord to the terms of the legal statement issued by the Government.
On the diminution of rights which were raised among your Lordships, I return to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Moylan and indeed by other Members of your Lordships’ House from Northern Ireland: what are we to say of the diminution of rights which strips from citizens of this country the right to make laws? Must we not look to that? At present, the circumstances of Northern Ireland strip our fellow countrymen of that right.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I will not give way at this stage.
An argument which was deployed by some of your Lordships, beginning with the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, and continued by my noble friend Lord Northbrook, was that by these steps the Government are damaging the trust in the United Kingdom among its international partners. There is no reason why this legislation should damage trust among our international partners. The Government want to move past issues with the protocol and focus on the key global challenges, such as those emanating from the current Government of Russia. As regards this country’s standing in the world at large, people furth of this country will look to the unhesitating support offered by this country to a democratic state imperilled by an aggressive neighbour and take that as the badge and measure of this country’s approach.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, again, with the utmost respect, I decline to give way to the noble Baroness. She has my assurance that I will engage with her.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I hear the noble Lord; I will not give way.
It remains the Government’s preference to reach a negotiated agreement on the protocol, and further discussions are now under way with our European Union counterparts with the aim of identifying shared solutions. I can give my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering repeated assurance of the importance of negotiation. We will continue to work closely with the European Union on the crisis of Ukraine, as we will with the United States and with all friendly powers and democracies throughout the world. We have always said that we want to fix the problems created by the protocol, in part so that we can focus our full collective energy on global challenges such as these.
The point was taken up at various points during the debate that the Bill threatens Northern Ireland access to Ireland and to the wider European Union single market. I stand before your Lordships in place of my noble friend Lord Caine, who I feel is far better equipped to answer these questions, drawing on his extensive experience of affairs in Northern Ireland. Again, he will undertake to engage with noble Lords on that point. Any perception of risk posed to the EU single market can be managed through market surveillance activities delivered by relevant United Kingdom bodies which will continue to prevent, deter and remove non-compliant and unsafe activity to protect the consumers of both the United Kingdom and EU markets. Market surveillance will follow the risk-based and intelligence-led approach as it does at present. As we have said all long, our preference is for a negotiated solution, and we stand ready to discuss appropriate assurances with the European Union.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, Lady Doocey and Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, raised matters specific to agribusiness and dairy farming in particular. Again, I offer the House assurance that negotiations continue.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Frost for his account of the current economic situation and his summary of the historical situation in 2009 which my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere joined with his customary brio and, in the process, released a cat among the Liberal Democrat pigeons. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, whom I took to adopt the historical summary which my noble friend Lord Frost advanced.
I come next to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, who again very early in the debate raised the important point of an impact assessment. As the noble Lord pointed out, the Bill does not have an impact assessment. The full details of the new regime will be set out in regulations alongside and under the Bill, including economic impacts where appropriate.
Since the Bill was introduced, we have consulted extensively with businesses and other key shareholders on the underlying details of the regime to ensure that it is as smooth and as operable as possible. The Government are getting on with that task now.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, seemed to invoke the concept of historical inevitability in his contribution towards the end of the debate. I am no Marxist but I am by no means clear that his exercise in foresight in relation to society in Northern Ireland will prove to be accurate.
A matter of grave and, if I may say, fully appropriate interest to your Lordships is that of the breadth of the Henry VIII powers. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, my noble friend Lord Northbrook, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, once again, my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, in particular, raised these matters, and I apologise to other noble Lords whom I have not mentioned by name.
The Bill provides specific powers to make new law where we are disapplying the EU regime and where such law is appropriate to make the Bill’s regime work. These powers are restricted. They can be used only in connection with certain provisions and subject matter of the protocol, for example changing valued added tax rules in Northern Ireland.
It is important to emphasise that we are engaged in negotiations. We are not, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, said, engaging in blackmail; nor are negotiations, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, engaged in attempting to bully the European Union; and nor, as my noble friend Lady Altmann suggested, have we by this proposal become an elected dictatorship.
These provisions are necessary. They allow the Government to act as quickly as possible to deliver new policy arrangements, for example to introduce the green and red lane for traders. Since the Bill was introduced in June this year, the Government have consulted extensively. There have been over 100 bespoke sessions with over 250 businesses, business representative organisations and regulators.
I am being warned once again: noble Lords will doubtless be glad to see the back of me. The steps which we are taking are necessary to reflect the unique and dynamic situation in which the Bill passed in the other place.
In conclusion—
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
The Government have not triggered Article 16—from early in the debate, I note my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne. The position is that it would not solve the radical, fundamental problems with the protocol. It would treat only some symptoms without fixing those root causes. As my noble friend Lord Moylan explained to your Lordships, the problem lies in the protocol and not in its application.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
It would appear that I am losing the House’s patience.
The Bill allows the Government to implement lasting and durable solutions to the existing problems with the Northern Ireland protocol. While we remain committed to exploring shared solutions with the European Union, it is critical that we retain the ability to take action on the very real and urgent problems inherent in the protocol. I hope that noble Lords will recognise this and act in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland by voting with the Government for the Bill. I am obliged to your Lordships.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, we have had a very long debate. I have heard every single word of it because I have not been out of the Chamber. I will be very brief.
All I say to my noble friends on the Front Bench is that there were 59 speakers, 40 of whom were troubled and against the Bill and 19 of whom were in favour of it, including government Ministers. I urge my noble friends please to consider carefully what has been said: consider what has been said about the emasculation of Parliament; consider what has been said about alienating friends at a time when we need them most of all, in a dangerous world; and please, before Committee begins, realise that there is deep disquiet throughout this House and in many quarters of the Conservative Party—I think I heard 10 speeches on this subject. Please can my noble friends talk and consider, and remember that decisions made in haste are not always the best decisions—that was really the subtext of the speech made by my noble friend Lord Frost.
I will not trouble the House further. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington
At end insert “but that this House regrets that His Majesty’s Government have introduced legislation which is widely perceived to breach the United Kingdom’s obligations under international law; further regrets that they have proposed unparalleled delegated powers to be exercised by Ministers of the Crown, which could be used to undermine international law and which would be subject to little or no parliamentary scrutiny; calls attention to the serious concerns expressed by the Northern Ireland business community and the majority of members of the Northern Ireland Assembly over the contents of the Bill; notes that the Bill contradicts the policy platform endorsed by the electorate at the 2019 General Election; therefore calls on His Majesty's Government to prioritise a negotiated solution with the European Union, and to pursue existing legal options to resolve outstanding issues around the operation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland; and further calls on His Majesty’s Government to consider and report to the House on whether pausing this legislation would be beneficial to the progress of those negotiations or other processes”.
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill
Tuesday 25th October 2022
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022-23 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 52-I(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (25 Oct 2022)
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Chapman of Darlington
At end insert “but that this House regrets the absence of (1) a response by His Majesty’s Government to the 7th Report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, (2) the publication of an impact assessment outlining the likely consequences of the use of powers in this Bill on the Northern Ireland business community, (3) the publication of draft regulations which may be laid using the powers in this Bill, and (4) any formal report to Parliament on the status of negotiations with the European Union; and calls on His Majesty’s Government to provide this information before the House considers the Bill at Report Stage.”
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by taking this opportunity to extend the condolences of these Benches—and I am sure of other noble Lords across the House—to the family of Baroness May Blood, who passed away late last week. May was the first woman from Northern Ireland to be elevated to this House, reflecting her long record of defending and advancing the rights of women, children and working people. I hope that her family will find some small comfort in the warm tributes from all communities and political parties in Northern Ireland, which must be a reflection of the peace process she did so much to advance.
In moving my amendment to the Motion, I express thanks to colleagues across your Lordships’ House for the many hours of discussions that have taken place since Second Reading. The Second Reading debate highlighted near-unanimous opinion across the House that the Bill is neither wise in a political or diplomatic sense, nor constitutionally acceptable. I know that various colleagues have said at multiple points that they feel very strongly that the Bill should not have a Committee stage, and I sympathise greatly with those who hold that view. In an ideal world, the Government would have recognised this too by accepting the strength of feeling against the Bill and paused it. Perhaps that will still happen.
Baroness Altmann
Leave out from “information” and insert “and to lay before Parliament (a) a comprehensive United Kingdom economic and sectoral impact assessment of the legislation, and (b) a report on their consultations with representatives of all the main Northern Ireland political parties and business sectors, before the House considers the Bill at Report Stage.”
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I would like to add my support to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and to her amendment; my amendment simply adds extra requests for what I believe is vital information to be provided to Parliament before Report stage. I would also like to express my gratitude to colleagues across the House for their engagement with discussions on this Bill, and indeed I would like to thank my noble friend on the Front Bench, who has also been generous with his time in discussing these issues.
The problems with this Bill are far deeper, more fundamental, and indeed more important, than Brexit. This is about right and wrong, about protecting parliamentary democracy and about the values that our country believes in and holds dear—the importance of keeping our word, trustworthiness, honesty, integrity. This Bill drives a coach and horses through these things: it seeks to tear up an international agreement signed recently, supposedly in good faith.
Besides the issues of international law that other noble Lords are much better qualified than me to comment upon, there are also serious constitutional consequences of allowing Ministers untrammelled powers to bypass Parliament, changing laws at will. No parliamentary democracy should be asked to accept this. If noble Lords do not make a stand now, I believe we are failing in our duties. Slowly, slowly, the usual freedoms and democratic norms we have lived by are being chipped away; Parliament must not become inured to these power grabs. It is time to make a stand before it is too late, for continuing down this path is heading us toward an elected dictatorship, with a supine Parliament that can be bypassed at Ministers’ whim.
Even aside from the legal and constitutional dangers, we have not been given, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, explained, the necessary information on which to base proper assessment of how passing this legislation would impact the UK economy, important sectors of Northern Ireland and British business. Nor are we told the results of consultations that have taken place with all the main political parties and business sectors in Northern Ireland. My amendment calls for these to be provided as well.
The history of Ireland is full of turbulence created by one group overriding the wishes of others rather than working together to seek peace and a harmonious relationship. The Good Friday agreement achieved peace because we were part of the EU, but a hard Brexit has upended this. The idea that Britain can unilaterally force its own interests on the island of Ireland and still retain peaceful, fruitful trading and other relations is a fantasy. The Bill demands that the UK be the final arbiter of what constitutes a risk to the EU’s single market, or that the ECJ cannot ultimately arbitrate matters of dispute. This cakeism is unsustainable.
This Bill also risks upsetting our trading relations with the EU, and indeed the US, at a time when we need them to boost growth. The new Prime Minister has a chance to reconsider this Bill and set it aside in the interests of growth, I hope that he will decide at the very least to put it on hold, so that proper negotiations can take place and trust can be restored. The EU has offered concessions, and I believe we have a chance to find resolutions.
To restore our international standing, we must end this unilateralist, bullying approach and start recognising reality: that Northern Ireland is attached to the EU; it is not physically attached to Britain; passage of this Bill will force a border on the island of Ireland, which runs directly counter to the Good Friday agreement. My amendment calls for the Government to present to Parliament their economic impact assessment on all main sectors in the UK, including in Northern Ireland, and to include how they will mitigate, for example, the damage to the dairy, agri-food, and potentially electricity sectors, and to tell us before Report stage what they believe are the views of all main political parties and business sectors in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it may assist the House to know that we from these Benches can confirm our support for the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the amendment we have just heard.
If we are to scrutinise legislation properly in this House—which is our constitutional duty—there is also a duty on us to highlight areas where we are prevented from doing so because the Government have not presented sufficient information. There is clear precedent for this. We did so on the Professional Qualifications Bill, when the mood of the House was reflected to the Minister in very clear terms that accompanying information was devoid of sufficient information and that we would not progress discussion of it unless further information was provided. To his credit, the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, provided that. We stated in clear terms when the Government presented more than 350 government amendments to the Subsidy Control Bill shortly after they introduced it that they needed to bring further information. To his credit, the noble Lord, Lord True—now the Leader of the House—indicated that the Government would change their position and allow for more debate.
The Government have not sufficiently responded to the desires expressed both at Second Reading and by the committees of this House for further information. They have not responded properly to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report, which was excoriating in its condemnation of the use of regulation-making powers. As we have heard, the Government have failed to bring forward an impact assessment to show their own estimate of what impact policy options taken to present the Bill will have. The House will recall that I quoted from the original impact assessment of the protocol legislation, so it is fair to ask for the successor legislation, which will have equally profound implications, also to have impact assessment information. The Bill itself is extremely controversial, and it will have an impact on the business community, society, trade and the wider economy. Therefore, an impact assessment is vital.
This is not just a debating point. The Cabinet Office in its 2022 Guide to Making Legislation is very clear on what the requirements are on departments when they bring forward legislation. Section 13, on impact assessments, says:
“The Government has international obligations in free trade agreements to conduct impact assessments on regulation that has an impact on trade.”
Clearly, this Bill has such an impact. It goes on:
“A development, options or consultation stage impact assessment must be submitted alongside any bids for legislation, and a final proposal stage impact assessment must accompany requests for collective agreement to the policy in a Bill.”
The guide says clearly:
“The final impact assessment must be made available alongside bills published in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny or introduced to Parliament.”
When the Advocate-General for Scotland replied to me at Second Reading, he said that the Bill did not have an impact assessment but that
“full details of the new regime will be set out in regulations”. —[Official Report, 11/10/22; col. 767.]
That is just not good enough. We need to scrutinise these now.
On delegated powers, I remind the House that the Constitution Committee report concluded in paragraph 29:
“In examining clause 9, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee concluded: ‘[l]egislation has preceded policy development rather than vice versa’. We agree and recommend that clause 9 be removed from the Bill.”
We will discuss this later, but the essential point is that legislation should follow policy development, not vice versa. The Advocate-General said in response to the Second Reading debate:
“Since the Bill was introduced, we have consulted extensively with businesses and other key shareholders on the underlying details of the regime … There have been over 100 bespoke sessions with over 250 businesses, business representative organisations and regulators.”—[Official Report, 11/10/22; cols. 767-8.]
But on what? We do not have proposals in front of us. The Government’s own code of conduct for consultations states that they should be based on public questions. I have not seen a consultation document. I have not been able to find any draft regulations on which the Government have consulted. I have not been able to see any details of how the new regime might operate in practice, and we have not been presented with an assessment of what the responses are in order to shape views of costs. There is no footnote to the Cabinet Office document from this year that says, “None of this applies when a Minister so decides for political purposes”.
The Minister seemed confident that draft regulations will solve the problem, although he and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, did not spell out in detail what they will be; we will hear that later in Committee. I remind the House that we have been furnished with draft orders before, when we asserted our desire to receive them. However, at Second Reading, the Advocate-General contradicted himself. In defence of the Government’s legal position, he said that
“the peril that has emerged was not inherent in the protocol’s provision”,
but, later, he said that
“the problem lies in the protocol and not in its application”.—[Official Report, 11/10/22; cols. 764-68.]
I suspect that a witness contradicting himself in court might have been pounced on by a certain advocate, but we in this House need to see the draft regulations if they are the fix for the root causes, as the Minister said.
Finally, we need formal reporting. We need detail on where the negotiations stand and what the current areas of consideration are. In Committee in the Commons, the then Paymaster-General said:
“I am not sure how much more could be done in terms of negotiation … Good faith negotiations to resolve the issues with the protocol have already been exhausted.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/22; cols. 383-84.]
I think the whole House was encouraged by the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, at the start of Second Reading, when he said that the talks have resumed and are of a positive nature. However, we need full updates with technical papers so that we can properly scrutinise this legislation and so carry out our constitutional duty.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I apologise to the House for being unable to speak at Second Reading. I put my name down but realised that I could not be present at the end of the debate. If noble Lords will accept my apology, I assure them that I will not now make a Second Reading speech; I will simply summarise what I believe to be the case: that, as proposed legislation, this is a lamentable Bill.
If we want a careful, detailed analysis of the issues in and chronology of this case—I recommend that we do, if I may say so—the report from the House’s Library is absolutely magnificent. I personally thank those who prepared it; I recommend it to your Lordships. Everybody wants to have a say, so I am not going to add to the long list of things that are required, but can I suggest three more?
First, the Constitution Committee has just reported. The power of its report is not merely in that it repeats the concerns expressed by the delegated legislation committee on the Henry VIII aspects of the Bill; it directly addresses the Government’s contention that there is no problem with the lawfulness of the Bill. The Government have so far treated the report from the delegated legislation committee with scant respect. We have not had an answer to it. We should not proceed with this Bill until such time as there is an answer to the delegated legislation committee’s report and to the Constitution Committee’s report. These are our committees. They are cross-party, and the reports speak for the committees as a whole.
My second concern is that there is litigation afoot. A judicial review of the protocol has been taken and is due to be heard in the Supreme Court on 30 November. My question is this: has any attempt been made to expedite the hearings so that they can come on more quickly and we can have the Supreme Court’s answers to the issues raised instead of saying, “Well, we’re going to have to wait for that decision so we must act quickly because we’re having to wait too long”?
Thirdly, a number of infringement processes have been taken against us by the EU. It would helpful if we could see our responses to those. We need to know where we stand in the formal proceedings taken by the EU that we are in contravention of our treaty obligations. They are not a matter of privacy. I understand that negotiations must be conducted privately and there is confidentiality attached to them, but surely not for our Government’s response to the EU’s requests for infringement processes to be looked at.
In the end, I am very glad that this issue will not be taken to a Division today. That is sensible, particularly because all sides of the House need to understand what the problems are with the Bill and why it is, in the word which I used at the time of Second Reading, which I did not take part in, a lamentable Bill.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, the effect of these amendments, whether one agrees with their precise wording, is to give the new Administration time to pause, to reflect, and to consider the best way of dealing with the issues that arise from the protocol. The new Administration need that time. There is no doubt that the way that the protocol is being implemented causes considerable practical difficulties for Northern Ireland, particularly for trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. These difficulties, which would be exacerbated if the protocol were to be implemented in full, are real. A solution to them must be found.
There is agreement across the House that the best solution could be an agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. We are told that discussions are taking place. I hope that the new Administration will give fresh impetus to those discussions, and that it will not take what might be described as a theological approach to those negotiations. It appears to be the position of His Majesty’s Government that changes to the text of the protocol are essential. However, it may be that a solution to the practical problems which exist can be provided by other means. The European Union has a long history of creative interpretation of the texts of agreements, which has often stood it in good stead in arriving at practical solutions in one field or another—and it should be encouraged to do so here.
We all hope that those negotiations succeed, but we must face up to the possibility that they may not succeed. If that turns out to be the case, I hope that the Government will look again at the possibility of dealing with the practical difficulties by invoking Article 16 of the protocol rather than through this Bill.
I think that my noble friends on the Front Bench will recognise on reflection that the explanations that they gave at Second Reading for not proceeding by Article 16 were—how can I put it?—rather less than convincing. Presumably it was precisely to deal with difficulties of this kind that Article 16 was inserted into the protocol. It is a perfectly legal route if the preconditions in the article can be satisfied. If they cannot be, there is certainly no justification for this Bill.
I do not need, or propose, to repeat the arguments against the application of the doctrine of necessity in these circumstances, which I and others advanced at Second Reading. I urge the Government to think again. I hope these amendments will prove to be unnecessary.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that I will not embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Howard, by saying that I agree with virtually everything that he said.
First, however, I pay a brief tribute to May Blood, a stalwart warrior for peace who crunched fearlessly through all the political posturing, was dynamic, warm, passionate, blunt at times, and incredibly courageous on the front line of peace. I also apologise that, when the date was switched, I was unable to be present for Second Reading as I had intended. I speak in support of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Chapman of Darlington, which I trust that she will re-table before Report and call a vote on if necessary.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I express my support for the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the amendment advanced by my noble friend Lady Altmann. I would very happily have supported either, were this matter to be put to the vote.
I am against the Bill. I expressed my reasons at Second Reading and will not repeat them today because I appreciate that we are concerned here with a very narrow issue: whether this matter should go into Committee. In expressing my opposition to it going into Committee, I want to focus on one issue only, namely our relations with the European Union.
We have a new Prime Minister. I wish him well. Mr Sunak supported Brexit, a policy that I deeply regret. However, I am sure that he will be the first to recognise the need to improve our relations with the European Union. We must do so: they are our nearest, biggest and most important trading partner, very important allies and neighbours. We need to give this Government, led by Mr Sunak, the opportunity to reset their policy towards the European Union. I believe that the Bill, if enacted, will aggravate our relations with the European Union. It is possible that it will trigger a trade war. Both of these things would be highly undesirable. What this Government need is time: time to negotiate sensibly with the European Union. If we agree to defer the Bill and not let it go into Committee at this stage, we will be giving the Government and the European Union time to come to a sensible agreement. I commend that to this House.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I too will be brief. I have heard nothing in the preceding speeches with which I disagree, but I have one point that I would like to add.
I agree with the amendment put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and with the amendment suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. However, even in the unlikely event that the Government were to provide all six dossiers that have been requested, and in the even more unlikely event that these proved reassuring, I would still want to vote against this Bill. It is a matter of principle and honour.
You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, and this is a pig of a Bill. The powers it confers on government using these powers is simply not compatible with how this country views its commitments. We do not tear up treaties. That is the point of principle; that is the matter of honour. A deal is a deal is a deal: pacta sunt servanda. The noble and learned Lord the Advocate-General told us at Second Reading, in a rather labyrinthine reply:
“The assertion that the Government’s position breaches international law is too bald and lacking in nuance.”
When questioned by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, he said that
“it would be wrong … to engage in a deeper debate.”—[Official Report, 11/10/22; cols. 765-66.]
He did not say why it would be wrong or when the moment would be, but I imagine he was waiting for the Constitution Committee’s report. Now that we have it, we see that the Constitution Committee is clear that even enacting this Bill would
“clearly breach the UK’s international obligations”.
There is not a lot of nuance there.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I speak with a sense of something approaching elation from yesterday. We have a new Prime Minister, who appears to be a man of absolute honour—I take up the points made by the noble Lord who has just spoken. I have hope in him, and I hope he will justify that hope, which I believe is shared by many.
I do not want to make a long speech. I moved a regret amendment at Second Reading, and I was rather sorry in many ways that I was not able to put it to the vote, but clearly the House did not want that to happen at that time and it was right to listen to the House.
I would like to give one message above all others to the Prime Minister. What took Northern Ireland forward—the noble Lord, Lord Hain, with whom I worked in Northern Ireland when he was Secretary of State and I was chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, knows this better than I—was prime ministerial involvement; that was the key to success.
Both John Major and Tony Blair devoted enormous time and attention to what led to be the Good Friday agreement. I remember being present in the Royal Gallery when the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, came, together with Tony Blair, to speak to both Houses of Parliament. Tony Blair was particularly careful to say that this was not just his achievement, and that without the building blocks laid by John Major this could not have happened. There has to be a cross-party accord; there has to be prime ministerial involvement.
Our present Prime Minister has inherited a herculean task. If he is going to devote time to the economy, he clearly cannot be devoting an equal amount of time to Northern Ireland at the moment. What he can do, however, is to encourage those who are negotiating on this country’s behalf to negotiate. He can remove what I called in the Second Reading debate the sword of Damocles, which is this Bill. It is a bad Bill; it is a Bill that gives powers that no democratic Minister should ever seek in a plethora of Henry VIII clauses. Therefore, what I beg Mr Sunak to do is to just go carefully and then, as soon as it is possible, to go to Northern Ireland with the Secretary of State. I do not know who that will be, because the Prime Minister is reconstructing his Government even as we sit in this Chamber this afternoon. He has promised—and I was there when he promised it yesterday afternoon in Committee Room 14— a broadly based Administration, which we desperately need. We have had Administrations produced by Boris Johnson and Liz Truss which were by no means broadly based. They were merely gatherings of like-minded people and, in constructing their Governments, the two Prime Ministers did not really take sufficient account of variety and ability.
I hope that Mr Sunak is doing that as we speak. I hope that he will go to Northern Ireland soon; that he will talk to those who are negotiating on behalf of the Government with the European Union; that he will recognise that the very last thing that this country needs is a trade war, referred to earlier in this debate; and that he will pause. There is no great hurry and, even if the Government are in a hurry, your Lordships’ House is not in a hurry. This could take hours and hours and days and days, but at the end of the day this Bill is unimprovable, because it trashes our international reputation and the things that we are most proud of.
My noble friend Lord Howard’s reference to Putin, in his brilliant speech on Second Reading, was entirely apposite. We have to set an example; we have to show that we are indeed the guardians of one of the best democracies in the world. We have got to show that we are not prepared to sanction a Bill that rides roughshod over our national reputation. Like my noble friend Lord Hailsham, I would support either of these amendments if they were put to the vote tonight. But I understand why those who have proposed them in very persuasive terms perhaps do not want to do that. However, there must be a day of reckoning in your Lordships’ House because this Bill is bad for our country and bad for our future, and it must not go onto the statute books.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I speak as one who lives in Northern Ireland and experiences on a regular basis the impact of the bureaucracy associated with the operation of the protocol. I spoke at Second Reading of my concerns about the Bill and I want to support both amendments placed before your Lordships today, because we do not have the information that would underpin proper consideration of the necessity for the Bill. No doubt a solution has to be found to the various problems arising in the operation of the protocol but, as witnesses to the Northern Ireland protocol sub-committee of the European Affairs Committee told us—we heard evidence last Friday in the Northern Ireland Assembly—this Bill is like placing a gun on the table at the negotiations.
I hope that, even at this late stage, the Prime Minister and the usual channels will consider the matter further and withdraw the Bill—in light of your Lordships’ interventions today, of the reports of the sub-committee on the protocol, those of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and, most of all, in light of the report of the Constitution Committee, which says:
“Legislation which puts the UK in breach of international law undermines the rule of law and trust in the UK in fulfilling future treaty commitments. The Government’s reliance on the doctrine of necessity does not justify introducing this Bill. This raises the question of whether ministers might be thought to have contravened their obligation under the Ministerial Code to comply with the law, including international law.”
This is the most serious of observations by the Constitution Committee. I will vote against the Bill when we get an opportunity to do so but, at present, I support the amendments.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support both these amendments and to pay tribute to our colleague Baroness May Blood, who sadly passed away last week. May was a fearless campaigner in Belfast for the rights of the underdog, for integrated education—believing that children should be educated together rather than apart—and, above all, for the rights of women in work and in factories.
I support the contents of these amendments. So far, we have not received from the Government any reports or any assessment from their perspective about the report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Also, we now have the report from the Constitution Committee, as was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan.
No assessments have been carried out in respect of the economy, business and commercial developments in Northern Ireland. Only last week, as a member of your Lordships’ committee on the protocol, I returned to Northern Ireland along with the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Loan and Lady Goudie, and our chair the noble Lord, Lord Jay. We paid a visit and took evidence—in Newry, which is along the Belfast-Dublin corridor, as well as in the Northern Ireland Assembly—from the leaders of all the political parties, and from the business, commercial and manufacturing sector. The general view of those people—apart from those in the haulage sector—was “Please remove this Bill”. This comes back to the basic point that there have to be successful negotiations, a successful negotiated outcome between the EU and the UK. That is vital. Those negotiations cannot come to a positive conclusion as long as the Bill, which is like a gun on the table, exists. I urge the Government: please remove this Bill, as it is not helpful.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, I urge the Government and the new Prime Minister to come to Northern Ireland—above all, to come with Taoiseach Micheál Martin and show the joint approach that was portrayed in the Good Friday agreement. That bipartisan approach is urgently required because, unless there are negotiations to restore the political institutions, we are in a political backwater. I urge the Government please to do that.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, I spoke at Second Reading and made clear my opposition to Bill. I will not repeat any of that. I will try to avoid repeating the many views that have already been given, all of which I agree with. They have been put very eloquently and clearly. This is a quite despicable piece of legislation that shows total contempt for the rule of law. It is plainly in breach of our international obligations. It shows total contempt for parliamentary democracy by giving powers to the Government to legislate without having to bother with parliamentary scrutiny in the correct way in future. To say that I am opposed to the Bill is an understatement. I still sit here utterly astonished that, after all my decades in politics, a British Government —worst of all, a Conservative Government—could dare to bring forward a piece of legislation of this kind, in a country that is supposed to be the mother of Parliaments and has always, in the past, been respected for our form of parliamentary democracy and what we contribute to the rule of law, democracy, liberty and liberal values in the world. I am already beginning to warm to my views on the whole thing.
I want to comment on the value of delaying proceeding with all this. We are proposing to move to negotiations with the European Union. It is our closest friend and ally in the world. Certainly, since the Americans have a certain propensity to elect a President such as President Trump in the not-too-distant future, we are particularly dependent on the closest possible relationships with our neighbours and friends, whose international interests almost entirely coincide with ours. What is the Government’s answer, not on the merits of the Bill—no doubt the Minister will do his best to make an argument and keep a straight face, which I think he managed in our last debate—but about the delay? If they are genuinely opening negotiations with the European Union in good faith, and if the policy of the new Government is a genuine desire to reach a settlement of the practical problems—the stated policy of the old Government—it could, if addressed properly, improve the practical application of the Bill.
What they are doing is poisoning the whole relationship behind the negotiations before they have even started. To a lay audience, one would only have to ask: what would our reaction be if the Europeans came to the table and put a similar blunderbuss in front of us, saying, “We are already preparing, unless you agree to any terms we put forward, to now impose tariffs on all the products that you export to your most important markets in our territory—and we are going to do so, tearing up the agreements to the contrary and normal practice, in front of your eyes”?
You cannot negotiate on that basis. It is not just illegal; it is just bad negotiating tactics. We are positively inviting them to plunge us into a trade war, which is about the worst possible disaster I can imagine this country being plunged in given its economic circumstances at the moment, as we are already in a recession. We are going to have a severe recession and combine it with very high levels of inflation, unless the new Government produce some spectacular remedies for where we have already got to.
I have no doubt that something ingenious will have been prepared for the arguments on the merits, the law and parliamentary process and that undertakings will be given. What is the argument that makes it so absolutely urgent for the Government to insist that they must be seen to be proceeding to legislate in this way, before they have even sat down to start talks with our European neighbours? If anybody can think of an argument against that, I shall be absolutely astonished.
Finally, I have enjoyed this debate. I enjoy coming to the House of Lords and wish I was able to come more frequently. It is a splendid institution and I enjoy the debates. I always have a little difficulty as I still have not managed, after two years here, to take it terribly seriously and my friends criticise me for that. If I have a decent dinner in the evening, I am afraid it sometimes takes me away from debates which I am otherwise engaged in. The reason is because increasingly, over the years, the House has been totally disregarded by Governments of all kinds. It is rarely heeded by the public because it has such limitations on its powers. I entirely understand the overriding principle that the elected House must, in the end, prevail when it has a conflict with an appointed House. We do not have the legitimacy that we would need to block the express views of a majority of the House of Commons, but we concede to that convention in an extremely cautious way.
I came here convinced that, at the very least, I would go away feeling a little more satisfied because I had been able to cast a vote to give the chance of improving the climate of the negotiations by delaying progress on the Bill for a time, to see whether the negotiations could make some progress. Like my noble friends Lord Cormack and Lord Hailsham, I would have supported any vote put forward to that effect. So here we are; we are retreating. I must learn to understand and acquire more experience, realising that a Labour Government want to reserve the right to do similar things if they see the precedent being set for future and successive Governments. But I regret it, because the principles behind this debate are of huge and profound importance.
The quality of our democracy is deteriorating. The power of our Parliament is being eroded and we do not know where this process is going to be stopped. I still hope that we might find some pause in that development if the new Prime Minister thinks again and agrees to at least hold up any further parliamentary progress until he sees whether sensible negotiations with the Europeans are worth while. It is as much in the interests of the Europeans as ours to have successful negotiations and we might be able to return to a civilised way forward.
Lord Patten of Barnes (Con)
I will not begin by following my noble friend with an autobiographical diversion, but I want to start with what he said at the beginning of his remarks. It is not outwith our experience in this Chamber or elsewhere to begin a speech by saying that everything one wanted to say has already been said, then to say it all over again rather less well than some others said it.
I wish to be very brief. I will not follow the arguments about the lack of wisdom of turning Henry VIII into our legislative guru in this House. I will not follow what has been said about the way in which the doctrine of necessity was tortured in a way the American constitution would surely regard as “cruel and unusual” treatment into providing whatever Ministers wanted it to say.
I want to borrow from a corruption of what Lord Alfred Douglas said and raise another issue which has not for some time dared to speak its name, and that is Brexit. We sometimes get the legislation and arguments about it the wrong way round. It was Brexit which was a threat to the Good Friday agreement and the relations between Northern Ireland and the Republic. The Northern Ireland protocol was meant to deal with that in an acceptable way.
The last Prime Minister—let me get this right—but two had her own proposals for dealing with the problem, which was to have the whole of the United Kingdom more or less inside the customs union and single market. That was opposed by the last Prime Minister but one and the European Research Group. They saw off Theresa May and produced the Northern Ireland protocol as their own answer to the problem. At the time, the then Prime Minister gave lots of assurances to the DUP and others that the Northern Ireland protocol would not have any effect on trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I assume it was his usual habit of saying things he hoped would be true but turned out not to be, or maybe he just had not read what he had signed up to.
We are left with this debate about the Northern Ireland protocol. I think we are debating it with a Prime Minister who wants to unite the Conservative Party and the country, rescue the economy from Singapore-on-Thames-ism and do what he can to bring us all together in that very difficult fight. In doing so, I am sure he will be aware of the impact on the economy of having another row with the European Union, which remains—even though we are outside it—our largest trade market. It cannot make sense, as my noble friend said earlier, to do that. I very much agree with what both my noble friends Lord Hailsham and Lord Howard said on this. It makes sense to give Mr Sunak and the new Government a chance of looking at these issues again.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has done such fantastic work on pensions and much more that I admire. However, inevitably, in this instance, I completely disagree with her and with the whole tenor of her remarks and the remarks made by many since then. When the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, was speaking, I thought that that was the kind of detail I would like to go through when scrutinising the Bill, and the kind of discussion I assumed we would be having here. In fact, the points of view have become much broader.
I will comment on a few things and will not drag this out for too long. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said that the issues in this Bill go far deeper, and are more important and fundamental, than Brexit. I think that this is because so many in this House still do not really understand what Brexit was all about or the important and fundamental principles at its heart. They do not understand, even now, as we have heard, why millions of people voted for it. When the emphasis is constantly on trustworthiness and integrity, and restoring the trust of the UK Government internationally, maybe people ought to consider that that is always the external focus of this discussion—but there is an internal focus. Surely at this moment, of all times, when political parties on all sides have a very fragile relationship with the voting public—who, let us be honest, are pretty disillusioned—we need to consider how we can restore trustworthiness and integrity with UK voters here at home.
The key to this protocol Bill is that many people in the UK, when they voted in 2019 for that manifesto, wanted to see through the decision of 2016 to leave the European Union. The issue of Northern Ireland was one of the ways through which people were saying, “You can’t have Brexit, because look at the Northern Irish issue”. So people wanted to find a solution to it. I regret that they were overreassured by the Government when they were told, “Don’t worry, we’ve dealt with the protocol issue”—I always had concerns about the protocol issue. However, the intention was not to allow the issue of Northern Ireland to undermine the decision of 2016, because—lest we forget—that 2016 decision was nearly undermined. Some here say, “Our word is our oath” and so on, but they did not think that then; everybody else voted for something, but some here said that it did not make any difference and then ignored it.
It seems that, even now, so much of the discussion we have had is disingenuous. I ask opponents of the Government and the Government this: when people say that surely we should spend a bit more time and pause, how long do they want? Is it any wonder that nothing gets done in this country, if people think that this is a speedy process? Since 2019 we have had this protocol Bill and it is going wrong. Something needs to be done. The idea that we can pause or stop it and reconsider is not because anybody thinks we should not rush it through. Really, the message is: can the Government pause it, slow down, change their mind and agree with me? That is not the same as saying that we should pause and rethink; it is saying, “Pause and do what I tell you to do”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, suggested that the Bill creates a bullying approach to negotiations with the EU. I disagree. For me, what the debate so far has illustrated is the bullying approach within this House on this discussion. The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, says that the Bill is not going to get through this House unless it is changed beyond all recognition. Really? Do we not have votes? What does the noble Baroness mean when she says it is not getting through?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Just to correct what the noble Baroness said about my contribution, I did not say that the Bill will not get through; I said that it will not get an easy ride, and I think the discussion today has rather borne that out.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I wrote it down and I will check. It was said that if there were not substantial alterations to the Bill, this House will block it. I suggest that it might be a bit of an affront to democracy for people in this House to say that we should block the Bill. That is not our decision. When people here talk about how the Bill is an affront to democratic decision-making, I point out that threatening to block a Bill is an affront to democratic decision-making. When people say that they are worried that the Bill bypasses Parliament, and that they want to protect democratic norms and do not want the Government to become an elected dictatorship, they should note that blocking the Bill would imply bypassing Parliament, undermining democratic norms and turning this House into an unelected dictatorship.
Finally, why do I think the Bill is needed? This bit, I can go into. The problems of the operation of the protocol are well documented. Many people have greater experience of it than I do, but when we scrutinise the Bill and go through it, that is what we should talk about, and whether the Bill is fit for purpose to resolve some of those things. I agree with that. But the reason a Bill is needed is surely because the rule of law—and everybody here seems enthusiastic about the rule of law—will be applied differently to the people of Northern Ireland unless we do something about the way the protocol is being enacted. To be able to ensure that all citizens of the United Kingdom are treated equally under the law, we need to do something—it cannot be that all citizens are treated equally under the rule of law in the UK apart from a certain section of the UK who will be subject to decisions made by legislators that they have no control over.
As a civil libertarian, regardless of what you think of Brexit, if you believe in the rule of law, you cannot let things stand as they are. We need to urgently do something. While some have indicated that the real problem is Brexit, that ship has sailed. The British people spoke. Brexit is a reality and we have to live with that. We have to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland are not punished.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Has the noble Baroness seen the latest opinion poll, which shows that, when you exclude “Don’t knows”, 60% of British people want to rejoin the EU?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I am always delighted when people think that opinion polls and what is said on Twitter are democracy in real life. I do not know why we bother with the ballot box—we should just go to an opinion poll. I believe in democracy and the democratic right of the British and UK people to make their decisions without rushing off to Opinium Research, or whoever it may be.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I am sure the House would not expect me to, or hope that I would, follow that contribution. I apologise for not being able to speak at Second Reading. I was travelling, as it happens, back from the United States and could not get here before the proper time and date to indicate a wish to speak in the debate. However, that travel to the United States prompts me to say this: we ignore at our peril the importance attached on both sides of the aisle, and in both Houses of Congress, to the Belfast agreement. To put it neutrally, this Bill puts a stress and strain on that settlement. For that reason, and for all the others eloquently put forward today, this Bill should at the very least be delayed.
I remind the House that, some time ago, we were presented with a Bill nominally in relation to internal markets. It contained a Part 5, the purpose of which was to create a law whereby the Government would be excused when it broke the law. The Government have form on this matter, and there is a sense in which the Bill we are discussing is simply part of the same kind of thinking. What has been said today has been said with great eloquence; what was said in this House on the internal markets Bill was said with great eloquence and eventually the Government had to abandon it.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak with some trepidation as, apart from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, this has been a convention of like-minded people, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, put it.
I have just come hot-foot from a Committee A (Sovereign Matters) meeting at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly in Cavan. We were addressed by the Taoiseach at some length and by other Irish Ministers. There was much discussion of these matters during the day. However, no Irish Minister said, “Whatever you do, when you get back to London, make sure that this protocol Bill is stopped”. It is simply not a contentious matter in these negotiations. That is a simple fact. A very large percentage of what has been said today about the need for good faith and how dropping this blunderbuss will strengthen our position is, with the kindest of respect, totally irrelevant.
The EU has decided, for its own perfectly good reasons—it is keen to reach this deal; I utterly believe in its good faith—that this Bill will not stop substantive negotiation. What it would do, if the majority opinion in this House were to prevail, is stop the Government’s attempt to bring the DUP back into the Assembly. That will be its only real effect. Neither the Taoiseach nor the other Irish Ministers said a word about it yesterday at Committee A (Sovereign Matters), because this Bill is not central to them. What is central to them is the ongoing negotiation, which is proceeding with good faith on both sides and from which I sincerely hope for a result. It is very important to say that.
A great part of what has been said is, I am sure, very well meant but, to put it bluntly, totally irrelevant. It is not the realpolitik of the moment. That is very important to understand. Dropping this Bill will not transform those negotiations into a better or worse state. They are going on now; they are facing some very difficult problems—I think there may be some progress—and we can certainly hope, as I am sure everybody in the House does, for an outcome on this. But it is simply pointless, bootless and, worst of all, deeply irrelevant to keep arguing and going on about the need to drop the Bill because it would lead to greater faith in negotiation. The negotiations are already in play, in good faith—end of story. However, it would have an effect on our ability to get the DUP back into government.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
Can I ask the noble Lord whether he thinks that the Government’s intention to call a Northern Ireland Assembly election on Friday will assist matters?
Lord Bew (CB)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, very much for that question. The short answer is that I agree with her. We have a new Prime Minister, which begs the occasion for looking again at that question because, frankly, we need some more weeks to see how the negotiations go and so on and, frankly—
Lord Bew (CB)
The negotiation with the European Union is proceeding apace anyway. This is of no relevance —I keep saying this—and nobody in the Irish Government even bothered to talk about the protocol Bill.
By the way, is there a majority of popular opinion in Northern Ireland against the protocol? I think that is probably right, although there is a large minority for it, but you all must appreciate we have long since left majority rule behind.
On the calls from the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, for new information, I completely respect them, but, actually, the truth is extremely simple. We basically know where we are in terms of business. As the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, who chairs the Sub-Committee on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, said on Sunday, businesses with a north-south dimension like the protocol, and those with an east-west dimension do not like it. We already have a lot of information and, politically, we already know.
By the way, the passion for the full implementation or support for it in Northern Ireland, which was real at one point, is dead—completely dead. That having been said, I would totally accept that the majority of the parties and Members in the Assembly—
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bew, for giving way. While I was not at BIPA, my clear understanding—and I have just had it confirmed—is that the Irish Government’s position is quite clear that they view this protocol Bill as an unnecessary, unilateral move that breaks international law. Of course, they want to see a successful outcome to negotiations between the UK and the EU.
Lord Bew (CB)
I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. Of course I take the point, but I was saying that nationalist Ireland basically does not like this Bill. That is not the point. The point is that it is not in any way stopping or infringing or slowing up the negotiations. The point is that the equality of esteem doctrine, which we are supposed to be following with the Northern Ireland protocol, means that the House is bound by international law to pay attention and to try and do something. On whether this Bill is precisely right, there are amendments starred in the normal way to be discussed, but we are not in the situation where we are talking about amendments.
I have great sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Howard, who raised the issue of Article 16. However, when I look at the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who was in a critical position on this matter for quite long spells in recent times, I think that he is bound to be surprised by the sudden outbreak of support for the implementation of Article 16, because at any time when he voiced the same civilised opinion in this Chamber, noble Lords were totally against it and regarded it as outrageous—of course it never was.
There is even a case now for the implementation of Article 16, made by Professor Boyle, who was professor of international law at Edinburgh, to both the House of Commons Select Committee on this matter and our own Select Committee on this matter. He is actually open to the argument for the importance of the prior international agreement and the importance of protecting it. He is a very distinguished international lawyer. What I understand him to be saying is that, first, you must apply Article 16; that is a perfectly reasonable argument that I am open to. In addition—I look at the noble Lord, Lord Howard, in engaging on this point—the other point that I very much agree with him about is that there is no need to ask the EU to change its negotiating mandate; it has to live up to its commitment to the Good Friday agreement.
The context is one in which—Members of this House do not read the Irish media as I do, and Irish books, articles and so on—there is a fairly consistent admission on the part of the Irish Government’s negotiating team that, when Theresa May was on her knees in November 2017, the advantage was pushed very hard in that agreement, and that they took sole ownership, or sole guardianship, of the Good Friday agreement. In many ways, what is happening here is an attempt by the British Government to say, “Well, actually, that is not really the Good Friday agreement. First of all, you do not have sole ownership. Secondly, we have responsibilities as a sovereign Government not held by the Irish Government and”—as I have tried to explain—"we are trying to move back to deal with this in some way.”
This does not mean that every clause in this Bill is particularly wise, but it does mean that we should not take the attitude that in principle we should not be doing it, or that we must stop now because otherwise the EU will stop negotiating—that is clearly not true. I agree that the Irish Government do not like the Bill and that they believe that it infringes international law. I absolutely accept that point, but the point is that we have to follow our obligations under international law, which means that the long-term alienation of one community must be avoided. Unless the Government do something substantive such as this—
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
Does not the noble Lord think that it is slightly odd that his justification in law for supporting the Bill is not the Government’s?
Lord Bew (CB)
The noble Lord has a point—but not as deep a point as he might imagine, because the Government have been consistent in saying that the primacy of the Good Friday agreement is the core of their position, in both the House of Commons and in this House. There are other details; there is phrasing. For example, as is well known, I am not as convinced of the need for language in this Bill about the Act of Union. I understand why it is there, but I am not convinced that it is relevant. There are other aspects that we will discuss, in the normal way, on amendments. There is detail that will come up later tonight, and there are things that need to be said, in the normal way. But this is not a normal discussion—
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the noble Lord; he knows that I like and respect him. I am trying to follow the rationale of his argument with regards to us legislating here. Earlier, he made the case—he stressed it repeatedly—that the only purpose of the Bill as he can see it is for the DUP to return to the Northern Ireland Assembly. As far as legislators are concerned, does that mean that the DUP also has a veto on any regulations that come as a result of this Bill?
Lord Bew (CB)
We are in political negotiations. Here is our problem; I have already explained it. When I tried to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, I said, “Just believe the British Government when they say that the Good Friday agreement is the dominant thing”. We can see now what has happened here. You only have to read the Dublin newspapers, to be frank, to realise what has had happened.
We cannot undo a negotiation that we lost. It is not the officials’ fault; the Prime Minister had lost an election and was desperate to get in and to make any kind of progress to justify her existence. You cannot undo this; I am not suggesting that it is possible. You lose, you lose—end of story, at one level. However, at another level, what it means is that the EU is committed to the Good Friday agreement, and it does not understand what it is committed to. You only have to read Michel Barnier’s memoirs to see that he has no idea about the importance of the east-west dimension and that his description of the north-south dimension is literally fantasy, which has been derisorily commented on in all sections of the Irish media.
We are bound into this agreement, but we cannot be bound into a fantasy. We have to unhook. We must have a good-faith negotiation in which we have to acknowledge the things that have gone wrong on our side and the EU has to acknowledge that the version of the Good Friday agreement it thought it had is not the real agreement. There is a strand three, for example, which talks about the importance of the east-west arrangements and so on. You can see how the original misunderstanding runs through all the texts and leads to the difficulties we are now in. To go back again to why I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howard, we do not need to ask the EU to change its mandate. We need to ask it to understand its mandate. Its mandate is the agreement. It does not take long to read it, by the way. There is a strand three about the importance of east-west relations, although you would not know it from Michel Barnier’s memoirs. You would not know it, and you would not really know what the north-south relationship is either. So, that is one reason why this negotiation has some potential, because both sides have to come to terms with their errors in the past.
I conclude with one thing, because I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and what he said about Baroness Blood—as did the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. However, we also have to remember what other former distinguished Labour Secretaries of State said in acknowledging this difficulty. The noble Lord, Lord Mandelson—who was deeply involved in saving this process—said last week that he accepts that the Good Friday agreement and the protocol do not sit easy together; the tension is there. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, talked about this in this Chamber as long ago as 6 December 2018. Distinguished Labour Secretaries of State know that there is a problem. The existence of the problem was not really acknowledged by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, earlier this afternoon.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, in all this discussion, not enough is said about the horror of what was experienced in the years leading up to the Good Friday agreement. We are forgetting that. In the language of decency in the House of Lords, we are allowing ourselves to somehow not remember the full horror of that period. That horror was rooted in inequality, a lack of rights for certain people in the community, and a strong sense that the only way towards peace was to somehow protect the rights and equalities of people in Northern Ireland. You would not have got people to the table if there had not been a very honest discussion about the pain, loss and suffering that came out of those inequalities. I can say this as somebody who did more trials involving those Troubles than probably anybody in this House.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bew, because he has at least made the effort to present an argument as to why the Bill is not a breach of international law—something that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, the Advocate-General for Scotland, for whom I have great admiration in other circumstances, expressly declined to do at the end of Second Reading. As I understand it, the argument from the noble Lord, Lord Bew, is that international law includes the Good Friday agreement, which recognises the need to pay close attention to the views, interests and aspirations of all sections of the community—and here, most relevantly, the views of the unionist community, and in particular the DUP.
That argument deserves an answer so I will attempt briefly to explain why, in my respectful view, it is hopeless as a matter of international law. The reason why the argument is hopeless is that international law states that the doctrine of necessity simply cannot apply where the Government have caused or contributed to the problem that they now perceive and are seeking to address. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, cannot get away from the basic facts that the Government negotiated and signed the protocol. In international law, it is simply elementary that a state cannot sign a specific agreement and then seek to resile from it because it takes the view that it is neither convenient nor in the interests of particular sections of the community. Indeed, the Government signed the protocol—and said they did so—because they took the view that it was the best way of protecting the views of all sections of the community, including the DUP. It therefore follows that, if the Government take the view that this is unacceptable, inconvenient and does not meet the DUP’s aspirations, international law demands that the Government negotiate with the EU and attempt to arrive at another solution. It is as simple as that.
Lord Bew (CB)
It is a little more than just “a need to”, which is definitely there. I can see perfectly clearly that the noble Lord is not familiar with Article 1(5), to which I referred, which is an international agreement held in the United States. The crucial thing is that this is also about the commitment to support the Good Friday agreement in all its parts. I am saying something slightly more complicated. We have both agreed to do this. The EU does not understand, for example, that “in all its parts” includes east-west, the totality of relations, a benign relationship and so on. It is impossible to fit the description of the east-west trading relations we now have from the protocol. This is very much a matter of decisions made by the EU, such as on how much intervention was required—or not. This is very much about its regulatory interventions going beyond what is necessary in anything that is actually in the protocol because the protocol itself says that the integrity of the UK single market will be upheld. Those are the words of the protocol—the important bit is in paragraph 25—but that is not what has happened.
My point is this: it is not just a question of the EU and the responsibility of one community, which is definitely there in paragraph 1 of the international agreement. This is about strand 3. At this point in the negotiation, we are simply saying, “We have both agreed to this. Your regulations most certainly break strand 3 at the moment”. I cannot understand why that is such a terribly complicated point in international law. We have all signed up to this; it is an argument about the interpretation of it.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I bow to the noble Lord, who has immeasurably more knowledge and experience of Northern Ireland than I could possibly have, but of course I have read the Northern Ireland agreement and understand that there are two documents in international law. The simple point is that, in the protocol, we agreed the means by which we take the view that the Good Friday agreement should be implemented in the context of the United Kingdom leaving the EU. That is what we agreed; we cannot now say that we are going to resile from it unilaterally. It is as simple as that.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I had not intended to take part in this debate because I had not realised that it would range so far and wide and across so many general issues. We had a lengthy debate at Second Reading in which a number of these topics were discussed; nevertheless, I think it is worth addressing some of the points that have been made and putting some of the issues on record as far as we are concerned.
I begin by joining noble Lords and noble Baronesses in their tributes to the late Baroness May Blood, who passed away recently. She lived and was brought up in the same part of Northern Ireland that I had the honour of representing in another place for almost 20 years, so I knew her very well indeed. I pay tribute to her great resilience, hard work, dedication and tenacity in her pursuit of the issues in which she believed strongly, as well as her dedication to young people in the Shankill and integrated education, as has been mentioned.
It is not incompatible to support this Bill and seek a negotiated outcome. On the negotiated outcome, although there is not a great history of flourishing talks with the EU and the United Kingdom on the protocol issues thus far, we hope that any negotiations lead to an outcome that is compatible with the aims and objectives contained in this Bill. This is not a matter of just tinkering around the edges and finding practical solutions, as has been said; some of the issues are fundamentally contained in the protocol. You cannot address the democratic deficit issue satisfactorily unless you address some of the content of the protocol.
No matter how much consultation, prior notice, discussion or involvement you agree to give Northern Ireland politicians in relation to EU laws covering 300 areas such as the economy—as well as further issues such as state aid, VAT and so on—the fundamental fact is that no elected representative of Northern Ireland either here at Westminster or in the Northern Ireland Assembly has any vote or decision-making capacity on vast swathes of laws that apply in Northern Ireland. How will that be addressed? This Bill goes some way to addressing that, but nothing I have heard being suggested by the proponents of delay, who are against the Bill, has offered any solution to that point. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, acknowledged the problem.
Our Sub-Committee on the Protocol, of which I have the honour of being a member, has looked at this issue in considerable detail; I recommend that noble Lords and noble Baronesses read the report that we commissioned on the scrutiny of legislation now applicable to Northern Ireland. They will see the extent to which Northern Ireland has been removed from the normal processes of democratic lawmaking, which people in this House have spoken about with great eloquence but which does not apply anymore to United Kingdom citizens in the 21st century. That is entirely unacceptable and is contrary to all the traditions of democracy that this mother of Parliaments has sought to uphold both here and abroad.
It has been asked what the problem is with delay. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, has dealt with one issue—
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
The noble Lord, Lord Clarke, has already spoken. I want to get on and not delay the House any longer, but I will give way once.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord. I have every respect for him; we have been together in Parliament for years. I want to understand clearly what he is saying. Is he saying that the Democratic Unionists will not withdraw their objections to the whole protocol unless Northern Ireland is allowed to leave the single market with the rest of the United Kingdom as the United Kingdom is otherwise developing? That would mean us telling the European Union that the single market has got to have a great hole in it, with no border controls at all so far as the Republic of Ireland and Ulster are concerned—because that is the Anglo-Irish agreement—no customs barriers in the Irish Sea and no application of single market law in Northern Ireland. Is that the proposition on which the DUP is saying that it is going to stop returning to a power-sharing agreement in Northern Ireland?
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
I am grateful for the opportunity that the noble Lord gives me to clarify that point. If he looks in detail at the Bill, he will see that it does provide the opportunity for regulations to come forward. The Government have announced that they will produce regulations which allow for checks on goods destined for the European Union, and for the Irish Republic exclusively.
I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, said in her amendment about the publication of regulations. It is important that the regulations provided for in the clauses in the Bill are published, and as quickly as possible, so that we can all see exactly what is proposed to replace the current, unacceptable arrangement. However, my understanding is that those regulations have talked about a red and a green channel, and that checks will be applied only to goods coming into the Irish Republic, so there will not be that gap or hole that the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, talked about.
It is also clear from the Bill that access to the single market would be retained, but that it would be the choice of businesses in Northern Ireland whether they want to be subject to EU or UK regulation, therefore sorting out to a large extent the democratic deficit point, while providing a way forward economically which is in everybody’s interests. When we come to sorting out the problems of the protocol, we have been told that no impact assessment has been carried out and that we need one for the Bill. There was no impact assessment carried out when the protocol itself was introduced, of course, concerning the negative impact that it has had on business.
I have a letter here from hauliers in Northern Ireland, who have written to a number of noble Lords saying that it is their contention that the economic costs of the protocol far outweigh the economic benefits. They say that if the protocol was implemented in full, it would crash Northern Ireland’s chilled and frozen food supply chains within 48 hours, and that it is reasonable to anticipate that this would cause a socioeconomic crisis. They talk about the need for the Bill. These are businesspeople. These are people who carry goods into Northern Ireland from Britain, into the Irish Republic, and from the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland into Great Britain. They know what they are talking about, so we should not generalise here. We must take the evidence of the damage that has been done economically and constitutionally.
On international law, I bow to the superior knowledge of many very distinguished lawyers and practitioners in this House, but the noble Lord, Lord Bew, is right when he argues about the prior position of the Belfast agreement and that the protocol references the Belfast agreement in its wording—as amended by the St Andrews agreement, of course—and that cannot be ignored. We are told that upholding and keeping our word is vital to our international standing. However, I have in front of me the joint report, from the negotiators of the European Union and the United Kingdom Government, of 8 December 2017, when Theresa May was trying to make progress in her negotiations with the European Union. That agreement was hammered out over a number of days. If we are talking about people maintaining and upholding their word, I point out that it contains the following, in Article 50:
“In the absence of agreed solutions… the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom”,
which they now have,
“unless, consistent with the 1998 Agreement”—
so the EU and the UK Government recognise that it is inconsistent with the Belfast agreement to have such regulatory difference—
“the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland.”
The Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly have never agreed to that. They were never even asked. This was the promise made to people in Northern Ireland by the EU and the UK. After that was agreed, the UK Government, never mind the EU, paid scant attention to that article when seeking the agreement of people in Northern Ireland to any regulatory divergence. If we are talking about upholding our word, people in Northern Ireland are entitled to ask, “What happened to that agreement? What happened to that commitment? Why was the protocol imposed without any say or consent by people in Northern Ireland?”
We talk about the blunderbuss—the threat that has been put on the table. I remind noble Lords that the EU has now launched infringement proceedings against the United Kingdom for its having unilaterally extended grace periods and other matters—without which, as the hauliers say in their letter, the supply chain to Northern Ireland would crash and burn within 48 hours. This is essential for the free flow of goods to Northern Ireland, yet the EU has put on the table legal action against the UK Government, and that is not mentioned.
I will close; I am conscious of time, but it has been a wide-ranging debate thus far. The Bill is necessary because the protocol, as it stands, is incompatible with the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. At the heart of that agreement, as amended by the St Andrews agreement, is the principle of consent. It is not only the DUP that opposes the current arrangement. Every single unionist elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly, as late as five or six months ago, opposes the protocol. The foundation of power-sharing in Northern Ireland is not majority rule any more; we have not had majority rule for 50 years in Northern Ireland. It is the mutual agreement of unionists and nationalists, and not a single unionist of the Ulster Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party, the Traditional Unionist Voice, or independents, of which there are a number, supports the current arrangements.
The protocol is incompatible not only with the Belfast agreement but with Northern Ireland’s constitutional position. I am conscious of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, that it was not necessary to deal with that in this legislation, but the courts have ruled that Article 6 of the Act of Union has been subjugated by the protocol and that Great Britain is now a third country as regards “imports” from Great Britain into Northern Ireland.
As I have said, the protocol is incompatible with the upholding of proper British and UK democratic standards, for the reasons that I have already outlined, and it is damaging our prosperity. You cannot have VAT exemptions or derogations, which the UK Government have recently announced on energy products, applied to Northern Ireland, because we are subject to EU VAT rules. That cannot be right. It is also contrary to the New Decade, New Approach document, which was agreed by all the parties, the Dublin Government and the UK Government in January 2020. It says on page 47, annexe A:
“The Government is absolutely committed to ensuring that Northern Ireland remains an integral part of the UK internal market”,
As has been set out in the reasons given for the introduction of the Bill, this is to address the fact that Northern Ireland is no longer an integral part of the UK single market. That is indisputable.
To those who say it is unbelievable that a Conservative Government would be doing this and bringing forward this legislation, I say it is unbelievable that a Conservative and Unionist Party ever brought forward the protocol in the first place. That is the really telling point. We did not support it. What we are asking for is our democratic rights to be restored.
The Conservative Party can be criticised for many things, and we have criticised it very often. We have had our battles over the years. But if there is now an attempt to put right something that is fundamentally wrong, antidemocratic and runs counter to the Belfast agreement, runs counter to the agreement the basis of which was for the restoration of Stormont and the Assembly, that should be applauded. I hope negotiations can succeed, but they will have to deliver what is in the protocol, otherwise we will not get to a point where we will have stable government restored in Northern Ireland. That is a fundamental fact. Sinn Féin kept Stormont down for 1,044 days over the Irish language issue that the noble Lord, Lord Bew, referred to.
We do not want instability to continue for one day longer. In July 2021, the Government published a Command Paper saying that the conditions had been met then for the instigation of Article 16. As has been said, Article 16 is now very much flavour of the month, but at the time it was denounced by all the parties in Northern Ireland and most people here as being an outrageous infringement of democratic norms and a breach of good faith and of international law. All sorts of things were said about it. So there is urgency, and that is why I urge noble Lords to proceed with the Bill and move ahead. If negotiations do not end in a satisfactory outcome, we will have to return to this legislation, and it is better to proceed with it now than to have to start further down the road at a point when it would become absolutely essential.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, first I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. As I was rising, I looked at the clock and never in the Ahmad history in the House of Lords has something so innocuous as saying “I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill,” resulted in such an intense debate. I shall remember for next time.
Secondly, my noble friend Lord Clarke mentioned that he looks towards the House of Lords and, as he comes here more often, I assure him, not that I agree with the substance of what he has said, but that his contributions and those of all noble Lords enrich the debate. One of the key components of the House of Lords is asking the Government to think again. I am sure I speak for my colleagues on the Front Bench as well in saying that we have certainly been in thinking mode.
There is a third element before I get into the detail. I was taken by the various descriptions of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred to it as a “pig”. As a Minister who also is a practising Muslim, I thought for a moment that the stewardship and handling of the Bill would cause me a cultural challenge. But I soldier on with loyalty to King, country and Government.
In all honesty, this debate has been an important one. I think we are all agreed that it has again brought forward views on the importance of Northern Ireland as an integral part of what defines our very United Kingdom. Notwithstanding the different perspectives, I know all Members of your Lordships’ House are at one on the principle that the integrity of the United Kingdom must be protected. The fact is that the Northern Ireland protocol must work for all communities in Northern Ireland and, of course, the wider United Kingdom. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is correct—we signed the Northern Ireland protocol. But any contract—I do not speak as a lawyer but I have done a few contracts in a previous life as a banker—is also signed in good faith. It has to work for all sides and all communities.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, that the Government have said they will publish the draft regulations is very welcome, but I do not think the Minister mentioned when. This is a key issue, because noble Lords deserve to see the draft regulations before progressing.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
One of my introducing Peers was my noble friend Lord Howard. He often said to me, “Tariq, when noble Lords get on their feet, as a minimum, they already have the answer to the question they are asking. They have probably also written a book about the subject”. I suggest that the noble Baroness has not written a book about regulations, although a number of our colleagues may have. I cannot specify a date at the current time, but I note the noble Baroness’s comments.
I hope that my noble friend Lady Altmann and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, are minded to withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I shall not detain the House. We have had a very good debate. I thank my noble friend for his words and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I start by thanking the Minister for the tone of his response to this debate. I did not anticipate that this stage of our consideration would take quite so long, but I make no apologies for enabling us to have this discussion. It has been very helpful, and I particularly value the opportunity to listen to those with whom I may not completely agree, but it is vital that we understand one another and why we have reached the positions that we have.
Much has been said about Article 16 and why we now—for want of a better word—favour that approach. Quite simply, it is clearly a legal mechanism. We have concerns about a unilateral Act by the UK Government applied to a dispute around something happening in Northern Ireland. That has never been a good way to proceed, and I do not think it is now.
When considering what to do about the Bill, the test I have applied has nothing to do with Brexit. Brexit has happened and the challenge now is to make it work—I think most people in this Chamber accept that. The test is whether pursuing this Bill and its approach, not knowing what would be in its place, assists us to find a negotiated settlement. The view of these Benches, today, is that it does not; it hinders our ability to reach a negotiated settlement. For that reason, we remain unconvinced, but we welcome—we have to welcome—the assurances the Minister gave. We anticipate receiving the information in a timely fashion but, today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.
“(e) gives Ministers of the Crown power to commence its substantive provisions by regulations, subject to the condition in section 26(3A).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that the ministerial power to commence Clauses 1-20 is subject to conditions outlined in a later amendment to Clause 26.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am grateful and will try not to repeat myself and go over the discussion we have just had. The issue with trying to amend this Bill is that our concerns are fundamental and political, rather than about wording or drafting. We object to the very approach the Government are taking, so it is quite difficult to think of how to amend and improve it to get to a place where we could find ourselves supporting it.
It is not universal, but we have heard that many noble Lords—I would venture to say a significant proportion of the House—fundamentally disagree with the approach that the Government have adopted. They believe that it breaches international law and harms us diplomatically, not just with the EU but beyond—globally. They think it is an abuse of ministerial power and see it as detrimental to our and the Government’s stated ambition for a negotiated settlement. We have attempted to find ways to amend the Bill to answer these concerns, but we have not managed to do that successfully. In this group, noble Lords will see Amendments 1, 6 and 70 in my name, and other amendments, which place conditions on the implementation of the Bill.
I have not heard anybody argue that the Northern Ireland protocol should not be improved, amended, or implemented differently. However you want to describe it, there clearly are problems. We take them very seriously, accept that they exist, and do not hold the position that nothing should change. We have listened incredibly carefully and repeatedly to the voices of businesses and elected politicians in Northern Ireland, and we agree that change is needed. However, as we have said previously—and will now be clear to the Minister—we want a negotiated outcome, not unilateral action.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 2 and 6 in my name and support those in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. As we start our customary, more-detailed consideration of legislation in Committee, I reflect on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who thought that we were preventing proper detailed scrutiny in a bullying way. However, I cannot see her in her place. Maybe she popped out. I look forward to her return to take part in the detailed consideration of the Bill.
I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. I have considerable doubts about whether we will be able to legislate an agreement with the European Union. Fundamentally, we are tasked with an almost impossible job. I therefore agree that her amendment is a kind of security for this legislation: it does its best in making the Bill consistent with customary international law. We will also debate this on the next two groups. If we are to see a political agreement, what is the best way of legislating to allow that to be in place? I believe profoundly that this is not the way that it should be done. Nevertheless, if it is done this way, there should be some form of security area.
I very strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that we should not pass legislation which is a clear breach of international law, as the Constitution Committee reported. Concern about government probity was highlighted earlier: if we have an amendment that relies on the Government themselves to exercise discretion on the exercise of powers, I have my doubts whether they would bring forward a clear view on that discretion. For example, under Amendment 70, the position of the former Paymaster-General in Committee in the Commons would have been that the condition would have been satisfied because talks had been exhausted. However, we now know that they have not been. That is not as a result of the Bill. Maybe the noble Lord, Lord Bew, is right. However, I suspect that if the talks were exhausted in July when we had the Bill in Committee in the Commons, and are not while we have it in Committee in the Lords, it is about the political basis. I am therefore not sure that the security arrangements would effectively be watertight.
My amendments, supported by my noble friend Lady Ludford, are straightforward. They are also part of a form of security that should be updated now, then continuously on the basis of these talks. As I mentioned earlier, the Commons was told in Committee that they had been exhausted, but new life has now been breathed into them. The Government said previously that this was owing to EU intransigence. Now Minister Steve Baker tells readers of the Times at the weekend that the Government say that talks are progressing because he stretched out a hand of reconciliation. Setting aside the contradiction, the reality is that we should be provided with more information, from now on and going forward, on the level and content of these talks.
For example, the EU proposals in October 2021 themselves said that there should be changes to the structure of ongoing talks and of the relationship between the EU and the people and institutions of Northern Ireland. However, I have not seen the Government’s response—the alternative presented by them in those talks. That would inform not only the mood of this House but our ability to pass legislation that gives regulation-making powers over the structure of that. I know what the EU has proposed; I do not know what our Government have proposed. If we are to consider, believe and call out EU intransigence, that case is harder when we know what the EU has put on the table but do not know what the UK has. How on earth can we come to the conclusion that it is being intransigent in these talks when we in this Chamber are effectively blind?
Now I think I understand, fundamentally, the dilemma of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. He argued for Brexit, the majority of the people in Northern Ireland voted against it. He argued against the protocol, but the majority of the UK and the Conservatives inflicted that on him. This is a difficult dilemma, but ultimately it will mean that Northern Ireland, one part of the UK, will remain in an economic area of another entity, the EU single market. The only sustainable way that that can ever be for the benefit of the people of all parts of the UK is with agreement with that other entity. You cannot unilaterally legislate to enforce on another entity when you have already accepted that we are part of that entity. It is just an impossibility, so there has to be agreement, and in order for us to do our job in this House we have to know what the UK is putting forward in those talks. I should not imagine that our amendments will present the Committee with much difficulty.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for their probing amendments. I agree with them and believe that there is a mandatory obligation on the Government to provide us with details on the negotiations and to ensure that the regulations are published—many noble Lords across this Committee agree with that—so that we know what is actually going on.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, that it would be much better if Ministers were investing their time in negotiations with a large degree of rigour with the European Union to produce the desired outcome in respect of the protocol with mitigations. That would achieve everybody’s objectives, including addressing the democratic deficit and the needs of those in the haulage industry and others so that there is no diminution in the good work that has already been achieved and so that better things can be obtained in terms of what we can gain by access to both the UK internal market and the EU single market, because our economy is much better when we have dual access.
In relation to dual regulatory zones, there is certain merit in them but there is also difficulty associated with them. That difficulty has already been highlighted by the dairy industry in Northern Ireland which, by and large, is all-Ireland in nature because the greater proportion of processing capacity lies in the Republic of Ireland. I think that point was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, at Second Reading. There are problems in relation to DAERA certificates and who grants them. I notice a quizzical look on the face of the noble Lord, Lord Caine, but I say again that Ministers should be involved directly in the negotiations. Those negotiations should take on renewed vigour. We should see the regulations and should have reports on those negotiations on a regular basis by way of parliamentary Statements to both Houses.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I would like to make a suggestion. It seems to me that we are not going to achieve a great deal by going through amendments that are not going to be voted on. I understand it is the convention anyhow that we do not vote in Committee, but I would like to appeal to my noble friends on the Front Benches. Rather than the next Committee session, which is scheduled for Monday next week, why can we not have, perhaps in the Moses Room, a thorough briefing from Ministers on exactly where negotiations are, what has already been agreed and what remains to be agreed, so that we move forward on the basis of being informed by our ministerial colleagues on this very complicated and important subject?
In making that suggestion, I take into account the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, in his brave intervention. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. He and I did not agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Bew, was saying, but it was a brave and helpful contribution. I think a discussion, perhaps in the Moses Room or another committee room, could be very helpful. It would not hold up progress for more than one day and we would go forward perhaps knowing a little more about the Government’s thinking.
There is, of course, the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. I know my noble friend Lord Caine. I admire him very much, and I know he spends a lot of time in Northern Ireland, but the other Ministers should be there, too. I very much want to see, and I made this point in my earlier intervention, our Prime Minister going there as soon as possible, and I take the amendment to that suggestion which came from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, that it would be good to have the Taoiseach there as well, because the Republic and the United Kingdom have to work together. Without working together there would have been no Northern Ireland agreement, and without, in fact, the participation of George Mitchell there probably would have been no Northern Ireland agreement. I put this forward as a constructive suggestion. I would be grateful if whichever Minister is going to reply to this debate could make some reference to it.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, we heard two views earlier in the debate, which was longer than any of us expected, on the two amendments. We heard two views on whether this Bill was going to poison the chance of negotiations with the EU. One was from the noble Lord, Lord Bew, who thought it would not. I agreed with the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, that the Bill is extremely unhelpful to negotiations, and with the point he made about the risk of a trade war with the EU, which is the last thing we could possibly afford to risk—and I would add the prospect of undermining relations with the United States.
I noted the helpful and sensible suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that we get a briefing session on the negotiations, but perhaps even today we might hope that in replying the Minister can give us some flavour of the issues that the Government believe can be the peg for progress in the negotiations in, hopefully, the weeks rather than the months to come. The EU has been making suggestions for the best part of 18 months, I think—certainly more than a year—but the Government have not taken up the opportunities that have been offered, so I fervently hope that they are now going to be extremely serious about these negotiations.
I want to pick up three suggestions—which are not exhaustive—made by my Alliance Party friend in the other place, Stephen Farry MP. The first is about flexibilities in the protocol. The EU has made numerous suggestions and progress on the issue of medicines. The Government do not seem to have given much acknowledgment to the progress that was made on that subject. Perhaps the Minister might give us some idea of other sectoral issues where he thinks progress could be made.
The second suggestion made by Stephen Farry was to use Article 13(8) of the protocol, which allows the protocol to be superseded in whole or in part. Apparently, that was put in at the request of the UK Government, and it could be used to negotiate changes to the protocol by mutual agreement. Perhaps the Government could tell us whether they have any intention of invoking Article 13(8) of the protocol.
Mr Farry’s third point is one that has just been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and by my noble friend Lady Doocey at Second Reading. It relates to the very valuable contribution that a veterinary or SPS agreement could make, particularly to solve problems around food and agriculture, especially in the dairy industry. This offer has been on the table from the EU since the protocol was first signed, and it has been a matter of considerable puzzlement that the Government have not progressed that.
Perhaps the Minister, in replying, could give us some sort of steer on where he thinks the opportunity exists to make improvements either in the protocol itself, if Article 13(8) were to be exploited, or in the implementation of the protocol by taking the route of flexibility and additions, such as an SPS agreement.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I will go straight to the amendments. Amendments 1 and 70 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, would make the commencement of regulations under this Bill dependent on the Government confirming that they have been unable to reach a negotiated settlement with the EU and are of the opinion that all legal routes have been exhausted. I will repeat what I have said a number of times: our preference remains to resolve the issues around the protocol through talks. As I have already indicated, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and Vice-President Šefčovič have already spoken a number of times to reiterate their shared commitment to finding solutions to this issue. Consequently, as I have also said already, the Government are engaging in constructive dialogue with the EU to find solutions to these problems. The Government will update Parliament on the talks with the EU at the appropriate time.
My noble friend referred to possible briefings. I cannot make the detailed commitment that my noble friend is seeking, but I will certainly reflect on his suggestion. I have just spoken to my noble friend Lord Caine about whether we could provide, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, suggested, an outline at times; I certainly respect your Lordships’ insights on this. I will take that back and reflect on the proposals that have been put by my noble friend. As I said in concluding the earlier debate, to the Front Benches in particular, I assure noble Lords that I will seek to continue to update noble Lords on progress. I know that I speak with a similar commitment to that of my noble friend Lord Caine in dealing with Northern Ireland on this issue as well.
However, it is the Government’s view that we need to progress this Bill now to fix the practical problems that have been highlighted. Under these amendments, the UK would not be able to implement the solutions to the issues of the protocol while discussions with the EU were ongoing. This would mean that the EU could, for example, seek to introduce discussions indefinitely, under the knowledge that this Government would have to admit that negotiations had not reached a successful conclusion.
I am sure noble Lords would agree that we should not present ourselves with a choice between continuing negotiations indefinitely and no unilateral solutions for Northern Ireland. The Government—although I know that other noble Lords have different perspectives —have given their position as to why we feel it is necessary at this time to pursue and continue with the progress of this Bill.
We also believe that these amendments would require the Government to confirm that they have exhausted all legal routes under the withdrawal agreement before they could bring substantive provisions of the Bill into force. The Government have been clear that the Bill is justified, in our view, under international law. That is without prejudice to our position on other mechanisms available—
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Could the Minister clarify the sequencing of talks with the EU, Article 16 and the regulations under this Bill? Is it still the Government’s position that, before the regulations under this Bill, or Act, are brought forward, Article 16 would be triggered?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
What I said, and I have said it before, and without prejudice to our position on other mechanisms available under the withdrawal agreement and protocol, is that the Government reserve their position on Article 16. Article 16 remains an option—the Government have not taken it off the table—and it remains an option for the EU has well.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Can the Minister explain how the doctrine of necessity can be satisfied when the Government themselves reserve their position to use a power that is contained in the protocol?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I am sure we will return to the principle of the doctrine of necessity in later amendments. The use of Article 16 was debated during Second Reading, when a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Howard, suggested its use—indeed, that has been cause for debate. The noble Lord will be aware that that remains very much at the Government’s disposal, as it does at the disposal of the EU, because that was an agreement that was signed. On the principle of necessity, as I said, I will defer to my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart, who I am sure will discuss this with the noble Lord in other amendments that we are scheduled to discuss.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, talked about Article 13(8) of the protocol, which deals with how subsequent agreement interact with the NIP. The EU, from our perspective when this has been raised, continues to reject any changes to the NIP itself. However, in saying that—and I am going by the discussions we are having with the European Union at this time—my experience is that it is not just the substance of what is being discussed with the EU at the moment but the tone of the engagement as well. While there are differing opinions—I accept fully that some are saying that a delay, which has been proposed, would strengthen the Government’s position—our view remains that the EU is very clear on our position on what we are seeking to do with the Bill, but that has not prejudiced the tone or substance of our engagement with the EU.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
I thank the Minister for giving way. I welcome very much his willingness, expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, to consider a proper process of reporting back on what is going on in Brussels. Having lived all my life in a profession where words mattered, I find it very difficult that the words through which the process in Brussels is referred to keep shifting all the time. Sometimes, they are technical discussions; sometimes they are talks. The word “negotiations” somehow never quite seems to come out of the Minister’s mouth, but how on earth do you conclude a negotiation without negotiations? I simply do not understand; it seems that we are in an Alice in Wonderland situation.
It would help greatly if the Government were prepared to give a careful and systematic account of what is going on from their point of view. We know the Commission’s point of view. It has said on a number of occasions that its mandate, which it used last October, is not exhausted. Does it have to say more than that?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says; of course, he is a real veteran of diplomacy. When I refer to technical talks, of course, officials take forward some elements of the nature and detail of the discussions or negotiations—I have said it now—which are taking place between ourselves and the European Union. I totally agree with him that words matter. That is why I keep emphasising the importance of the tone of the engagement. Notwithstanding the fact that the Bill is here in your Lordships’ House, we continue to engage and have those constructive exchanges, within the parties, with businesses and other partners, but also, importantly, with the European Union itself.
As I said in my earlier comments, we will explore practically how we can best respond to my noble friend Lord Cormack’s suggestion; I know him well. Of course, noble Lords will also appreciate—many in your Lordships’ House have been involved in negotiations —that we cannot provide a running commentary on every element. There was an Order Paper produced in June of this year, which set out the issues and what we believed some of the solutions to be. That was documented, outlining some of the key points and priorities for His Majesty’s Government. I give way.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful. I read that paper, but that was prior to Michael Ellis, the Paymaster-General, when the Bill left the House of Commons, telling the Commons that talks had been exhausted and this Bill was therefore necessary. Now we are told that talks have not been exhausted. The EU has not changed its mandate, so what have the Government put on the table that is different from what it was in July?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, in any negotiation, parties will consider their position as discussions continue. What I have sought to do is provide an update to your Lordships’ House of the current position. I think the current trajectory of the talks, discussions and engagement is positive. As I have already highlighted, I will certainly seek—under the conditions of the discussions, with the sensitivities of many of these negotiations—to update your Lordships’ House accordingly.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I appreciate that there cannot be day-to-day updates on negotiations; that would be nonsense. I also do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that we should spend the day having briefings; that, I think, is another pointless way of simply delaying. Can the Minister confirm something important—a big issue but easily answered: that at this stage the negotiating mandate of Šefčovič has not changed?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The noble Baroness is right. The point of contention for us in any discussion has remained the ability to amend the protocol itself; that remains a key point. In all of these areas, as the discussions earlier have indicated, there are ways and means through. Of course, people will state their negotiating positions at the start and there are discussions to be had. What is clear to us is that the reason for the Bill, as well as for the good faith in which we continue to negotiate, is to find the desired outcome, which works for all communities in Northern Ireland and, importantly, addresses specifically some of the issues—including the east-west issue, which has been talked about quite extensively during Second Reading and in other debates.
I now turn to Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. The Bill is designed to bring swift solutions to the issues that the protocol has created in Northern Ireland. These solutions are underpinned by the designation of elements of the protocol as excluded provision. This is a domestic legal action to reflect the operation on the international plane of the UK’s assertion of the application of the doctrine of necessity, which was referred to earlier in relation to relevant parts of the protocol. Put simply, it is by excluding some elements of the protocol and withdrawal agreement in domestic law that the Bill is able to introduce, with necessary clarity and certainty for users, the changes to the law that are needed in Northern Ireland.
These amendments, through the conditions they impose, would undermine the ability to exclude elements of the protocol and, therefore, undermine the entire operation of the Bill. The first condition, in particular, that provision is excluded only if the EU and the UK agree to that, is, frankly, unworkable. While we are engaging in constructive dialogue with the EU to find solutions to these problems, it is surely quite evident that, if the EU were currently amenable to the full provisions of the Bill, we would already have agreed them; of course, that is not the position.
The second condition—that provision is excluded only if necessary as part of an Article 16 safeguard—also fails to meet the needs of the situation. Article 16 has inherent limitations in its scope. While the Government reserve their position in relation to Article 16—again, a point raised earlier in the debate—there would be a different action on the international plane to the operation of the doctrine of necessity. In sum, these amendments would in our view undermine the co-operation in the Bill, preventing it from delivering the solutions desired in Northern Ireland, which it is intended to provide.
On Amendments 3 and 67, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford—
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My apologies; I have covered Amendments 2 and 43, which are the ones in this group. Without repeating myself, the notion of a regular report to Parliament on negotiations would in our view not be appropriate. It has been the position that the Northern Ireland protocol and negotiations regarding it are, like any other treaty, a matter for the Government operating under the foreign affairs prerogative.
In addition, as I have already said, it would not be conducive to a successful outcome in negotiations to provide a running commentary, nor, ultimately, do I believe the House would expect that. However, as I have said, where I can, I will look to update your Lordships’ House accordingly and we will update Parliament on the status of negotiations at the appropriate times. Also, the usual mechanisms for the House to scrutinise our activity will remain open to all noble Lords. I therefore hope that, at this juncture, with the responses that I have given, the noble Baroness will be minded to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister. I note again his rather charming tone, but I am afraid he cannot disguise with a charming tone what is becoming more clearly quite a weak position. Some of the things he said have made me more inclined to support the amendments that have been tabled in this group than I was before. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Ritchie, for their support for our amendments.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, about having a briefing, on the one hand, yes, that does make sense, but I am nervous about entering into novel processes or getting into things that are outside of the Chamber. I think it is far preferable to have something that everybody is able to participate in, and that it is on the record. Noting what the Minister said about running commentaries, no one is asking for a running commentary. This is not like negotiating through the Article 50 process; this is quite straightforward and limited in scope, everybody knows what the issues are, and there are plenty of suggested solutions. This ought not to be beyond the wit of a Minister such as he to be able to make progress. I am very—
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
Does the noble Baroness accept the principle that the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asked me to clarify? The starting position, which is behind one of the reasons why we put the Bill forward, is that the Northern Ireland protocol is not working for all communities. There is a democratic deficit. We can talk processes, but the Government’s intention is to unlock that principle, and I hope the noble Baroness agrees on that.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I have been very clear about that. I am surprised by the Minister’s intervention on that point, because in both speeches I have made, and in comments elsewhere, I have been very clear on that point. The truth is that these issues are only resolved through negotiation. The question really is about the Government’s approach. I have some sympathy because Ministers have inherited this approach. It is not something, perhaps, that they would have initiated themselves, and it is born of a different political landscape. However, it is something that they have to pursue now, and the Government are not being clear enough about their preferred solutions. If it were to be so, and those solutions were to be viable, they might just find that His Majesty’s Opposition would support the Government in those. We want to approach this with as much consensus as we can; we do not want to have arguments with the Government over Northern Ireland. We want to agree with the Government. We want to help find solutions. That is a much more powerful position for the Minister to be in, when he is negotiating with EU partners, surely.
We will not go to a vote today and I will withdraw the amendment. Unfortunately, this dogged determination that the Government have to stick with their approach come what may, because they do not want to be seen to back down, is I think not really helping matters in this House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Ludford
“(e) requires Ministers of the Crown to set out their legal advice on altering the effect of the Northern Ireland Protocol in domestic law.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is linked to Baroness Ludford’s amendment after Clause 25 (Publication of legal advice).
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 3 and speak to Amendment 67. If the Government are so confident of their legal case, which rests on the doctrine of necessity, they should surely have no hesitation in making a full legal justification available to us.
They surely owe us that much, as we grapple with the contrary views that have been expressed by many distinguished sources. The International Law Commission has stressed that the doctrine of necessity must be construed narrowly and can be invoked only in exceptional circumstances, being strictly necessary to safeguard essential interests against a “grave and imminent peril”. Our Constitution Committee finds:
“It is difficult to conclude that the circumstances cited by the Government”
in their own short legal paper, have indeed
“created ‘grave and imminent peril’.”
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out at Second Reading, the Government have been complaining about the protocol for a long time—almost since they signed it, in fact. So if it was not imminent three years ago, it is not really imminent now. The Constitution Committee also doubts that this Bill is the “only way” to protect UK interests since, as has already been explored, there is Article 16, which has not, despite many noises over the past year, been initiated. There are also dispute resolution provisions, and of course negotiations—or talks or something—which are, as we have been discussing, thankfully now going on.
The Constitution Committee also argues that the Bill’s provisions
“go beyond those strictly necessary to remedy the peril that the Government”
claim to identify. After all, if the Bill includes, in Clause 13, the removal of the oversight role of the CJEU, what has that got to do with the doctrine of necessity and “grave and imminent peril”? I would be interested in the Government’s reply to that point.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords—oh, I give way to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Judge (CB)
Thank you very much. Just so that we are not met with the argument that we never show legal advice as it is confidential—that there is no obligation to show it and we never do—and bearing in mind that I support the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in arguing that Clauses 2 and 3 should not stand part of the Bill, I have some simple questions.
First, do the Government agree that the provisions of the Good Friday agreement are placed at the very front of the protocol? If the worries about the Good Friday agreement are the problem, then what is the answer to the protocol affirming that need to protect it? Secondly—this is not about legal advice—have the Government considered, and if so in what way, using Article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol itself? I spell it all out: nothing to do with international law, just within the realms of the actual protocol. If not, why not? Thirdly, what is the necessity for Clause 13 removing the Court of Justice from the European Union’s oversight role in the determination of disputes over the withdrawal agreement? That does not involve giving legal advice; it involves informing the House. Finally, and I am sorry to ask this of an individual Minister because it is a matter for every Minister, have Ministers given thought to the possibility that they have contravened their obligations under the Ministerial Code to comply with the law?
I ask those four questions on the basis of what is contained in the Constitution Committee’s report. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has raised them already, but can we just have specific answers to those questions, because without them Clauses 2 and 3 simply cannot stand?
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I thought my days of trying to beat the gun had left me behind a long time ago. I apologise.
I wish to speak in support of Amendment 3 and am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, is back in his place. I have a recollection, and no doubt he will correct me if I am wrong, that on one previous occasion when this issue was raised, he expressed some sympathy for the idea that the legal advice should be made available. We have heard already in these proceedings that there is not a lawyer in the House who does not think that the Government are acting illegally and that, I suppose, is a pretty unusual state of affairs.
We have also seen that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee observed at paragraph 4 of its report:
“The Bill represents as stark a transfer of power from Parliament to the Executive as we have seen throughout the Brexit process. The Bill is unprecedented in its cavalier treatment of Parliament, the EU and the Government’s international obligations.”
Given that the chorus of legal responses in the House is against the Government, perhaps the most notable being that of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, and given the extreme criticism of the Government contained in paragraph 4, I respectfully suggest that the convention that legal advice is not made public should be set aside on this occasion. It is a convention; it is not a rule of law. If I may put it so, this is a case of such novelty and importance that it justifies the setting aside of the convention.
I also understood my noble friend Lady Ludford to be raising some questions about the issue of necessity. The Advocate-General will recall that in the course of his long response at Second Reading, he referred to the case of Slovakia against Hungary. I took the opportunity to read that case, and what we discover is that it is not in point at all. It was a case where both states were in breach of legal obligations and the international court called on them both to carry out their relevant treaty obligations. That is nothing to do with the issues which we have before us. But the noble and learned Lord was not satisfied with Slovakia; he went to Canada in 1995. He prayed in aid decisions taken then by the Canadian Government in relation to the Grand Banks and their overfishing, but there was no question of a treaty on that occasion.
If these two cases are offered as support for the notion that this case is one where necessity is justified, I would respectfully suggest that they do not support that thesis. The Government will have to do something rather more if they are to establish any question that necessity arises in this matter.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said about this being a context where it would be enormously helpful to this House, and to Parliament generally, for the Government to publish legal advice so that we can understand why they assert, contrary to the views of most—if not all—lawyers, that what they propose to do is not a breach of international law. I anticipate, however, that the Advocate-General for Scotland will tell us that there is a convention that the Government are not prepared to publish legal advice. If that is his position, it would be enormously helpful to the House if he could at least address the substance of the criticisms that have been made of the Government’s position in international law. The noble and learned Lord told us at Second Reading that that was not the time or the place for him to address these arguments. I very much hope that today is the time and that he will tell the House, if he is not prepared to publish the legal advice, at least the substance of the Government’s argument.
First, why do they say that the test of necessity is satisfied, even though the protocol contains a mechanism for addressing disputes and even though, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, told us a few moments ago, the Government are reserving the right to use Article 16? How can it be necessary to set aside the protocol when the Government themselves reserve the right to use a provision in the protocol which is designed to address the very problems that they are concerned about?
Secondly—I dealt with these points at Second Reading, but we had no answer—how can there be an “imminent peril”, when this dispute has been going on for three years, since the protocol was agreed? Why is it imminent, which is the requirement in international law?
Thirdly, since they have not told us this, what is the Government’s case as to how the doctrine of necessity can be satisfied when the International Law Commission, the academic analysis and the case law all say, “You cannot rely on the doctrine of necessity when you, the state relying on it, have contributed to the problems which you are complaining about”? How can it not be the case that the Government have at least contributed to the perceived problem when they signed the protocol after negotiations? If we are not to have the legal advice, can we please have at least some indication or hint as to what the Government’s case is?
While we are dealing with that, could we also please be told whether the Government’s legal advice associates itself with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Bew? They have never said this, but is their argument that the Good Friday agreement establishes the test of necessity? I would like to know, please, the answers to those basic questions so that when we proceed with Committee we are at least informed as to what the Government’s position actually is.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I would like first to take up my noble friend Lord Pannick’s point about the Government being responsible for this situation. I will give a simple example of why that is not an easy quick-fire point. Looking at the joint report of 2017, it is, as Michel Barnier insists, an international document where both sides signed up. I understand in this House the great sanctity of international documents; I have heard that a number of times today. Having said that— and I respect it—our Government signal in that document that they are determined to maintain the east-west relationship as described in strand 3 of the Good Friday agreement.
We have signalled that there is a problem, which is now at the heart of the matter. It is not that we are suddenly saying late in the day, “Oh my gosh, we never thought of strand 3”; it is in that document. The EU was perfectly aware when it signed the document that the UK was going to take the view that the east-west strand 3 relationship is very important and should be maintained in its current and best form.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Would the noble Lord give way on that point? I am just wishing to test that a little further with the sequencing. If he is correct about the agreement made in 2017, he also has to appreciate that it was the Government in 2019 who said that the protocol they negotiated satisfied that 2017 agreement. Therefore, they got parliamentary approval to ratify that. It became a treaty obligation which is now under question. If his argument is correct, then the sequence flows that the Government knowingly said in 2019 that the protocol satisfies that 2017 agreement.
Lord Bew (CB)
Both the EU and the UK Government said at a number of points—three at least—that this agreement is designed to protect the Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions. Bluntly, it has not done that. We talk about legal opinion and what the Government’s argument has been. The former Lord Chancellor, in the Commons debate on this, made exactly that point. I read the protocol agreement and what did I see? There is a reference to the Good Friday agreement and the protection of it in all its dimensions. That is not actually happening. Both sides signed up in good faith hoping that was what would happen.
Both sides signed up to the protocol, which says that the UK single market should be protected in its integrity. It might be reasonably expected for that to happen. Do noble Lords think that the current provisions for checks are protecting the UK single market in all its integrity? The idea that we both signed up for stuff is very simple. I could go on forever about how “We both signed up for stuff.” To be absolutely honest, neither side fully understood what it was doing.
In particular, the negotiating history of this is clear. The EU did not understand the Good Friday agreement. Michel Barnier’s memoir is perfectly clear. We cannot make pigs fly. Michel Barnier’s memoir is based on a view of the agreement and the undertakings in it which is based on pigs flying. We cannot do it with the best will in the world and for all our enthusiasm to be loyal to something we signed up for. We cannot make pigs fly. His version of what he was protecting is not what it is—not by a long way. The reason for this is our negotiating defeat in 2017 and Mrs May, having effectively lost an election, desperately getting into talks. We cannot undo that; I am not saying we can. In history, we signed up for stuff and we are trying to find a compromise, but we cannot make pigs fly. We cannot make nonsense be operative. It does not matter how morally committed we are.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is there not a possible remedy here? If there are conflicting views, should we apply the principle of contra proferentem? Those who argue for a particular view have the onus of establishing that that view is the correct one.
Lord Bew (CB)
We are in a situation now where in Dublin it is accepted by those involved in the negotiation that they achieved a one-sided appropriation of this agreement. This then flows into the agreement of 2019. It was because of our weakness. We cannot undo it and we signed up for it—I get all that—none the less it is accepted by them that there is a problem. The problem cannot be met by saying “You signed up for it”, “Boris was a fool” or anything like that. It is a real problem at this moment. That is the key thing we are stuck with.
This agreement and the protocol say in numerous places—the former Lord Chancellor said it in the other place, so the Government have argued this very clearly—that it is about protecting the Good Friday agreement and for good measure protecting the integrity of the UK single market. This debate is rather different from the terms it has been couched in. I keep saying that the reality is about the interaction of a prior international agreement and the protocol agreement. There are different views of this.
While we are on this subject—regarding the evidence of Sir Jonathan Jones that was cited earlier—the Attorney-General in 2019 explicitly said in the other place, and it was repeated in this place, that there is a problem: where the protocol conflicts with the Good Friday agreement, the UK reserves the right to operate the existing prior international agreements. Who was working in the Attorney-General’s office then? I am certain there were some quite good lawyers when that happened.
We heard about Professor Mark Goldie’s observations, and they are absolutely true. He is a professor in public law in Cambridge who came to our committee in the Lords. I think Professor Boyle came to both committees. Professor Goldie listened to Professor Boyle, who I am certain does not support this Bill and who is much more open in principle to the arguments regarding international law, that the prior international agreement weighs heavily here. In the interaction of the two of them he personally argued Article 16 should be applied because you cannot demonstrate necessity unless it has been applied. I have often been attracted to that argument, but I am astounded by the number of Peers in this House who are mad keen for Article 16.
I am a historian, not a lawyer. I remember a few months ago when every civilised person was regarding the application of Article 16 and no one was saying “Oh, it’s in the treaty.” I remember the intensity of emotions—that this would be another foul act of disgraceful behaviour by the Government, even though it clearly is in the treaty. I am delighted there are so many converts today. I am not even sure; I think they might be right. It is a fashion change, not an international law change. The mood of the House has changed on this point, and nothing has changed in law.
I am not saying that Professor Goldie supports the Bill; I am certain he does not. As I said, I am not sure that Professor Boyle does either. Professor Goldie accepted the burden of Professor Boyle’s argument that it is very important to have upfront protection of the Good Friday agreement. The story about what international lawyers say—I am certain this will become even more complicated in this Chamber before this Bill finishes its passage—is a little bit more complicated. That is all I want to say. I am not saying that I know. I could not possibly say that sitting on this Bench with two very distinguished lawyers.
I am not making a claim about law but about history and what actually happened, how we got here and the mood on this, because that does rather matter. What I am saying is that the Government would be within their rights to say that there is a debate on this subject and there is a real problem. If you are not even talking—as most speakers today have not—about the interaction between the Good Friday agreement, the prior international agreement, and this agreement, then you are not even in the debate in any realistic way. They would have the right to say that.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Bew, and in due deference to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I will now inject the perspective of an economist and businessperson.
I support Amendments 3 and 67 and will try to inject a different perspective here. The arguments about protecting the Good Friday agreement are of course important and real. However, it seems that, despite arguing that the UK has contributed to the problem—which is essentially part of the reason why the doctrine of necessity seems unable to be applied here—there are options open to the United Kingdom to respect the Good Friday agreement, including maintaining regulatory alignment. Were regulatory alignment to be maintained, the east-west problem would not necessarily arise—because the EU could be reassured that there is less of a threat to its single market—and the north-south element would also not arise. If the UK wanted to diverge regulatorily, it has the option to negotiate that. So there are practical resolutions within our power to protect the Good Friday agreement and the protocol.
If we cast our minds back to the awful Brexit and post-Brexit periods, an assurance was given to noble Lords, including myself, that there would be technical arrangements—alternative arrangements—that would permit the flow of goods across the border that could be tracked, with trusted traders and technology being introduced, that would mean that we would not have these problems of customs procedures. If those arrangements were to be in place, the problem would not arise. So again, the UK Government have the option of saying, “We will maintain regulatory alignment until we have introduced those arrangements”. That would allow us to be in a position where we would not be breaking international law.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bew, when he said that, if there is a problem, we should try to find a compromise, but that again means negotiation and using the facilities we have signed up to ourselves rather than threatening to blow up the whole agreement. I urge my noble friends on the Front Bench to try to get away from the magical thinking that we can somehow square this circle by threats or by breaking international law—or even by threatening to break international law—and instead to get around the table and negotiate a reasonable way forward that gets away from this kind of argument.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, this debate illustrates one of the issues deeply affecting Northern Ireland politics: trust and agreements. Noble Lords have talked about agreements entered into and then broken. One of the problems that exists for unionists at the moment in Northern Ireland is that so many promises and pledges have been made but have not been fulfilled. I referred in the earlier debate to the provisions of Article 50 and the joint report published on 8 December 2017, a commitment entered into by both the European Union and the UK Government. The noble Lord, Lord Caine, was present for some of the discussions we had with Theresa May in Downing Street when this matter was discussed. Provisions were inserted, and this was agreed by the European Union and the UK Government: no regulatory difference would exist unless by the express agreement of the Assembly and the Executive. That was ditched.
This has led to a situation—and this is just one example—where unionists now feel that their voice is not listened to and that commitments entered into are not accepted or followed through. This has led to a hardening of views across unionism generally, resulting in people now saying, “We need to see the colour of people’s money and actual delivery, not promises”. I listened with great interest to Steve Baker the other day, who said, “You know, unionists should choke down their concerns; they can count on us”. I have the greatest respect for Steve Baker and others in the Government, but quite frankly the days of counting on others and taking people’s word for it—even when international agreements are set aside during negotiations —have unfortunately gone.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I understand that my noble friend—if I can call him that—has been lied to repeatedly, but he was lied to by the Government. I gently suggest that his beef ought to be with the noble Lords opposite me, rather than my party. As he says, our position on Article 16—as you would expect, and as I attempted to explain earlier—has evolved in the context of what we are being presented with by the Government. This approach was not previously conceived of; now that it is, it puts Article 16 in a slightly different light. This is not especially complicated, but it is the view of the Labour Party.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, and I understand what she is saying, but the issues that were being discussed at the time by Her Majesty’s Government, as it then was, and which the Labour Party was responding to, are the same issues that are before us today, which are affecting the political process in Northern Ireland and leading to problems with the supply of goods from Great Britain. They are exactly the same but when the solution, “Let’s trigger Article 16; let’s go into negotiations”, was suggested, the Labour Party derided that as being toxic. The Labour Party gave support and succour to those who have allowed this position of instability and economic and constitutional harm to continue. A lot of lies have been told around the place, but it is no good, if I may say so, the noble Baroness putting all the blame on to the Government when everybody in Parliament and all political parties have to accept that the goalposts have been shifted, often by consensus, in a way that has done damage to the Belfast agreement, as amended by St Andrews, in a way that has undermined the trust of the people in Northern Ireland in the institutions.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I entirely understand the noble Lord’s political grievance, but the fact is that Article 16 is part of the protocol and the political grievance cannot itself provide the basis for necessity in international law. This group of amendments is seeking to understand what the legal advice of the Government is.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I always find it very interesting to follow the noble Lord. As I said before, I have been trying to understand his dilemma. For all the accusations against these Benches, suggesting that we may have been party to shifting goalposts to the Government is a stretch too far in any sport, whether it is rugby or football. We have been fairly consistent with our warnings, and I refer the noble Lord to Hansard when we debated the protocol and I raised these issues in 2019. We knew there were going to be the difficulties, because what the noble Lord wanted, we knew the Government were not going to satisfy. We have had three years of government gymnastics—I am mixing my sporting metaphors all over the place—trying to present a political argument which we knew was fundamentally flawed.
The only way that this will be sustainably resolved, if one part of the UK, Northern Ireland, is to remain part of the single market, is for there to be agreement. Unilateral actions against treaty obligations is not a sustainable solution to any of these problems. I understand when the noble Lord talks about a lack of trust. It is a stretch for him to make an impassioned contribution such as that and then say, “But I am going to argue passionately in favour of a Bill that gives unprecedented Henry VIII powers” to the exact same people he has said he had lost entire trust in.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
Do not worry, I will not be arguing that passionately for any Bill that could end up being withdrawn. We have been down this road before. All I say is that I support measures that, in my view, help to deal with the protocol issues that we have. I accept what the noble Lord is saying in terms of the LibDem position, although Layla Moran pointed out last year that triggering Article 16 would be a terrible thing and tragic, and all the rest of it, so it is not exactly totally consistent on the Article 16 point.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, there is a difference between recognising that there are mechanisms that could be put in place as safeguarding and rebalancing measures, and unilateral actions that seek to go beyond what Article 16 would be for the protocol. That is the entire point.
In supporting my noble friend’s Amendments 3 and 67, I understand that the Government will have prepared—the Advocate-General will correct me if I am wrong—a legal issues memorandum, a LIM, before the Bill was approved. That goes to the Attorney-General and to the Advocate-General for Scotland, and they will have approved this legal issues memorandum which, I understand, would have had to consider the very questions that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, indicated with regard to the options open to the Government to meet their policy ambitions. That would have included the protocol element of Article 16, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, indicated. In many respects, and I cover many trade debates in this House, Article 16 elements are fairly typical WTO mechanisms of safeguarding and rebalancing. The legal issues memorandum will have had to consider these options. So, at the very least, the Advocate-General can confirm to the Committee that there was a legal issues memorandum, and it did consider all these options.
The next question, therefore, is precisely where the legal argument on necessity originated. Did it originate from the FCDO? I understand that the memorandum goes to the FCDO also, for the treaties department. I am sure the Advocate-General will say that he cannot disclose this information for us, but on an issue of this importance, where did the argument for legal necessity originate? Was it his department? Was it the Office of the Advocate-General for Scotland? He is in his place precisely because his predecessor resigned, saying that his position was undermined in his endeavour to find, to quote from his letter, “a respectable argument” for breaches of international law in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act. The then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said, notoriously, that it was a “specific and limited” breach, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, struggled hard to find a respectable argument to present for it, and because the Secretary of State was honest, the noble and learned Lord resigned. I note that the Constitution Committee report said, as has been referred to before:
“In this case, reliance on the doctrine of necessity is not a ‘respectable’ legal argument.”
I think we will touch on it when we discuss whether Clause 123 stands part, so it will be very interesting to hear what the Advocate-General says in winding on this group in order to inform some of our discussions on the next group.
I have sympathy with what has been referred to by others and I have an inkling as to what the Advocate-General may have in the folder in front of him. He may say, “It’s a long-standing convention, for very good reason, that legal advice is not published in full”, and he is no doubt prepared to say it, but why my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem is correct is that we are now in a realm of significance, given the scale of what the breach of international law would be.
I will refer to it in the next group, but my noble friend provided an amuse-bouche of the case of Hungary and Slovakia, to which the Advocate-General had referred. I also read that judgment in full. It may help the noble Lord, Lord Bew, to know what the ICJ has found repeatedly. Let me quote from its judgment in one of the cases that the Advocate-General cited.
“According to the Commission”—
that is the International Law Commission—
“the state of necessity can only be invoked under certain strictly defined conditions which must be cumulatively satisfied;”—
this is the point I want to stress—
“and the State concerned is not the sole judge of whether those conditions have been met.”
So even if he is right, one state party cannot determine solely, and the ICJ has found that repeatedly.
Even if the Advocate-General for Scotland says that it is a long-standing convention and cites examples of where legal advice was not furnished—he may overlook some examples of where it has been, of course, but that is a separate issue—the area that I want to ask about concerns what the former Advocate-General for Northern Ireland and the Attorney-General, Sir Geoffrey Cox, said in Committee in the Commons.
“There is plenty of precedent for the Attorney General coming to the House—I should know, I did it—to answer questions about the international law compatibility of a measure in this House. Indeed, it goes way back, I think, to either the Wilson Government or the Heath Government … I invite the Minister … to invite the Attorney General to come and answer those questions, because, in my judgment, it is an obligation to the House. The Attorney General has a residual duty to advise the House on matters such as this.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/22; col. 400.]
Will the Advocate-General state why this has not happened? Will he provide the equivalent to this House in a Statement? We are asking the same as has been asked in the past of Attorneys-General.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I hear he has changed. The former Paymaster-General, who is now the former Attorney-General, was citing the former Attorney-General Suella Braverman, who is now the Home Secretary—even I am struggling to keep up with what is going on. Nevertheless, the principle is clear that, if the then Attorney-General was happy to provide advice to the Times in her abortive leadership campaign, we humbly seek that Parliament be equally enlightened with an update on exactly what the Government’s position is.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Perhaps I might provide a lifeline to the Advocate-General for Scotland, because I am a Scotsman too and I hate to see him being so tortured. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked to see the legal advice. I am sure, as he was sure, that in reply the Minister will remind us of the convention. The noble Lord’s alternative option was that the Minister should tell us now what he was unable to tell us, as it was an inappropriate time, at Second Reading.
I have a third option. I was struck that nowhere in the Minister’s quite long speech at Second Reading did he ever fall into the trap of making the applicability of the doctrine of necessity his view. It was never him explaining that he believed the doctrine of necessity applied. It seems to me that the concerns of the House might be satisfied by a memorandum. A memorandum was produced in June and July, which was a singularly unsatisfactory document in my view. It looks even less good now, having been subjected to critique at Second Reading and by the noble Lords, Lord Campbell, Lord Purvis and Lord Pannick, tonight. However, there could be a second edition setting out the Government’s response to the arguments that have been advanced, including by the Constitution Committee. So I suggest that a third option that would satisfy me and might satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, would be for the Minister to undertake tonight to produce for us a revised edition of the pre-summer memorandum.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, very briefly, I have been trying to say that the legal advice is a little more complicated and nuanced. I am not claiming, for example, that any prominent international lawyers such as Professor Boyle support this Bill. In fact, I do not think he does; he is one of the many who believe in Article 16.
I am quite astounded. Only a few weeks ago, every civilised person knew that Article 16 was the most brutish thing they had ever heard of. All civilised Peers across all parties and all civilised people knew it was the most brutish thing they had ever heard of, just as they are sure of this tonight. However, at this point we have a serious negotiation with the EU. Why do they think that, to improve the atmosphere of these talks, it would be a smart idea for the British Government to come in on Monday morning and say, “Well, you know, civilised opinion has changed. A few months ago, we thought it was brutish; we now think this Bill is so brutish that we want you now to declare Article 16”. This is not serious. There is a serious negotiation going on. You cannot seriously ask the Government to do this. I sympathise and fully accept that the legal arguments are more complex than has been acknowledged in this Chamber this afternoon—they are difficult and I have no firm, final view—but it would be absurd for the Government to say at this point, “Oh, we were having this negotiation but, by the way, here is Article 16”. I am sorry, it just would not work.
Lord Pannick (CB)
For my part, and I am sure it is true of others who have spoken in this debate, I am not asking the Government to exercise Article 16 tomorrow. The point is that the availability of Article 16 at a later stage is the reason why the test of necessity cannot be satisfied.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, I turn to Amendments 3 and 67 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed. The Government acknowledge that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness are right to raise the important issue of the relationship of this Bill to the United Kingdom’s international legal obligations.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, I consider that the amendments proposed are not necessary. The Government have published a statement setting out their legal position. I will expand on that position during my submission, in particular to answer the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and others. None the less, a statement has been published, to which the noble Lord referred, setting out the Government’s legal position that the Bill is consistent with the United Kingdom’s international obligations.
Noble Lords chided me gently for perhaps going on a bit long at Second Reading—
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend. I was left by some of the strictures and anticipations of my point from noble Lords looking for synonyms for the words “long-standing convention”. However, in light of having been criticised for going on a bit long and the hour, I will confine myself to repeating—or rehearsing—the point noble Lords anticipated I would make.
It is a long-standing government policy and convention accepted by Governments of all parties not to comment on legal advice provided to the Government. A number of noble Lords who have been present in this debate or at Second Reading will understand personally the importance of that, having acted as internal or external counsel to His Majesty’s Government.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about the protocol and its place in relation to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The protocol puts that agreement at the forefront; the problem is that, in its implementation, it is undermining it.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
The Advocate-General has just given the totally conventional response about the Government not publishing their legal advice. In that case, why did the Government publish a four-page document in the summer setting out their legal advice?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, the Government set out their position at the outset to assuage, hopefully, the concerns of Peers and Parliament generally about the steps which they intended to take. I do not intend to go beyond that on the Government’s legal advice.
I was going on to address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others—the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford—about the matter of necessity. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, paid me a restricted compliment earlier. May I respond in kind by saying that I am grateful to him for the wise, kindly, and friendly manner in which he has always engaged with me since I started in this House? I look forward to further engagements with him and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and others on these points.
The noble Lord I think was the first to pose the question, how would it be possible for the Government to depend on the doctrine of necessity when the Government have put their signature, have become a party, to the protocol, having negotiated it? Do those facts, of themselves, prevent the Government from relying on this? Because, as the noble Lord said, the doctrine of necessity cannot be relied on by a party which by its conduct has caused the problem. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, nods his head.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
Or contributed. Where I and the Government differ from the noble Lord is in this regard: we signed the protocol in good faith, we negotiated in good faith, but we are entitled also to look beyond the terms to the manner in which the protocol has been implemented and interpreted by the other side. In relation to that point, it is not a—
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am very grateful and I apologise for speaking so often, but this is Committee. If the Government’s belief is that the other side has not faithfully performed its obligations on the protocol, the protocol itself provides a mechanism by which that dispute can be resolved. The means provided is through the Court of Justice. I entirely understand why politically the Government do not like that remedy, but that is what we agreed.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
To pick up the noble Lord’s point about the CJEU, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is based, as we have heard, on the consent of both communities. It is part of a package, along with VAT and state aid rules, that causes unionists to feel less connected and less part of the United Kingdom. As your Lordships have heard in the course of the debate today, all unionist parties cited the CJEU as a key driver of a major democratic deficit. This is not a hypothetical issue; there have been seven separate infraction proceedings brought against the United Kingdom by the EU, covering issues such as value-added tax, excise, pet passports and parcels. We consider it inappropriate for the CJEU to be the final arbiter.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I listened very carefully to what my noble and learned friend said, but the situation remains the same today, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, set out, as it was on the day that the Government claimed to have an “oven-ready deal”—I think those were the words—of which the protocol was an integral part. It is a cornerstone of the EU Withdrawal Agreement and, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has stated, the remedy is in the protocol. So it is very unfair for the Members on the DUP Benches to be put in this position, but that is the position that was sold to both Houses.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I beg respectfully to differ from my noble friend. The situation is not the same, because in the intervening period between the announcements to which my noble friend refers, and today, these problems about implementation have arisen; so the situation is not the same, and we simply cannot go back to reference the text of the argument.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I have noticed the emphasis that the Minister has placed twice now on the word “implementation”, and I want to understand precisely where he views the problems with the protocol to lie now, because the Bill that he is supporting deals with the problems in a far more fundamental way than just looking at implementation and practicalities.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I am referring to implementation in terms of the manner in which these problems have arisen: the problems that have led to the difficulties with which the House is currently grappling, such as the suspension of institutions and the democratic deficit. I think the noble Baroness wishes to speak.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I was muttering to myself, actually. Those are not problems of implementation of the protocol, those are issues that underlie the protocol; I am just trying to understand exactly what the Government see as the problem, because unless we do that in a fuller way than he is perhaps leading towards, we will not have a clear idea of what the Government are recommending the solution to be.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her intervention, and I hope I will be able to, if not clear it up directly, refer the noble Baroness to the statements in the Order Paper. Perhaps I may say, in relation to the amendments with which we are currently engaged in relation to publication of the Government’s legal advice, that it may well be—and I think I made the same observation to my noble friend Lady Altmann—that these points might be dealt with better in relation to later groups which will address the question of the protocol and the amendments which the Government propose. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The noble and learned Lord has just told the Committee that the problem is with the implementation of the protocol. In his Second Reading winding speech he said that
“the problem lies in the protocol and not in its application.”—[Official Report, 11/10/22; col. 768.]
So, which is it?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, the problems with which we are grappling lie in the implementation of the protocol: I think the protocol has given a basis upon which these implementations may be made.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Is this the noble and learned Lord correcting the record now from his Second Reading speech? I am quoting directly from Hansard that
“the problem lies in the protocol and not in its application.”—[Official Report, 11/10/22; col. 768.]
But he is telling the Committee today that it is in its application.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
The noble Lord promised at the very outset of Committee, when he opened the earlier debate, that this inconsistency would be pounced upon, and he has returned to the point. My answer to him is that the implementation has given rise to the difficulties we now face, and that the protocol has permitted that implementation to take place.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
Could I ask my noble and learned friend to amplify what it is in the way that the protocol is working that was not anticipated? The role of the European court was always enshrined in the protocol, so I am struggling to understand what has suddenly changed to require this unilateral action to get rid of the CJEU, rather than using the mechanisms within the protocol.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, the diversion of trade and the effects upon the confidence of the unionist community in their membership of the United Kingdom have given rise to the difficulties we now face.
As I was saying before dealing with that spate of interruptions from noble Lords, it has become apparent that one of the communities—I remind your Lordships of the importance of the concept of consent in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement—has recognised that the CJEU is a part of the problem, as unionist parties have cited the CJEU as a key driver of a major democratic deficit. The Bill therefore seeks to ensure that Great Britain and Northern Ireland courts will have the final say over the laws that affect their citizens. It will permit a referral mechanism to the Court of Justice of the European Union, recognising legitimate EU interests and supporting north-south trade. We consider this to be a reasonable step which places the matter in line with normal dispute resolution provisions in international treaties.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
On that point, would the Minister be able to cite any other agreement the UK has signed where the dispute resolution mechanism affords the UK the ability to bring forward unilateral legislative solutions which are contrary to the agreement we had signed? What other examples can he cite?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, that question brings me on to dealing with the terms of the argument in relation to Article 16, about which we have had some submissions from the noble Lord himself, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. Triggering Article 16 would not solve the problems of the protocol. It would only treat some of the symptoms, without fixing the root causes of those problems. It has inherent limitations in terms of its scope. Such safeguard measures might address trade frictions but not the broader identified impacts of the protocol such as I have been founding upon. The legislation that the Government propose provides the comprehensive and durable solution required and certainty for businesses and the people of Northern Ireland.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I must confess that I am very troubled and puzzled. If the Government have decided that this is what they are going to do, that is incompatible with having proper negotiations. How can my noble and learned friend explain that?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, as your Lordships have heard from my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and the noble Lord, Lord Bew, this is not identified as an inconsistency by our counterparties in relation to this matter.
The Government’s legal position is that our legislation is necessary and justified, and we make that assertion without prejudice to our position in relation to Article 16—again, as your Lordships heard from my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon earlier. Article 16 is expressly limited. It is the Government’s view that it would not solve all the societal and political issues identified, including those identified today in some of your Lordships’ contributions to the earlier debate, whereas the Bill provides a comprehensive solution to those problems.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem—who in another context is my learned friend—referred me to the examples I cited when winding up at Second Reading of cases which set out the doctrine of necessity. The Canadian fisheries case concerned the Convention on Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, which was a treaty. The Hungary-Slovakia case to which I also referred was a dispute about an agreement between the two parties for navigation of a river and the construction of infrastructure. In any event, I think the answer to his point is that the concept of necessity and its application in these circumstances is admitted within the articles of state responsibility.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I will refer to this in the next group, but the Minister might want to add a little extra with regards to the case he cited: the International Court of Justice threw out the Hungarian case on invocation of necessity. It said that
“Hungary would not have been permitted to rely upon that state of necessity in order to justify its failure to comply with its treaty obligations, as it had helped, by act or omission to bring it about.”
I think there are some similarities in what we are hearing now, but could the Minister confirm that the ICJ did not accept Hungary’s case?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, in any case, there will be parties that are disappointed to a greater extent than others. The point is that one party proposes. That party does not determine the question; the determination of that question falls to someone else.
In relation to the point made by my noble friend Lady Altmann, our preference for negotiation clearly remains. As the Committee has heard, that negotiation is not interrupted or affected by the Bill moving through your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the Minister said that the four-page document we saw in July was designed to assuage our concern. Unfortunately, it did not. In one sense, I am impressed that the Government are prepared to receive criticism of their legal assertions in that document from people of the stature of Sir Jonathan Jones, Professor Mark Elliott, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, and still say, “Well, the four-page document adequately sets out our case”. I am sort of impressed but also surprised that the Government are not provoked by the level and depth of that criticism to make a bit more of an effort.
One of my noble friends—I cannot remember which—highlighted the difference between the assertion made at Second Reading that the problem lies in the protocol and the emphasis this evening that the problem lies in its implementation. That would imply that there is no need to rip up the protocol, which is what the Bill is designed to achieve, and that negotiations or dispute resolution up to the ECJ would fit the bill as the problem is in the implementation. The Government keep switching their ground depending on, it seems to me, who most recently raised a point as to whether the real problem is the protocol or its implementation. The Minister said that invoking Article 16 would deal only with the symptoms not the protocol, but surely “symptoms” are the same thing as “implementation” in this context. Again, there is inconsistency here over whether the problem lies with the text of the protocol or its implementation.
The Minister rather confused me with his references to the CJEU being part of the problem. Again, that was known three years ago. The Government agreed and signed up to what the EU would not have otherwise agreed to—Northern Ireland being effectively part of the single market—without the CJEU being the ultimate arbiter of legal disputes. However, I have frankly never taken the point from the right that court adjudication creates a democratic deficit. We do not expect courts to be democratic. They are part of a liberal democracy but are not themselves supposed to be an epicentre of democracy. They rule on the application of the law.
I do not think that it says much for the Government’s knowledge, understanding, foresight or policies that they are now seeking to diverge from the single market, not least in the Bill—I cannot remember its full title; it is something like the revocation of retained law Bill, otherwise known as the Brexit freedoms Bill—that had its Second Reading in the other place today; I do not know whether that is still going on. Diverging from single market legislation makes the implementation of the protocol more difficult so there does not seem to be any coherence in the Government’s policy. They criticise the implementation of the protocol but are going to make that implementation more problematic; indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, talked about how maintenance of regulatory alignment would help east-west trade. A UK return to the single market, if not the EU, would do so even more.
Lord Bew (CB)
This is a little simpler than our discussion, which has reached a rather convoluted shape. The Government were clear when they launched the Bill that its function is to fix it, not to nix it, as the then Prime Minister said when he came to Belfast, in one of his graphic expressions. That is the simple fact with the protocol, not that you would realise it from anything said in this House today. For example, the Government’s most important commitment to the EU, which is not to have a hard border and to protect the single market, is completely up front in the Bill.
This debate is on whether the Bill is completely destroying things, but we have all been told that it is to fix it, not to nix it. There really is not much to add. The idea may be wrong. There are a number of reasons why it might not work. The Government’s case in international law may not be as strong as the Government believe. The general views of international lawyers on this subject are certainly more complex than most speakers in this House acknowledge. It is certainly a more complex matter—but this is to fix it and not to nix it.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I will not prolong the debate as we all want something to eat. I simply disagree with the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, spoke of a lack of trust. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, said, his argument is surely not with the opposition parties, because we have not caused a lack of trust. I happen to believe that unionists in Northern Ireland have long had a bad deal from English Tories, which makes me rather surprised that they have such a close relationship.
I have sympathy with the argument about the lack of democratic input from Northern Ireland into single market legislation, but only the UK being a member state of the EU can fully solve that problem, as it did before. Obviously, I speak as a long-term member of the European Parliament. If there are ways to take into account the views of Northern Ireland, I would be the first to support those suggestions.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, answered the point on Article 16. It is not that anybody who has raised it here this evening is advocating the use of Article 16; it is just that the Government cannot invoke the doctrine of necessity when they have not exhausted all the other possibilities.
I am afraid that the Minister, who did his best in slightly shorter time than at Second Reading, has not satisfied me, and probably not my Benches, that the Government are able to put further meat on the bones of how they can justify the doctrine of necessity and thus the legal arguments for the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill
Tuesday 25th October 2022
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022-23 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 52-I(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (25 Oct 2022)
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful for this opportunity to discuss and debate whether Clauses 1, 2 and 3 should form part of this Bill. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, for their support for all three stand part notices and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for his support for the proposition that Clauses 2 and 3 should not stand part of the Bill.
I have listened very carefully to the earlier part of the debate and obviously some of the themes will be repeated in debating this group. At Second Reading, reasons were explained as to why the protocol may not be working, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, spoke at some length on his view of why that is the case. I have had a number of emails from Northern Ireland since I tabled these notices and I would like to say at the outset that the reason for my tabling them is not to deny that the protocol is not working. That is not their purpose. What I am trying to understand, in debating whether these clauses should stand part, is the Government’s thinking of the legal base and to press the Minister further.
I would like to quote two paragraphs from the report which I believe was published today by the Constitution Committee of the House. In particular, paragraph 15 on page 4 states:
“We do not accept the Government’s reliance on the doctrine of necessity as justification for introducing legislation that disapplies its obligations under international law. The doctrine of necessity is narrowly construed and applicable only in exceptional circumstances, which have not been satisfied in this case.”
Further, paragraph 18 also on page 4 of the report states:
“Legislation which puts the UK in breach of international law undermines the rule of law and trust in the UK in fulfilling future treaty commitments. The Government’s reliance on the doctrine of necessity does not justify introducing this Bill. This raises the question of whether ministers might be thought to have contravened their obligation under the Ministerial Code to comply with the law, including international law.”
I shall also refer to when this was debated in the other place on 13 July. My honourable friend in the other place, Bob Neill, the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, stated:
“this is an unusual and rather exceptional Bill, and not necessarily in a good way. If fully brought into effect, the Bill would lead to the United Kingdom departing unilaterally from an international agreement and therefore breaking its obligations under both customary international law and the Vienna convention on the law of treaties, which is a grave and profound step for any Government to take.
I recognise that there are circumstances in which that step can be taken, and the Government asserted on Second Reading that the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol gives rise, or potentially gives rise, to those circumstances. The essence of it, though, depends on applying a factual evidence base to a legal test. The legal test in this case is essentially the international customary law convention of necessity, which is now enshrined in article 25 of the articles on state responsibility, which were adopted by the International Law Commission in 2001 and are recognised by the UN General Assembly, by our Government and by the international community as an authoritative statement of the law. Article 25 sets out that necessity may be invoked if certain tests are met. The point of these amendments is to say that if the Government, or any Government, were to take that step, they should do so upon the most compelling grounds, so that the factual basis for their actions met the legal test. The reputational consequences, politically, internationally and legally, are very significant, so this should be done only when that is thoroughly tested and set before this House to be tested.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/22; col. 365.]
That was from my honourable friend next door, Bob Neill, who chairs the Justice Select Committee in the other place.
At Second Reading and earlier, the Advocate-General referred to the legal advice that was published by the Government. I quote from the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill UK Government Legal Position:
“The Government recognises that necessity can only exceptionally be invoked to lawfully justify non-performance of international obligations. This is a genuinely exceptional situation, and it is only in the challenging, complex and unique circumstances of Northern Ireland, that the Government has, reluctantly, decided to introduce legislative measures which, on entry into force, envisage the non-performance of certain obligations. It is the Government’s position that in light of the state of necessity, any such non-performance of its obligations contained in the Withdrawal Agreement and/or the Protocol as a result of the planned legislative measures would be justified as a matter of international law. This justification lasts as long as the underlying reasons for the state of necessity are present. The current assessment is that this situation and its causes will persist into the medium to long term.”
In my view, for reasons that were well rehearsed at Second Reading and earlier today, that is not an appropriate legal basis. I ask my noble and learned friend the Advocate-General to set out why the Government have reserved their position on Article 16 and have not brought it forward as the more appropriate legal base at this time.
The Law Society of Scotland has also been instrumental in my bringing forward these clause stand part debates. In its view,
“The Government do not rely on Article 16 of the NI Protocol to justify the Bill. That Article would entitle the UK Government to take unilateral ‘safeguard measures’ in certain circumstances but those measures ‘…must be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation’.
Instead, the Government argues that these provisions do not breach international law because the situation in Northern Ireland is such that, under the doctrine of necessity in international law, any: ‘non-performance of its obligations contained in the Withdrawal Agreement and/or the Protocol as a result of the planned legislative measures would be justified as a matter of international law’”.
The Law Society of Scotland’s quotations are from the UK Government’s legal advice, which I quoted from earlier.
I believe that the Government have failed, and I regret to say that my noble and learned friend the Advocate-General has failed as yet to state why this doctrine of necessity satisfies the legal test which is understood in that regard. I again press my noble and learned friend. I am not asking him to bring forward Article 16—though I realise that, as we heard earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, the protocol is perhaps not working in a way that the Government and those representing Northern Ireland would have wished. If that is the case, why have the Government not taken what I believe is the more appropriate measure, Article 16, in that regard?
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I oppose the removal of Clauses 1, 2 and 3 from the Bill. We had a long debate earlier this evening in which the word “delay” was used a number of times: we needed to delay, be more careful, reflect and consider. However, removing these three clauses, as proposed in the name of a number of noble Lords, shows that this is a wrecking proposal. Those Members and many others in the House do not want to see this Bill go forward. The purpose is to rip out the very heart of the Bill. If they are removed, we may as well all go home.
There are two problems with the protocol that are important. One of these, the way that the United Kingdom is affected, has been mentioned a lot this evening. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, mentioned this earlier, but those who oppose these clauses, and Clause 3 in particular—the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Chapman of Darlington, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—all got a letter from McBurney Transport Group, a big transport group in Northern Ireland. I hope that they read the letter and will respond. More importantly, I hope that they will listen to what was said in the letter about visiting Northern Ireland, meeting McBurney and finding out about the practical implications for a business such as that, which really understands the moving of goods back and forth. The letter said very clearly that implications would flow from the amendments they have tabled, especially their joint proposal that Clauses 2 and 3 be removed from the Bill, which would render it inoperable. The removal of these two clauses would have a particularly devastating impact on Northern Ireland.
There are all sorts of examples of how the protocol is affecting business. I am not intending to go into any more on that now. We have a lot of very eminent lawyers in this House, making very strong legal speeches. I sometimes wonder just how many people back home in Northern Ireland, sitting in the streets of east Belfast or up the Shankill Road, really feel that people in this House understand the effects of the protocol on them as a community, as a country and as individuals.
For me, the important thing about the protocol, and the second reason why I hope these clauses are not removed, is that the Irish Sea border checks are only a symptom of the core constitutional incompatibility of the protocol—the way that Northern Ireland is left subject to EU law and under the jurisdiction of the European court. This has been said over and over again. For those Peers who think it is just a matter of technical changes, and that negotiations will lead to a green line or a red line or that all these different things will happen, that will not change a single person in Northern Ireland who opposes the protocol because it has fundamentally changed how they feel and how, obviously, His Majesty’s Government feel about the status of Northern Ireland.
All the Bill is doing is trying to restore the balance that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement gave, which has been broken. It is also there to protect peace in Northern Ireland. Somehow, out of this misplaced loyalty, which we have heard again tonight, of the EU always being right and the British Government always being wrong, we are finding that people want to remove these clauses really to make the Bill not worth going forward with. I urge everyone in the Committee to think carefully about what they are doing.
We have heard a lot of very true things tonight about how sad we are at the death of Lady Blood last week and about the contributions she made to Northern Ireland. I remind noble Lords of Lord Trimble, who also recently died, and his contribution to Northern Ireland and to this place. He was Nobel Peace Prize winner. He sounded warnings when he said that the protocol is a potent threat to peace and stability in Northern Ireland. It must be removed as a matter of urgency.
We would all love to see negotiations work, of course we would, but as the Minister said earlier, Mr Šefčovič’s mandate has not changed one single bit in all these months. I genuinely do not believe that we are going to get very far with negotiations. Yes, we have a new Prime Minister and new people, and I am glad that the Foreign Secretary stayed the same, and I hope those negotiations will speed up and will get some movement. But we have to have security, and people in Northern Ireland need to know that the Government are prepared to act for the citizens of the United Kingdom and that they come first.
I hope that noble Lords will reflect before we get to Report and listen to what people in Northern Ireland are saying, particularly to those who understand just how easily peace in Northern Ireland can be threatened. We do not want that to happen.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
I rise with great sadness to speak against the wrecking proposals in this group that Clauses 1, 2 and 3 should not stand part of the Bill. I regret it very much. If we were effectively to turn our backs on this Bill, as those championing this group would, what would we be left with? The prospect would be carrying on failed talks with the EU for another two, three or four years. We have had two years of it, and we know where it took us to. I am not opposed to talks, and I believe this Bill does not stand in the way of those talks continuing, but let us get on with this business too.
I have studied the EU’s proposals, and I have to say that even if it conceded ground in the areas it is suggesting, we would have no solution. The only thing it is talking about pertains to the difficulties surrounding the economic disruption caused by the protocol. In the first instance, its proposals do not in any way address the present economic difficulties. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has already referred to that, and my noble friend Lord Browne will refer to that as well, so I shall not say anything on that.
Right up until the final day of the Brexit transition period, the people of Northern Ireland enjoyed parity with the rest of the United Kingdom in having the right to stand for election and input directly into legislation or to elect others from across our communities to make laws to which people in Northern Ireland would be subject.
However, on 1 January 2021, that all changed. At that point, the right democratically reserved to Northern Ireland citizens to make laws effective in Northern Ireland was usurped in an instant, and the bulk of that power transferred to representatives in another jurisdiction for whom nobody in the Province voted. There are Members of this House concerned about the loss of some delegated powers to Ministers, despite an appropriate role being afforded to Parliament to scrutinise eventual regulations. Yet they demonstrate little in the way of concern for the loss of sovereignty associated with the surrender of law-making powers in Northern Ireland in perpetuity under the protocol governing hundreds of areas of policy.
This would be bad enough in itself, but in order to understand the difficulty, we need to see it in the context of Brexit. The UK was never relaxed about its membership of the EU. According to Professor Vernon Bogdanor, the reason for this was the sovereignty problem: the fact that the UK could be overruled and was not completely in charge of its own legislative fate. We could be overruled in the European Parliament in the context of majority voting. We could be overruled in the Council of Ministers in the context of qualified majority voting. We could be overruled by the European Court of Justice. Of course, we were a part of European governance acting through the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, and, in this context, worked hard to defend our national interest. Many times, we were not overruled, but on occasion we were, and there was ultimately nothing that we could do about it. The fact that, notwithstanding our representation within European governance, we could nevertheless be overruled, informed our lack of sense of being part of the European demos—the problem of the democratic deficit.
Thus, the deficit was not about a complete absence of democracy, but about a shortfall of democracy arising from being overruled in a context where the absence of a sense of being part of the European demos meant that people increasingly felt that government was something that was being done to them rather than something that they were part of. In this context, one of the chief benefits of Brexit was the end of the democratic deficit. We would make our own laws. What then was the implication of the protocol for the democratic deficit? It very properly completely removed the democratic deficit in relation to the EU for England, for Wales and for Scotland, and rightly so.
What about Northern Ireland? Did it result in the removal of the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom? No. Did it result in the partial correction of the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland, while it was fully corrected for the rest of the United Kingdom? No. Did it result in the democratic deficit problem in Northern Ireland remaining unchanged but its correction in the rest of the United Kingdom? No. Did it result in the further deterioration of the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland, while it was fixed in the rest of the United Kingdom? No. Any of these outcomes would have had a progressively more and more damaging impact on our politics, as we go down the list—but what actually happened was infinitely worse.
In some 300 areas of law-making—this has been mentioned before—the democratic shortfall that was the deficit was replaced by a complete absence of democracy. In this context, we need to be very clear that attempts to describe the democracy problem with the protocol as a democracy shortfall or a democratic deficit radically understate and obscure the problem. The democracy shortfall or deficit was the problem we all had when we were in the EU. The problem that Northern Ireland now faces is both qualitatively and quantitatively completely different. Far from constituting a shortfall in democracy, it actually presents us with its complete negation, with all that this means for our defaced citizenship.
As my colleague and noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn rightly articulated to the House at Second Reading, the perverse and intolerable situation in which Northern Ireland now finds itself is akin to the UN category of non-self-governing territory—a colony of the 21st century. The United Nations charter was very clear in 1945 that countries should be self-governing, and it subjected countries that continued to make the laws of other countries to special scrutiny, requiring that they submitted regular reports to the UN on the state of the jurisdiction in their care.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Before the noble Lord leaves the problem of the democratic deficit, I would like to say that I have considerable sympathy for his points. It was the principal reason why I was against the protocol when it was first produced. I would like to ask him: has he considered the mitigations that are possible—for example, the two suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, earlier this afternoon? Would he also consider whether, unpleasant though it is to see this democratic deficit, it has an upside for Northern Ireland—what the then First Minister described as the “best of both worlds”? Finally, would he consider why the right solution to the democratic deficit could possibly be the destruction of the Northern Ireland protocol, given that it is an integral part of a treaty that we signed? We may like it or dislike it—the noble Lord dislikes it intensely and so do I—but we did sign up to it.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I did listen very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said and I want to read Hansard tomorrow to get better into my head exactly what he was saying, but I was struck by some of the things he said. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I voted against the protocol, as did every unionist in Northern Ireland—so it has no support among one section of the community.
We have long moved away from majoritism. As a matter of fact, I do not remember majoritism in Northern Ireland. That age has long gone and we were told that it would never return. Politics in Northern Ireland would be by consensus; that is what we were told. We were not only told it—they put it down in law. But I have yet to hear from many who berate this Bill that they are concerned about how the Belfast agreement has been kicked right, left and centre. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, to suppose for a second that this border was where it should be and not in the Irish Sea. Does anybody—but anybody—feel for a moment that that would not have caused the complete collapse of the Northern Ireland Assembly?
We have not collapsed the Northern Ireland Assembly as such. The Ministers are still in place, doing their tasks and getting on with it, because we did it in such a way. When Sinn Féin did it, they wrapped everything up. I have never heard one Member from either the Lib Dems or Labour—which surprises me—say that Sinn Féin has done wrong here. I did not hear it. Maybe it was said when I was not here, but I have never heard that said. I find that there is pick and choose. If unionists do something, they are a nasty lot, they are nasty people, but with Sinn Féin it is, “Oh no, they have a reason; they have a cause.” Well, we have a cause and we want to defend that cause.
In 1960 the UN went further and passed its decolonisation declaration, basically shifting its position to one of actively encouraging imperial powers to decolonise. Today, the UN still has a committee dedicated to the decolonisation of the small remaining colonies. If you examine its work, the UN is very clear that an NSGT is not a jurisdiction that is governed entirely by another country. Most NSGTs are largely self-governing. They remain classified as NSGTs because they are not entirely self-governing. Now, of course, I recognise that, in order to be formally classified as an NSGT by the UN, you not only have to meet the definition of an NSGT; you also have to persuade the Assembly to vote an agreement that a jurisdiction should be so defined.
I am not about to start a campaign for the UN to vote to classify Northern Ireland as an EU NSGT. However, it is clear, on the basis of the UN definition of an NSGT and the level of self-government enjoyed by existing NSGTs, that Northern Ireland not only meets the UN definition of an NSGT, but one in relation to which the colonial power—in our case the EU—controls more of the governance of Northern Ireland than do many officially recognised colonial powers in relation to their NSGTs.
The story of colonisation since 1960 has been the story of decolonisation. The actions of the EU arguably amount to the first example of new colonisation, as opposed to annexation by military force, since 1960. I find it quite extraordinary that the EU should have even dreamt of seeking this agreement. It does not reflect well on the EU at all that it should have requested this, and the fact that the UK Government had to fight it for even the most ridiculous four years, after the fact, is quite extraordinary. Of course, its justification was allegedly defending the Good Friday agreement—or Belfast agreement, whichever you choose—but this is utterly absurd.
The citizens of Northern Ireland deserve the full rigour of protection under international law in respect of their democratic right to political participation as our counterparts have in each of the other constituent parts of the United Kingdom or indeed any other country. However, that protection has been patently undermined by the protocol.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am concerned about his argument when it comes to the position of the new—again—Home Secretary. She said in July:
“The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill needs to be changed so that it actually solves the problem. … The bill’s ‘dual regulatory regime’ lets EU law flow into Northern Ireland in perpetuity … I’ve been fighting for while in government. Without them, the bill treats people living in Northern Ireland as second-class citizens.”
Does the noble Lord agree with Suella Braverman? If he does, will he be bringing an amendment to Bill to make sure it does not have a dual regulatory regime that allows EU law to flow into Northern Ireland?
Lord Morrow (DUP)
If the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is asking me if I agree that Northern Ireland citizens are now treated as second-class citizens, yes, I do. Some people in Northern Ireland seem to be content to be treated as second-class citizens, because, like the noble Lord, they want to pull this Bill apart and the protocol to remain. I hear, in the debate today, some noble Lords saying that there are problems with the protocol, but in time that will be sorted out. Where will our economy and industry be? My noble friend Lord Browne will be making some reference to that a little later.
Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, among other provisions, states:
“Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. … Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.”
This has plainly been violated by the protocol, which has partly removed our right to take part in the Government of our country as it relates to 300 areas of law, both in terms of engaging in public service as a candidate and in terms of voting.
Of greatest importance, however, is that the plundering of aspects of our right to vote violates the Good Friday agreement. I hear many champions in this House of the Belfast agreement, and I have to admit that I would not be the best advocate of the Belfast agreement, and I am prepared to say that. But let those who are stand up, and then they will run into problems with their debate and where they are going. Specifically, the Good Friday agreement affords the people of Northern Ireland the right
“to pursue democratically national and political aspirations.”
Moreover, in the case of the Good Friday agreement, there is the additional international constraint arising from a foundational provision of the protocol, in Article 2, which specifically obliges the UK Government to ensure that there is no diminishment of any of the Good Friday agreement rights following Brexit. Article 2(1) states:
“The United Kingdom shall ensure that no diminution of rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity, as set out in that part of the 1998 Agreement entitled Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity results from its withdrawal from the Union”.
So now we confront the central absurdity: the EU pretended that an obligation that did not exist in the protocol existed, and that an obligation in the protocol that did exist in fact did not. There is nothing anywhere in the text of the Good Friday agreement saying that there cannot be a customs border, and there is something that plainly states you cannot erode the political democratic rights of the people of Northern Ireland, which was the plain consequence of placing a border down the Irish Sea.
Of course, I am not saying for a minute that the UK and the Republic of Ireland could not agree to avoid a hard land border, only that it is not required in the Good Friday agreement. In a context, however, where the Good Friday agreement prohibits—
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Lord might like to be reminded of what the Companion says about length of speeches. Fifteen minutes is indicated as the acceptable length of a speech. Might I suggest that the noble Lord concludes his speech?
Lord Morrow (DUP)
Yes, I will conclude, but it is remarkable that, earlier in the evening, I noted speeches going to more than 20 minutes. I have just come in at the wrong time, I suppose, but I will draw my remarks to a conclusion and make way for some others.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I support this proposal and do so conscious of the fact that, listening to some of the voices from Northern Ireland we have heard today, I am being asked to decide how I should approach the issue on the basis of sympathy for the way in which some of the citizens of Northern Ireland—those represented here—feel they have been dealt with by the British Government in the context of the whole negotiation relating to the EU, the GB and Brexit. I remind myself, though, that this is not a matter of sympathy. I spent a lot of my professional life having to decide cases where, if I could, I would have found the other way. But if the law required me to find a particular way, whether I liked it or not I was required to do so, so I did. What we are dealing with here is a treaty between the United Kingdom and the EU, not between the EU and Northern Ireland. I am sorry to say that, but the issue I am addressing is the treaty between our country and the EU.
Can I just get rid of Clause 1? It is a modern and unwelcome phenomenon. If you look at it, it says nothing. It is just a piece of PR, not legislation at all. We have too many Bills that include pieces of PR which do not take the legislation any further, and that is why I object to it. We should not have clauses in Bills that say, “This is a jolly good idea. This is what we’re going to do”, but more important are Clauses 2 and 3.
There have been criticisms made by the Advocate-General of the necessity argument that has been so thrown at him by, among others, the Constitution Committee. I know this has been said before, but I remind the House that necessity is not available, as it
“may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding wrongfulness if”
the state in question has contributed to—not caused—“the situation of necessity”. Well, we have. We march into the negotiation and sign the agreement. We broadcast the agreement as having got Brexit done, for political reasons. We do not look at the consequences to, among other places, Northern Ireland—and we have not looked at it. There were voices in Northern Ireland who, to my memory, were saying, “This is a very dangerous step to be taking.” We either did not look at it or, worse, looked at it and thought “It doesn’t matter; we will get Brexit done.”
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I oppose the proposition that Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill and that Clause 3 should also fall as a consequential amendment. If it was to succeed, the Bill would be rendered largely inoperative. In response to this, I am struck by two realities.
First, it is striking that the Government are saying, quite rightly, that the Bill is required urgently to avert a socio-economic and political crisis in Northern Ireland. Secondly, it is also striking that the democratically elected House has consented to that and deemed fit to pass the Bill with no amendment.
It is noticeable that many Northern Ireland Peers were yesterday copied into a letter of invitation—as already mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey—sent to the movers of this amendment about the provisions in these clauses. It asked that, before they reached any final conclusions on the matter, they visit the logistics centres in Northern Ireland run by McCulla Ireland and McBurney to find out why it is not possible to apply the laws of international trade to regional trade without causing a crisis and to reflect on what they discovered before drawing any final conclusions. These are the largest haulage operators on the island of Ireland. They have considerable expertise on these matters. As Paul Jackson, the commercial director of McBurney, explained to noble Lords on the House of Lords Sub-Committee on the Protocol, were the protocol to be implemented, it would crash the Northern Ireland supply chain “within 48 hours”.
In focusing on the negative implications of the protocol, and the consequences for international law, I want to make it clear that it is not my purpose to deny that the protocol is having positive effects for some—although these would become limited if the protocol were to be fully implemented. My point is simply that, in a context where 95% of our British Isles trade is with Great Britain and only 5% with the Republic, the negatives far outweigh the positives.
The discriminatory implications of denying the people of Northern Ireland the same economic right to trade with their fellow UK citizens cannot be dismissed lightly, because they cut right to the heart of our citizenship. In another instance, the negative impact of the protocol is in no way comparable with the inconvenience arising from having to negotiate customs borders between different states and the application of the rules of international trade to international trade. The inconvenience arising from applying the rules of international trade to intranational or regional trade is far greater than the inconvenience arising from the application of the rules of international trade to international trade, which is why, with the exception of Northern Ireland, it does not happen elsewhere. Thus, we are not merely confronting a situation where we are not affording members of the same polity the same levels of respect as their fellows—seeking to treat them as if they were foreigners, rather than citizens of the same country, for trading purposes—but we are actually putting on Northern Ireland a far greater inconvenience than we put on traders from other countries, and, in this sense, the UK is treating the people of Northern Ireland far worse than those from other countries.
To understand why this is so, and the implications of this from the perspective of international law, we need to understand the difference between international and intranational trade. With talk about globalisation, it is easy to get carried away into thinking that the world is defined by homogenous global economic flows, in which national borders are nothing more than an anachronism. But that is not the case: the borders, even between highly interdependent western countries, mark important lines of difference. For example, a lorry engaged in international trade will typically be a large vehicle and carry just one or two products. The cost of generating the paperwork associated with this, in terms of customs and SPS, will be tiny expressed as a percentage of the value of the cargo. By contrast, lorries engaged in trade within an economy often carry many different products, up to around 300. This is no problem because, within an economy, lorries can move freely. If, however, you introduce a border within an economy and require lorries travelling from one part to another to cross a customs border so that they must provide 300 separate customs declarations and 300 separate SPS declarations —or even more in the case of composite goods—the cost of generating the paperwork expressed as a percentage of the total value of the cargo becomes huge. It is so great in fact that the enterprise becomes either uneconomic or just not worth the bother. In this context, 200 companies in Great Britain have already ceased to provide goods to Northern Ireland, and if the protocol were to be implemented—let us not forget that it has never been anything like fully implemented—that number would increase dramatically, and we would be confronting a major socioeconomic crisis.
Some—such as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr—might respond to this by saying, “Well, why can’t Northern Ireland get its goods from the Republic?” It can to a degree, but only to a relatively small degree. It must be understood that Northern Ireland is a fully integrated part of the UK economy. If one looks at movements between GB and Northern Ireland, and between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, 95% is between GB and Northern Ireland. Only 5% is between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and that is the case notwithstanding the fact that Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have both been part of the European single market since 1993. It is not possible to restructure an economy overnight by cutting off the source of 95% of supply without creating huge damage.
In this regard, it is worth remembering that the Good Friday agreement is a treaty and part of international law, and the section entitled “Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity” commits to
“the right to equal opportunity in all social and economic activity.”
Yet the protocol now cuts Northern Ireland off from most of its own economy, with disastrous results. This is a real problem, because Article 2(1) of the protocol states:
“The United Kingdom shall ensure that no diminution of rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity, as set out in that part of the 1998 Agreement entitled Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity results from its withdrawal from the Union”.
In this context, notwithstanding the existence of Article 2(1), and the fact that the operation of the protocol has had the effect of diminishing the right to economic activity by cutting Northern Ireland off from most of its economy, the source of 95% of its trade, the EU has nonetheless refused to change a word of the protocol. The UK clearly has an obligation under international law to introduce the Bill before us today.
Finally, I urge noble Lords behind this group to take the opportunity to visit McBurney and McCulla before drawing any final conclusions.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I shall comment briefly on the important remarks by my noble and learned friend Lord Judge. I referred earlier to the fact that the opinion of international lawyers is more complex and variegated than, say, the first 10 speakers in the House this afternoon appeared to know. One of the most important figures here is Professor Alan Boyle, emeritus professor of international law at Edinburgh, who has given evidence to committees of both Houses. At one level, his analysis is close to that of my noble and learned friend, Lord Judge. As I understand it, his view is that the Government ought to apply Article 16 at this moment.
We have been talking about this for years. I can remember, three and a half years ago, sitting down with the noble Lord, Lord Caine, looking at Article 16 and having an initial conversation about it. The Government have, at various times, been close to applying Article 16. They did not know then how fashionable it would become in this House to say that it is the way out. Had they known that that was going to happen, I am sure they would have done it, but civilised opinion said, “That is a terribly British thing, you can’t do it.” Amazingly, there has been a change of attitude now.
The point that Professor Boyle made, and which was not made by my noble and learned friend Lord Judge or anybody who has spoken for Article 16 this afternoon, is based on the idea that he accepted the underlying logic that the approach of the Bill to protect the Good Friday agreement was correct. There was a problem that the obvious features of the Good Friday agreement —strand 3 in particular, on the east-west relationship—are not being respected in the way the protocol was working.
It is pretty well documented, historically, how that situation arose in negotiating terms, but my point is this. My noble and learned friend, whose skills are so admirable in this matter, is just following a route that was followed for some hours today, which is to say, “Why do the Government not implement Article 16?” I more than half understand it. I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Caine, and I suspect that at certain times in the last few years he might have thought that might not be a bad idea either. That is not the point. At this moment, politically, we just cannot do it. We have a serious negotiation with the EU. I have said this before: you cannot walk in and suddenly say, “Oh, by the way, chaps, we are now throwing this on top of your heads”. The moment has gone.
Further, the advocacy offered in this House is weakened by the fact that, for the majority of those people who have suddenly discovered what a wonderful device it might be, it is not accompanied by what Professor Alan Boyle did, which is to say that the saving of the Good Friday agreement is critical. He defended it on the grounds that it might be a step we have to take, and he accepted that there is a conflict between the way the protocol is working and that original international agreement, which we also have a duty to uphold.
Lord Judge (CB)
I understand the argument, although I do not agree with it, that if you employ Article 16 in the middle of negotiations, they will be spoiled. However, if you employ this Bill in the middle of negotiations, will the negotiations not be torpedoed even more?
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, we know for a fact that that is not so, as the Irish Foreign Minister has told us—maybe I am the only person who reads the Irish Times—that this Bill will not torpedo these negotiations. I am certain the Irish Government and the EU do not like it, but we know for a fact that this Bill is not torpedoing negotiations.
Lord Judge (CB)
In that case, how do we know for a fact that Article 16 will torpedo them?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, if the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Bew, is so powerful, why has he failed to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, who started his remarks by saying that he has no faith in any of these talks resulting in any agreement for two or three years at least? If the noble Lord, Lord Bew, cannot even persuade the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, he may struggle to persuade others who may be a bit more sympathetic to his arguments.
The noble Lord, Lord Bew, knows that I like and respect him, but let me scotch this point about Article 16. The Government insisted that they were working in the joint committee when others on the Conservative Benches were saying they should dump that work and trigger Article 16. We on these Benches said, “Let the joint committee process do its work, because that is what the Government negotiated in the agreement.” Now we have heard in Committee in the Commons that talks have been exhausted—no more on the joint committee; instead, we are bringing unilateral legislation. So the noble Lord will forgive me for being a bit cynical about the Government’s position. On the one hand, they are saying that they are using the joint committee and therefore will not trigger Article 16, and on the other that they are no longer in the joint committee and need unilateral legislation. I am afraid it does not match. That is perhaps at the heart of why there is still uncertainty over the Government’s proposals.
At the outset, I say that I am a borderer and live in Scotland—I was going to say that therefore I sympathise, but that sounds deeply patronising. I understand many of the arguments, as I said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, because I raised them in the debates. We opposed the Government because we could see the situation was not only going to be detrimental but would effectively remove rights. But that is not something that our Benches or this Bill can resolve.
I respect both noble Lords who spoke with passion about this, but I put it to them that they and Suella Braverman cannot both be right. The new Home Secretary is on the record saying that this Bill will make citizens in Northern Ireland “second-class citizens” —this Bill, not the protocol. She is arguing for this Bill to be amended. She said in her article in the Times that she had argued that while in government. She is now back in government, so I do not know what will happen with the Government’s position in this Bill on a dual regulatory system, but maybe the noble Lords can inform me later on.
If the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, is arguing so strongly that this Bill will not have Northern Ireland operating under two systems, it is incumbent on him to bring amendments to it to remove the dual regulatory system and Clause 11 when we get to it. I look forward to debating those amendments, because he surely cannot support measures in this Bill which would allow Ministers to enforce EU rules on traders within Northern Ireland.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. All I wanted to say is that I am encouraged that I can get his support if we do that. Is that what he is saying?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I will match his “Get rid of Clause 11” with “Get rid of them all”, because that is our position.
The Advocate-General said at Second Reading:
“the peril … was not inherent in the protocol’s provision.” —[Official Report, 11/10/22; col. 764.]
But he then said today that the “problem lies in the protocol”, which the Government themselves negotiated. So, we are back to the situation regarding the Government’s proposals, and it seems that the Government are going to rest on an assertion of necessity, with an assumption that it is not going to be tested. It surely is not welcome for us, in passing legislation, that the Government are effectively asking people to challenge it in the international courts—I can only imagine that it would be the ICJ.
The ICJ has stated in clear terms that invoking necessity on wrongfulness and not adhering to a treaty commitment cannot be a permanent solution. So I ask the Advocate-General, if he responds to any of the points that I am going to make, whether the Government agree with that. The ICJ has stated on a number of occasions that, even if invoking necessity was upheld, it is only temporary in order to remove the grave and imminent peril; it is not permanent, because it still means that that party is in breach of the treaty.
So if long-term, permanent changes are required to be made, that will require protocol changes and treaty changes, and the Government have not said that. They cannot invoke necessity if they believe that this is a permanent solution. The reason why I say that with confidence is—the Advocate-General, in schooling the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and me as non-lawyers, said we were “less wrong” on this—that, customarily in international law, we have to look at the record of the ICJ. I asked the Library of the House to provide me with information on when the ICJ has upheld parties who have invoked necessity. It has never been upheld, for the very good reason that it has to be limited, and “grave and immanent peril” on a cumulative basis is considered an exceptionally high bar. The Advocate-General must know that.
Of the two cases that the Advocate-General cited, the one involving Hungary and Slovakia—which was referred to by my noble friend—I found fascinating, as I mentioned before, when I read the judgment. The Advocate-General said that necessity
“was recognised by the International Court of Justice in 1997 in a case between Slovakia and Hungary regarding a dam on the Danube.”—[Official Report, 11/10/22; col. 765]
As I referred to before, the Government seem to be relying on one case regarding communist Hungary in 1989 which the ICJ threw out.
The second case mentioned, involving Canada and fisheries, could refer to two cases. In one, the ICJ was asked by Spain to adjudicate because Canada had seized a vessel, invoking necessity, but the ICJ said that it could not look into it because Canada had passed legislation at that time to have a reservation from the ICJ, so the case could not even be heard. The other case relating to the Grand Banks should worry the Minister, as it was about imposing licence fees. Canada invoked necessity; the US responded saying that it would pay the fees of the fishermen and then claim reimbursement from Canada; then Canada amended its laws, which brought in all other aspects, and it was resolved by Canada removing the licence fees. Now, if that is a precedent, it is a worrying one, because I can see that there will be consequences with the EU as a result of this legislation. There will be reciprocal action and the UK will pay for it.
So can the Minister confirm what the Library told me, that there has never been a successful invocation of necessity? Can he tell me if there has ever been a case where any party has invoked necessity for framework legislation? I could not find it, so presumably the Minister will be able to help me.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I rise very briefly; I do not see any point in repeating what other people have said. I added my name to the attempt by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to remove these clauses, and it has been observed by some that this is a wrecking move. I guess it is, in a way, if you do not agree with a Bill and feel unable to amend it in a way that would make it satisfactory, you attempt to remove clauses which then unravel it. We are not happy with this piece of legislation and we are seeking ways—some of them creative, others more blunt, as this one is—because we think the Government are taking the wrong approach.
The points about necessity have been made at length. I think the Minister needs to be as thorough as he can—although perhaps not as lengthy as he can, just very clear. I think we want clarity about exactly where the Government think they are on this. My suspicion is that the Government are backfilling their answers as they go along and that they did not really think about this, because this piece of legislation was not really thought about. Introducing it in the first place was a political act to give the impression that the Government were playing hardball in negotiations. It has kind of served its purpose, as some people have explained, over the months. Ministers are now having to justify where they have got themselves, and we are all intrigued about where it is going to go next.
I do not know how the Minister is going to respond to the concerns raised by the DUP, which are incredibly serious and ought to be considered with the utmost thoughtfulness. Especially in the absence of any draft regulations, I do not know how those concerns are going to be dealt with. It is all very unclear. This is not the way we should proceed with any issues, and especially not when it comes to Northern Ireland.
We have been around the houses on the issue of Article 16 rather a lot. It is just ridiculous to claim that Article 16 lacks the flexibility to be able to deal with the concerns that have been raised—obviously it does. The Minister’s explanation for why that is no longer the Government’s preferred route does not really add up. Again, I think that in their desire to have some legislation, they are having to make up reasons going backwards, and that is why they are now coming unstuck on the Floor of the House.
I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and her concerns about the haulage industry. It is absolutely right that those concerns should be raised. I would be very happy to go to Ballymena and to meet Mr Jackson to listen to what he has to say, because I am sure that what he said in his letter to us is true. Of course we ought to be looking at ways to make sure that those issues are fixed, but I do not think that this is the right way to go about it. This is not about the EU always being right; I think the EU was wrong to link these issues with Horizon. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other. We should have made progress on both issues, but separately. So, we do not always take the EU’s side. That is just not true.
The principal concern we have is that unless we get at the very least the things we have asked for in our earlier amendments—specifically these draft regulations; that is really important—we are going to be looking at ways to make sure that the Bill does not proceed as smoothly as the Minister would like. This is not a tweaking issue; we just do not think the Government are going about this in the right way.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, as we approach what I think will be the final series of amendments for discussion tonight, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their thoughtful and entirely well-intentioned contributions to this important debate.
Clause 1 summarises the effect of the Bill and gives vital clarity on how it will function. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, was critical of its drafting—indeed, of its presence in the Bill itself. He may be right to be critical but there have been, and will always be, changes in the manner in which legislation is drafted; there certainly have been over the past few years. In a matter of this sort, it is perhaps important as a matter of perception, given the history to which some contributors among your Lordships have referred, that the Bill carries assurances in Clause 1.
The clause sets out that the Bill makes domestic provision in connection with the disapplication of specific areas of the Northern Ireland protocol that are causing problems. It also sets out that the Bill provides Ministers with powers in connection with the further disapplication of additional areas of the Northern Ireland protocol according to specific purposes, as well as powers to make new domestic arrangements. The clause also clarifies how other legislation, such as the important Acts of Union, is affected by the Bill. I recommend that the clause stands part of the Bill.
Clause 2 will underpin the essential functioning of the Bill by confirming that any part of the protocol or withdrawal agreement that has been excluded by the Bill’s provisions has no effect in domestic law. I think it is recognised around the Committee that, at this point, we are coming away from the preamble of Clause 1, as we might call it, into the heart of the Bill and what it intends to accomplish. I certainly took the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord Browne of Belmont, to understand that fully when they talked about ripping the heart out of this Bill through these proposed amendments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, referred to the difficulties. I think that, wherever it stands on this Bill, the Committee is united on the fact that there are grave difficulties in Northern Ireland. I had the honour of briefly meeting the commercial director of McCulla Ireland on a visit to your Lordships’ House; I listened with great interest and concern to the matters raised by him.
The vital approach of these clauses is to amend the relevant provisions of the EU withdrawal Act that currently give domestic effect to the protocol and withdrawal agreement. This technical provision is, as noble Lords have recognised, vital for the Bill to function as, without it, there may be a lack of clarity as to which of the existing protocol and EU law regime, on the one hand, and the revised operation of the protocol, on the other, has effect. Where this Bill or its powers do not exclude a provision in the protocol or withdrawal agreement, that provision will continue to have effect via the EU withdrawal Act, as now. In answer to a point made in a debate on an earlier group, I emphasise that what the Government are proposing is not the ripping up of the protocol but directed action to those parts of the protocol that are not working. The Bill seeks to leave untouched the remainder of the protocol’s passages that are providing benefit, as was always intended to be the case. I therefore recommend that this clause stands part of the Bill.
Clause 3 supplements Clause 2 and will remove the requirement for courts to interpret relevant domestic law in line with the withdrawal agreement in so far as that would lead to an interpretation of domestic law that is incompatible with the Bill and any regulations made under it. This is done by the amendment of the relevant provision of the EU withdrawal Act, which currently requires courts to interpret relevant separation agreement law and domestic law consistently with the withdrawal agreement. Instead, it is made clear that no such interpretation should be made if this would be incompatible with provisions of the Bill or any regulations made under it. It is vital to provide certainty as to how the regime should operate, so I recommend that this clause stands part of the Bill.
We have had, I submit, a lengthy and important debate during this stage of the Bill. I seek noble Lords’ forbearance—
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I am coming to the noble Lord’s point. I am not proposing to wind up immediately. I acknowledge the importance of the debate we have heard. I pray for noble Lords’ forbearance if I do not respond to every point that has been canvassed specifically in relation to the doctrine of necessity, which we had a debate about in relation to the earlier group.
I anticipate what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is about to say. He put certain points to me in relation to the information that he had from the Library of your Lordships’ House. He cites the occasions on which the doctrine of necessity has been founded and outlines significant aspects of those cases to your Lordships’ House, but every legal case will stand on its own merits, and comparison of individual facts and circumstances does little to advance the argument as to the role of necessity in the unique circumstances with which your Lordships’ House is faced. Therefore, with the utmost respect to the noble Lord, the point he makes is of no value.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful for the answer. I respectfully believe that my point had value, because if the Government are using precedent and customary law, it is relevant to highlight that it has never been successfully invoked, and it has never been even attempted to be invoked in the way that this Government are doing. Since we are approaching customary international law, it is worth having that on the record.
My specific question was whether the Government’s interpretation of invoking necessity can be permanent, or whether the Advocate-General believes that I am correct with the ICJ stating in clear terms on many occasions that invoking necessity can only be a temporary response of wrongfulness, for grave and imminent individual aspects, but the breach is still there. Or do the Government believe that using necessity can be permanent?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for canvassing that. Again, I accept that it is an important point, as are all those that have been made around your Lordships’ House today.
Not all principles of international law are tested before a court, and acceptance by the international community of a particular practice, or codification by relevant institutions, as in the articles on state responsibility, can provide very significant precedent. Necessity provides a justification for non-performance with specific terms of the protocol, for as long as the circumstances justifying necessity persist. That relates to the temporal point which the noble Lord makes. The relevant circumstances could last for a significant length of time, so it is not necessarily a short-term justification.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to have had the opportunity for this debate. I regret to conclude that, despite the affection, respect and regard that I have for my noble and learned friend, and the fact that we are both members of the Faculty of Advocates—albeit I am non-practising—the Government’s legal position remains confused and flawed. On my specific question, the Advocate-General said in a previous debate that the Government reserved the right to invoke Article 16 as the legal base but did not give us the basis on which they would seek to do that. That was regrettable.
I am grateful to all who have spoken, particularly from the Front Benches opposite. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for responding to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, more adequately than I could possibly have done. To all those who have spoken from the Northern Irish perspective, the House is absolutely agreed that the protocol is not working. I have had briefs from the National Farmers’ Union, NFU Scotland, and the Food & Drink Federation, which would particularly like to see that matters regarding trade work as smoothly as possible, bearing in mind that the food industry is probably the largest manufacturing industry; it is larger than the car industry. It is a very big sector taken with food, farming and farm production.
So I regret that we have been put in this position and that the Government are wilfully seeking to breach an international agreement and public international law that they freely entered into. I do not intend to press this matter any further this evening, but I reserve the right to revert on Report.
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill
Monday 31st October 2022
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022-23 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 52-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (31 Oct 2022)
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, before we proceed with this Committee, can we be assured that there is not a plan to alter radically or even withdraw the Bill? Your Lordships will remember that with the Energy Security Bill we all put in weeks of work, as did the Government and everybody else, only for the whole Bill to be scrapped. It would be nice now to know whether we are going ahead with a Bill that will be pursued and not altered or scrapped as well.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I believe it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to put the Question to the House and perhaps allow the matters which have been raised by the noble Lord and potentially by others to be discussed when there is a question before the House. The Question is that the House do now again resolve itself into a Committee upon the Bill.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I understand my noble friend’s desire for clarity and certainty, but the Government would be performing an enormous public service if they withdrew the Bill today.
Baroness Suttie
“(A1) This section is subject to section (Limitation of general implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol: approval of Northern Ireland Assembly).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is linked to Baroness Suttie’s new Clause after Clause 2 (Limitation of general implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol: approval of Northern Ireland Assembly).
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 5, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, as well as to Amendments 68 and 69.
These amendments aim to require the approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly before the measures contained in the Bill can be used to limit the general implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. Clearly, we are debating these amendments against the backdrop of the 28 October deadline having been missed and the continued absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly, as well as the continued stalemate, with the DUP refusing to allow the Assembly to function since the elections in May of this year.
It is very hard not to feel deeply frustrated and indeed angry on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. The lack of an Assembly and functioning Northern Ireland Executive has meant for ordinary people across Northern Ireland a deteriorating healthcare system, a lack of strategic economic planning, and little or no progress on legacy matters or on issues such as developing an integrated education system. The stop-start nature of devolution over the last 25 years in Northern Ireland has meant that we have seen only fleeting periods of stable government there, and the Government’s attempts to overcome their own internal divisions since 2016 have been at the expense of the people of Northern Ireland.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I am absolutely delighted to add my name to this suite of amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie.
These amendments clearly have a specific purpose. First, I believe that full recognition needs to be given by your Lordships’ House and the UK Government that the Good Friday agreement is the bedrock upon which all institutions are based and out of which they emerged. It includes three strands: the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive; north/south; and east/west.
Devolved structures and the power of the MLAs must be recognised, acknowledged and reflected, and their mandate must be so acknowledged. They must be allowed to have an accountability role. If this Bill becomes law and results in the limitation of the protocol, your Lordships should remember, as the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said, that a majority of MLAs elected in early May wrote to the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, indicating their opposition to the provisions in the Bill.
It is important, as I said, that the UK Government recognise that the majority of Assembly Members support the protocol, with refinements. They believe, as I do, that mitigations are required and, most importantly, they want the restoration of political institutions, particularly after Friday’s very odd press conference, given by the Secretary of State in the middle of Chichester Street in Belfast with onlookers walking past. An election will serve no purpose whatever. We would probably end up with a more polarised outcome in Northern Ireland and it will not have served its purpose.
The view of Assembly Members was also reflected in a recent poll by Queen’s University Belfast, which stated that 51% think that the protocol is having a positive impact on the Northern Ireland economy. Immediately we see the evidence of our divided society in Northern Ireland—63% think that it offers opportunities that could benefit Northern Ireland and 60% think the same about its impact on British-Irish relations. There is a fear that the UK Government are not operating or proposing a consensual approach through this Bill and are recognising only the views of unionists. Arrangements work in Northern Ireland only when they have the buy-in of unionists, nationalists and the non-aligned, and that is not possible under the provisions of the Bill.
We have no political structures operating at the moment, with no impetus from the Government to have them up and running. I hope that this week’s discussions between the Secretary of State, the political parties and the Irish Government will produce better outcomes and a better trajectory of travel. People do not want direct rule; they want their own Government.
Elections will not provide the answer, as the default legal position allows. Designation of Joint First Ministers should have been allowed. That would have obviated many of the problems currently being experienced. I hope that if there are negotiations and there is a review of the institutions, this issue comes back into; the Minister will recall this item being discussed in debates on the Elections Bill. It is worth noting that, very sadly, institutions have operated only at a very low percentage in the last 24 years. There is a need to end the inherent sectarianism that was ushered in by the St Andrews agreement in 2006-07.
It is also important to remember that the poll from Queen’s University told us that 65% of the Northern Ireland Assembly agree that the Northern Ireland Executive should be fully functioning regardless of what happens with the protocol, while 32% disagree. Broadly, these figures represent the political support and opposition in the Assembly in relation to the protocol.
The protocol should not have prevented the restoration of all the institutions. Noble Lords will become very angry when they realise that there are important issues for many people, such as the cost of living, the cost of doing business, and health waiting lists and getting on to these. It is worth noting that, at the evidence session during the protocol sub-committee’s visit to Belfast two weeks ago, young people who were there as community representatives viewed health waiting lists and the cost of living as much more important than the protocol.
The bottom line is therefore that the GFA standard, in all its strands, must be adhered to and protected. The pathway to that includes the need for all-party talks to resolve the outstanding issues. Rather than having a potential election, there must be renewed vigour in the UK-EU negotiations on the protocol, not only on the technical aspects but with the political negotiations that are urgently required. My fear is that any election process could stop the political negotiations. There has been a renewed focus on the technical, and it is important that renewed focus is given to the political.
I support the amendments in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. I urge the support of your Lordships’ Committee. The accountability mechanisms in the Northern Ireland Assembly must be recognised and adhered to if this Bill is passed. They must be given their say, because the vast majority of Assembly Members elected do not agree with this Bill. They would prefer that it were not on the table and that the Government removed it.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, Harold Macmillan, that great Tory Prime Minister, had a quotation on his desk or wall—I forget which—by WS Gilbert:
“Quiet, calm deliberation disentangles every knot.”
If there were ever a need for this, it is now, on the issue of the Northern Ireland protocol: a treaty negotiated by a British Prime Minister and one of his colleagues, who is present this afternoon; commended to both Houses of Parliament; and given support—with a degree of reluctance, because many of us realised that it was far from perfect.
I understand why my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford made the brief point he made before he left the Chamber. I believe that we are wasting our time in a prodigal fashion. To quote the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, many years ago, the Bill is not fit for purpose. It never will be, however many amendments we pass on the Floor of your Lordships’ House.
We have all agreed that there will be no call for Divisions in Committee. Colleagues on both sides of the Committee know that I would have liked to have a vote to pause proceedings at Second Reading. However, it was conveyed to me that the Labour Opposition were not prepared to support that, and it would not have been right for me to go ahead when I clearly did not have strong support in all parts of the House.
We are now in an Alice in Wonderland situation where a series of amendments—the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, moved her amendment eloquently and persuasively—are not going to change the fundamental nature of the Bill; they are not going to make it acceptable. So this charade is going to continue through today and two more days, and then the Bill will go to its Report stage. I beg my noble friends on the Front Bench: for goodness’ sake, pause it there at least, so that negotiations can take place without any implicit threats over our European friends and neighbours. I deliberately and repeatedly call for that. Let us have those negotiations, and let us hope that they are entered into in good faith on the both sides.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I rise to support these amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Suttie and signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and I thank both of them for the way they have introduced them. This is a Foreign Office Bill, but its implications are vital for the people of Northern Ireland and for the people of the United Kingdom, because it is a political Bill which is dangerous in terms of what the Government are playing with.
At the heart of the protocol is the debate about unfettered access to both the UK market and the EU single market. Of course, unfettered access to both those markets is what we had before we left the European Union, and leaving that Union inevitably led to a situation where an open border between the UK, GB, Northern Ireland and the EU is not compatible with the agreement post leaving the EU. That is clearly the source of the problem—but everybody knew that at the time when the agreement was struck and signed, including the UK Government and Northern Ireland politicians. However, on the face of it, from all the implications that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, quoted, there is a clear majority for moving on—not for setting aside the protocol or, by implication, the trade and co-operation agreement or, frankly, the Bill to repeal EU law, when we have sweated for the past several years to transfer that EU law into UK law.
Do the Government really want to provoke a trade war when our economy is in such a fragile condition? The Prime Minister says, and I agree, that we are facing a profound economic crisis. Is tearing up the protocol more or less likely to alleviate this or help recovery in Northern Ireland? The issue, therefore, is surely not how to achieve the minimal friction. We all agree that we want minimal friction; we want as free access as we can get. The issue is not how to achieve it but how we can get it to the lowest compatible level for business to carry on with minimal cost and delay.
The case for consulting the Northern Ireland Assembly is overwhelming. Not least, it is not just a matter of the numbers. The whole point of legislatures is that they are where compromises can be negotiated and struck; where the balance can be found. And there is the rub. The DUP insists that the Irish Sea border must go. As I have said, it would of course be ideal to have no borders, but that would be inconsistent with being outside the single market and the customs union. So a low-friction agreement on implementation of the protocol appears to be the answer, appears to have wide support and could surely be negotiated with good will on all sides.
Unfortunately, as I understand it—and I would be happy to be contradicted when the DUP enters the debate—the DUP is insisting on what it knows to be an impossible solution: no borders. The party has said that, unless it gets that solution, it will never re-enter the Assembly or the Executive. The Good Friday agreement—the Belfast agreement—is a power-sharing arrangement between the largest nationalist and largest unionist grouping. It is not a majoritarian arrangement, as the DUP rightly insists on telling us—but nor is it a never-ending veto. To share power is to seek and find compromise. Refusal to do so is to deny the spirit and probably the letter of the agreement. It is to deny democracy. Most important of all, it is to deny the people of Northern Ireland the delivery of essential services that they require and that they voted for—and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said, they desperately want solutions to be addressed.
So we are facing the prospect of a fresh election. I do not think anybody wants an election, and nor does anybody believe that it is likely to make a huge difference; it will not change much. I hope that it might further strengthen the Alliance but, on the whole, it is not likely to make a huge difference. If the DUP, before or after the election, blocks any compromise—I repeat, any compromise—is it not time to reconsider the arrangement? I have already said that power sharing requires compromise. Should refusing to compromise question the right to share power? Is it not time for some hard consideration of the rights of the people of Northern Ireland—their rights to have a functioning Government, to move forward and to have a solution that is based on reality, not fantasy?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
I support the amendment, so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for a simple reason. It relates to what is frequently called the “democratic deficit”—a phrase that often finds itself in the mouths of those who support this Bill, among whom I am not numbered. They talk about the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland mainly in respect of the fact that the people of Northern Ireland do not have a say over the legislation for the single market, which will be passed in Brussels. They erroneously say that that is the only place in Europe where that happens. That is untrue; it is the same for Norway, which has no say over legislation passed in Brussels but accepts it when it is sent through on a fax. So the use of the words “democratic deficit” by the supporters of the Bill is in any case a bit erroneous. It is even more erroneous when you consider that the people of the Northern Ireland actually voted to remain in the European Union; that surely is something of a democratic deficit.
These amendments, which I imagine the Minister will explain the Government cannot support, are also an attempt to address the democratic deficit, to say that the people of Northern Ireland collectively should have some say in the operation of this deeply flawed legislation. So why will the Government oppose it? We know why: because a majority of Members of the Assembly who were elected in May have said they do not want any of it, and that would not be helpful to the Government’s objectives. When you bandy around phrases such as “democratic deficit”, you should follow them through to their logical conclusion, and that logical conclusion is in the amendments that the House is now debating.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, the amendments would subject aspects of the Bill to the approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, my contention is that they will work only if preceded by a prior vote on the protocol itself in accordance with the standards of cross-community consent put in place for the controversial matters set out by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
The Good Friday agreement is now very vulnerable because of the approach of the European Union in relation to two key principles at the heart of it. First, the Good Friday agreement is predicated on a commitment to affording the interests of both communities parity of esteem. The interests of unionism have not been afforded parity of esteem vis-à-vis those of nationalism with respect to the protocol. While the protocol represents an existential threat to all that unionists hold dear and is rejected by all the unionist parties, it authenticates that which nationalists and republicans desire: the breaking of the UK economy. Secondly, the Good Friday agreement is predicated on a commitment to non-majoritarian politics, which means that controversial decisions have to be made on the basis of cross-community consent. Again, that has been cast aside.
In the first instance, the EU sought to pressure the UK Government into the protocol without affording Northern Ireland any say in the matter, notwithstanding the fact that the effect of the protocol is to slash the value of the Northern Ireland vote, as 300 areas of lawmaking to which we are subject are taken from us and made by a legislature of a foreign power. When the EU finally agreed that the Northern Ireland Assembly should be given some say in the matter, it insisted for some bizarre reason that it should happen four years afterwards. It made provision for it to continue for at least another four years without cross-community support, resulting in eight years of government outside the confines of the Belfast agreement, which could of course continue indefinitely with regular four-year extensions.
That is the height of irony because anyone who studies democracy will know that leading academics in the field, such as Professor Arend Lijphart, are very clear that the EU is one of the most consensual, non-majoritarian polities in the world today. That the EU decided to betray its own commitment to non-majoritarianism by going out of its way to impose majoritarianism on a polity that it knew was based on non-majoritarianism is quite extraordinary.
This is a major problem not just for the Good Friday agreement but for the protocol. The protocol subjects itself to the Belfast agreement in all its dimensions through Articles 1 and 2. That is a problem for those who wish to argue that international law constrains those seeking to address the clear injustices of the Northern Ireland protocol, because Article 3 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is very clear that:
“When a treaty specifies that it is subject to … an earlier or later treaty, the provisions of that other treaty prevail.”
Given that the convention also sets out mechanisms, such as Article 56(1)(b), whereby a state party can lawfully and unilaterally withdraw from a treaty, the refusal of the EU to amend the protocol so that it is properly brought into line with the prior treaty clearly gives grounds for our withdrawal.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Suttie in her amendments. Notwithstanding the appeal from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, these Benches do not need to be persuaded of his arguments. We are nevertheless tasked with scrutinising and testing this legislation, and I support my noble friend’s amendments.
I want to ask the Minister just two simple questions relating to the Sewel convention, which is now recognised as a constitutional principle. Michael Ellis, speaking on behalf of the Government in Committee in the Commons, was asked about legislative consent of this Bill. He said:
“As the hon. Member for North Down will be aware, the Sewel convention applies to this Bill, as it does to all Bills of this Parliament that intersect with devolved competence. I confirm that in the absence of functioning institutions, senior officials in the Foreign Office have already made contact with the head of the Northern Ireland civil service regarding legislative consent … The Government will consult stakeholders in Northern Ireland, including Members of the Assembly, on the operation of the Bill during its passage and thereafter”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/22; cols. 385-86.]
What did the officials ask of the civil servants with regard to legislative consent in the absence of there being an Assembly? This is not a practice that has ever been seen anywhere else for the operation of the Sewel Motion. Which Members of the Assembly have been consulted during the passage of this Bill, and on what? Have they been asked, with regard to the dual regulatory regime that the Bill proposes, and what have their responses been so far?
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I rise to put a technical point. I am not sure of the answer—it is a genuine question—but it bears on the amendment. Trade is a reserved matter in Northern Ireland. When there was first sight of Theresa May’s protocol, there was great rage in Northern Ireland. People in Northern Ireland were told, “Sorry, this is a reserved matter.” Subsequently—it was the second iteration—it was very much the view of the noble Lord, Lord Frost, that that was not itself a satisfactory answer, and there is provision in the protocol negotiated by the Johnson Government. The one significant change is to make, in very specific circumstances, a role for the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is probably the major difference between the two protocols. However, if it is a reserved matter—if that was the answer that I remember being given throughout 2017 and 2018 in this House—I cannot quite see the purchase of these amendments.
If it is a reserved matter, it is a reserved matter. It is for this Parliament to deal with these trade matters. The burden of the Bill is in dealing with Articles 5 and 10 of the protocol—not those on human rights and so on—in a way which, I accept, many Members of this House do not like. None the less, it does not seem appropriate to be raising these issues now about that role for the Northern Ireland Assembly, because trade is a reserved matter held by this House.
The history of this is perfectly clear: the Government of Ireland Act 1920 has language on trade, as do the prior Acts of Union 1800. Then there were modifications to the Government of Ireland Act—benign modernisations, I would say—under the Good Friday agreement and the legislation that went through this House, which left us with trade as a reserved matter. It seems to me that this should be taken into account. There may be some possible answer to it, and the noble Lord, Lord Frost, has negotiated a possible way that one might work around it, but trade is a reserved matter at this point. We are not concerned with the human rights provisions of the protocol and so on; they are not the issue in the Bill. It is directed mainly against Articles 5 and 10, rightly or wrongly—wrongly, I am sure many colleagues on my own Benches think—but trade being a reserved matter is a problem for amendments of this sort.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I agree that external trade is a reserved matter, but here we are talking about trade inside the United Kingdom—as well as trade inside the single market of the European Union, of course. I do not think it follows at all that one can say there is no role for the Assembly because external trade is a reserved matter.
I would love to support the amendment in the names of the two noble Baronesses. I agree with the spirit of it. It is extraordinary how, throughout this saga, things have been done to Northern Ireland without Northern Ireland being fully consulted or even informed. It is extraordinary, when you think about it, that the protocol was concluded without the involvement—I want to embarrass him now—of the noble Lord, Lord Caine, who knows far more about these issues than most of us do and has a judgment that we would all respect. That should have been brought to bear.
I hesitate to criticise the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who is busy with his emails, but, if he would like to listen, I will criticise him. It would have been good if he had found the ability to spend more time in Northern Ireland while he was negotiating. It would have been great if his master, the then Prime Minister, had been able to spend some time trying to understand the issues and seeing people on the ground, but it is an astonishing fact that Michel Barnier had more direct personal experience of Northern Ireland than the noble Lord, Lord Frost, had. That was because Barnier had spent time there doing jobs for previous presidents of the Commission.
I feel that the syndrome of imposing things on Northern Ireland, perhaps under cover of talk about reserved matters, which I disagree with, has been damaging to the United Kingdom and, of course, to Northern Ireland. I would love to support these amendments, and of course I would do so. But it would not make an illegal act less illegal if the Northern Ireland Assembly voted for it, so what are we talking about here?
I caused the Minister to look askance when I said that we are talking about a pig of a Bill. The Minister thought that was an indelicate reference. However, what we are doing here is trying to put lipstick on the pig. It will still be a pig even if this amendment is approved. If it were put to a vote, of course I would vote for it, but my general feeling is that we know what we have to do with this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has correctly pointed out that what we are engaged in now is a waste of time because I am confident that at the end of the day, we will do what we have to do to this Bill. I hope the end of the day comes soon.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, for a number of years I was shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I have not been involved in recent political discussions in the Province. In a sense, I have come back to the subject afresh today. It certainly keeps all its fascination. We have just heard two immensely important contributions to the debate by the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Bew. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, dealt clearly, decisively and definitively with whether or not trade is a reserved matter. We must be grateful for that analysis, which I hope will guide us in dealing with this Bill.
The Bill is an extraordinarily unpopular document, is it not? It is quite difficult to find anybody really prepared to defend it. The DUP is obviously very much opposed to it. We have heard this afternoon from people who are close to the DUP’s leadership. The European Commission has launched infringement procedures in relation to the British Government’s activity over this Bill. The British Government do not seem to be very convinced of the virtues of the Bill. Certainly no one this afternoon has made a strong defence of the Bill.
Against that background, I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. It is quite unlikely that the DUP will do a U-turn; it would be a humiliating thing to do. Therefore, one must assume that the Bill in its present form does not have very far to go. That is not surprising because—and the reason I really oppose this Bill—it seems contrary to the essence of parliamentary democracy. The principle which underlines our whole system in this country is that the law must be made by the legislature—the legally elected representatives of the public. It is their responsibility to make laws; it is not the responsibility of the Government to make laws, nor is it desirable that they should try to do so.
Many of the provisions in this controversial protocol Bill reveal that there is an ambition for the Government to rewrite the law themselves. I look at the overview of the Bill in the very helpful summary produced by the Library. It says that one of the purposes is
“giving ministers delegated powers to make new provision in domestic law ‘in connection with’ ‘excluded provision’”;
in other words, the Bill declares itself as being in the business of making law and imposing it on the public, which is quite contrary to all democratic principles, and we should be quite upset about it.
This is something which has disfigured European history in the last 100 years. A number of people, from Mussolini to Hitler to Marshal Pétain, have adopted this course of deciding to get through an assembly, which would be reasonably compliant, a Bill entitling the Government to write the law themselves in the future. That is what happens to democracies if they are under that kind of attack. We should not in any way be party to that.
The House of Lords Library’s summary of the situation makes it clear that, in this case, the executive branch is deciding to write law and change international treaties more or less at the drop of a hat. That is obviously not something that anyone in this House could tolerate, and we should therefore think about this extremely carefully before it proceeds. We should make it absolutely clear that the Government cannot get away with asking for power in an enabling Act to simply write the future statute—not making this clear would be contrary to what we should do in this place.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Ritchie, on their amendment. I associate myself with the remarks about the democratic deficit problems that have arisen in Northern Ireland as a result of Brexit. Many of us in this House have always believed that a hard Brexit was incompatible with the Good Friday agreement. However, the Government assured the people of Northern Ireland and this Parliament that the Northern Ireland protocol was the answer to ensuring that Brexit would work with the Good Friday agreement. It clearly imposed a border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as the impact assessment explained. The problems that have arisen do not seem due to the intransigence of the EU; they are inherent in the protocol.
Brexit is yet another example of how, for so long—decades and decades—Britain has imposed things on the people of Northern Ireland and, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, done things to Northern Ireland, rather than working with the people there. But that is not a reason for our Government, shortly after signing the protocol, to say, “We don’t like it. We don’t like ECJ oversight or the EU deciding what it considers a risk to its single market. We must do that”, and then expecting the EU simply to accept that, in contravention of our signature on an agreement and of what was promised to the people of Northern Ireland.
Clearly, there is an issue. I hope my noble friend can explain how removing ECJ oversight and allowing the UK Government to assess risks to the single market will make hard Brexit work for all of the parties in Northern Ireland, not just the DUP.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, made a powerful—emotional, to some extent—speech last week and it certainly resonated with me. To a large extent, that has been reflected in the contributions so far, acknowledging that things have been done to Northern Ireland. Of course, when we consider what was done to Northern Ireland in relation to this protocol, it is right to remember that the then Prime Minister went to the DUP party conference and assured it that it was “oven ready”. In an aside, he also said, “Don’t worry about the paperwork”. Perhaps the DUP was overconfident in relying upon the word of the former Prime Minister: what has happened since has exploded the idea that what was in the protocol would somehow cover all circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, referred to the most helpful Library briefing, which says on page 50 that Article 16 is a “safeguard” mechanism. Are we looking for safeguards? Yes, of course we are. It allows either party to take temporary
“measures if the application of the Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist”.
On the attitude being taken by the DUP, what better definition can we have than this expression that embraces its concerns—almost exactly and in detail? It goes on to say that the “diversion of trade” is an issue that would justify reference to Article 16.
It seems that Article 16 has been rejected by the Government. I have never really heard a proper argument for why that should be the case. I will put it this way: if Article 16 does not cover what we are about today, when will it ever be of any relevance? This question would give an answer, though perhaps not one that would suit the DUP in every respect. Should Article 16 be invoked, an answer to this question would go a long way to helping those—including me—concerned about anything that might have the effect of undermining the Belfast agreement.
I think we will have a discussion later this week in this House about trade arrangements, so I will repeat a point I made in the last debate: the trade arrangements that were held in front of all our noses were those to be made with the United States. They were going to remedy any difficulties or subtractions that we might experience if we left the European Union. However, nothing much has happened with that. As I said then—I say it again now—we forget the extent to which the politics of the United States, as they affect us domestically in both Houses and across both sides of the aisle, are influenced by their attitudes towards Ireland. It seems that, so long as we have this unresolved issue, the prospects for a trade agreement are pretty remote. For this reason, I ask the DUP why Article 16 is not enough for it, and I ask the Government to give us a coherent explanation of why they are not willing to invoke it. At the very least, by invoking it, we would be able to test it.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, it is indeed a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, with whom I had the honour of serving alongside for many years in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I understand that he continues to serve there with great distinction, so it is a pleasure to hear what he has to say.
On the issue of Article 16, I say with the greatest of respect: I well remember that, when this was being discussed and advocated by us and others, there was agreement that some of the articles in the Northern Ireland protocol should be suspended. Article 16 was absolutely opposed tooth and nail by the vast bulk of everybody, not just in Northern Ireland on the nationalist side but both here in this House and in the other place. In the last debate, I quoted statements from leading members of what was then Her Majesty’s Opposition, including the Liberal Democrat Benches—as well as others on the Conservative Benches—who were vociferous and vehement in their opposition to any notion of the implementation of Article 16. The Irish Government went so far as to say that it would completely upend the Belfast agreement, which seems to be the chosen form of words when something is proposed that is not liked. I hear with interest what noble Lords are saying now about Article 16, but that certainly was not what was being said a few months ago. Noble Lords should look back in Hansard to what the situation actually was. The reality is that Article 16—whether or not it was invoked—was not going to solve all the problems.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
Other Members have had their say so I am going to proceed in terms of my speech.
The amendment before us from the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Ritchie, has the intent of saying that the Bill’s operative clauses should not proceed unless there is approval from the Northern Ireland Assembly. I note, however, that this is not by cross-community vote. What is fascinating about people who defend and say they are defending the Belfast agreement—as amended by St Andrews, of course—is that they say, “Let’s give a vote to the Northern Ireland Assembly”. Regardless of whether or not it is reserved, the fact is that you are giving a power to the Assembly, and the Assembly in Northern Ireland operates by cross-community vote: there must be a majority of unionists, a majority of nationalists and an overall majority for all major pieces of legislation to pass. If it is subject to a majority vote, it can be turned into a cross-community vote by a petition of concern. Yet, uniquely, the proponents of the Belfast agreement only ever want to give a vote on the protocol issues to the Northern Ireland Assembly without a cross-community vote. So, if we are going to be consistent about defending the Belfast agreement and the institutions thereof, this amendment should include provision for a cross-community vote.
The other big flaw of course is that there is no such requirement for the absolute implementation of the protocol itself. I pointed out that Article 50 of the joint declaration in December 2017, signed by the EU and the United Kingdom Government, said that there could be no regulatory difference between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom unless it was by a cross-community vote of the Assembly and the Executive in Northern Ireland. So that is what should be the priority. As my noble friend Lord Browne said, there needs to be a prior step before we go down this route, which is to ask whether the protocol has the assent of the Northern Ireland Assembly on the basis of the Assembly’s decision-making powers, which are by cross-community vote.
It has also been said that the democratic deficit argument is not valid because there are other countries that have no say in laws that govern them. Norway was cited. Of course, Norway is a member of the European Economic Area but is not a member of the customs union, so it does not have EU customs laws applied to it in the way that Northern Ireland has. That is a significant difference. But the other major difference is this: the whole of Norway is a member of the single market. Northern Ireland is separated out from the rest of the United Kingdom, so one part of the United Kingdom is subject to EU laws while the rest goes its own way, making its own laws and being free to make its own decisions. Given that Northern Ireland does more trade with the rest of the United Kingdom than with the rest of the world, Europe and the Republic of Ireland put together, that makes no sense whatever. So it is entirely wrong to suggest, “Oh, well, there’s no difference between Northern Ireland and places like Norway”—there is a world of difference. I am surprised that that has not been noted.
Then we have the argument that it is the Government who have set out the position as to what needs to be done in relation to the protocol and putting it right. They issued a Command Paper in July 2021 and have now published this Bill. A lot of it is good in terms of restoring democratic control over laws that apply to Northern Ireland; it goes some way to rectifying that, although it does not do everything that we would like. Then we are told that if the DUP do not get on board with this—the Government’s proposals—then somehow the rules for power sharing in Northern Ireland should be cast aside. Again, I ask defenders of the Belfast agreement: where are you when people say, “Let’s just do away with the cross-community mechanisms and go for majority voting”? We have not had majority rule in Northern Ireland for over 50 years.
But when people talk about the Assembly not functioning for a large bulk of the period since the Belfast agreement, remember that between 2003 and 2007 it was down because of the actions of Sinn Féin and its military wing, the IRA, in robbing the Northern Bank. The Government rightly insisted that it would have to give up its weaponry before it could be considered fit to have a place in the Government of Northern Ireland. For four years—and between 2017 and 2020, again Sinn Féin kept the Assembly down and boycotted the Executive—would not agree to re-form it—on the issue of language and culture. But, as soon as there is any suggestion that the DUP insists on the democratic rights of people in Northern Ireland to be treated in the same way as other citizens of the United Kingdom, to have their say and vote on laws that affect them, we have the defenders, it appears, of the Belfast agreement saying, “No, let’s jettison all that, let’s change the rules”. Well, I am afraid that really is a recipe for disaster.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I am not going to comment on the politics of Northern Ireland—I am a mere lawyer—but the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, raised a particular point on Article 16, and the answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, as I understood him, was that there were discussions about that, and statements were made at various times by various politicians. But the fact of the matter is that Article 16 is part of the protocol; it cannot be ignored.
What it says is that it provides a procedure for dealing with
“serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade”.
It is a very broad concept; it provides a means by which such disputes can be resolved and, as I have said before in debates on this Bill, I simply do not understand how the test of “necessity” in international law can be satisfied when the Government have available, and are not using, a provision that is expressly provided in the protocol. You simply cannot resile from an international agreement because of problems when the protocol itself, the international agreement, provides a means of addressing them; it is as simple as that.
There is one other legal point. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, deserves an answer. He rightly emphasised that Articles 1 and 2 of the protocol preserve the Belfast agreement in various respects, upholding and emphasising it. As I understood it, his argument is that the Bill is consistent with international law because the protocol, in his view, undermines the Belfast agreement. However, if I may respectfully say so, there is an insuperable difficulty with that argument: this country signed the protocol on the basis of the view that the protocol was consistent with the Belfast agreement in the context of the difficult problems posed by Brexit.
Having signed the agreement, with respect, it is trite as a matter of international law that the United Kingdom cannot unilaterally resile from the protocol because, under political pressure, it now wishes to take a different view. Therefore, this Bill, as I have suggested before, is quite simply inconsistent with international law.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I appreciate that I am a relative newcomer to this House, but I had understood that in Committee discussion is supposed to focus on the amendments before us. What I have heard today is very much a rerun of the discussion we heard in this place last week, with repeated invocations of issues of principle around this Bill and the protocol, which are extremely important but might not be resolved in this debate simply by repeating the points over and over.
I have been trying to follow the detail of this on my electronic device, with my documents in front of me—I know the technique may not be familiar to everybody in this House, but I am trying my best. I was not intending to speak but, as some points of principle have been raised, I feel it is right to put certain circumstances on record.
I will make three brief points. First, I feel we are having a highly abstract discussion about a very concrete and real situation. Noble Lords all know what is happening in Northern Ireland at the moment and what has happened over the last year and in recent months: the constant, gradual deterioration of the real political situation in Northern Ireland, the undermining of the institutions of the Good Friday agreement, and the degradation of some of the habits of co-operation and working together that we have seen over the years. This is a real situation, which must be dealt with. This Bill is a way of dealing with it and the Government—rightly, in my view—believe it is the best way of doing so.
We have to engage with that. We have to take real-life action to deal with the problems that exist on the ground in Northern Ireland. Important though discussions of international law and a reinvocation of why we signed this agreement may be, they do not deal with the real situation on the ground now. The Government are the Government of this country, and they are right to put forward proposals that deal with this situation. The best way to deal with it would be to expedite this Bill, not to delay, defer or withdraw it. The best contributor to stability in Northern Ireland would be to get this on the statute book and enable people to know what they are dealing with.
Secondly—
Lord Frost (Con)
No other noble Lords have taken interventions, so I will complete my points if I may.
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, who made the points I was about to make about Article 16. When I was on the Front Bench here, I repeatedly stated that the conditions for meeting Article 16 had been met but we would prefer to proceed by negotiation. I was looked at as some sort of barbarian by many people in this House, and elsewhere, for daring to contemplate such a possibility. Yet it now seems that it is what many people would wish to do to resolve this situation—the natural way of doing so. I am very glad that is the view, but I am afraid that my view is that the situation on the ground in Northern Ireland has gone beyond that and Article 16 will not be the best way to resolve that.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
I thank my noble friend for giving way. The view that I think many around the Committee hold is that the triggering of Article 16 was something that we did feel would be premature and we had all expected that there would be negotiations with the EU. However, the opposition to triggering that stage never envisaged that something like this Bill could be introduced which would rip up the whole protocol before negotiations had even been completed.
Lord Frost (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her comments; she is correct to say that the situation last year was different from this year. We did not invoke Article 16 in the end and many people were disappointed about that. Since then, the situation has moved on; it has deteriorated. I think this Bill is really the only way of resolving it.
Thirdly and finally, many noble Lords seem to believe that a negotiated way through this would be made easier by withdrawing the Bill. I profoundly disagree. It is very much the best way through to find a negotiated solution and that is what I wanted to do last year. The observed behaviour of the European Union, through last year and this year, is that it does not wish to negotiate about the fundamental core of the problem. The proposals it has put on the table are at the margin; they are not to do with the core of the difficulties in so many areas—not just trade but state aid, VAT and other issues that go into the depths of the protocol. I do not believe it will unless it is forced to engage with the fact that the UK Government have an alternative, which is to use the powers in this Bill. If we take the Bill off the table, we are removing such limited leverage as the UK Government have to deliver for their people, the people of Northern Ireland, a better outcome.
I will wind up there. It is very important that we do not show infirmity of purpose on this and that the Bill continues. I urge the Minister in winding up to make it clear that we intend to move forward with it.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
I did not plan on speaking in this debate, but I think it is only right that somebody should thank the noble Lord, Lord Frost, for explaining to us how bad things have become in Northern Ireland as a result of the treaty he negotiated. I am very happy to do that. I will, however, keep my speech brief and not make a Second Reading speech.
Of course, I support these two amendments but hope very much that we will not get to vote on them. To echo the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, we have been asked to put lipstick on a pig again. We have been asked to do that many times in the last couple of years, but to my knowledge, this is first time that the pig is not only ugly but illegal. On that basis, we should not get to vote on it. What we should do now, as others have said, is invoke Article 16. If negotiations are not working, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, there is a route open to us but passing an illegal Bill is certainly not it.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I had been planning to speak on the detail of the amendments. It seems to me to be quite unreasonable, as the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Bew, have already said, that the whole essence of the Belfast agreement, which was that important decisions would be made on a cross-community basis—a difficult principle for unionists to accept at the time—is now being abandoned the moment it becomes inconvenient. I say that as someone who was rather opposed, at the time, to the Belfast agreement—not on orange or green grounds but because I thought it was unhealthy to have all the parties in power all the time. I thought it would be healthier for democracy to have a more genuine competition. I lost that argument and we went down this road. It seems a little inconsistent that we should move to majoritarianism only when it suits people pushing one agenda.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
This has been a much more wide-ranging debate than I had anticipated. I guess we will see a lot of that in Committee, because, as many noble Lords observed, of the fundamental nature of our objection to what the Government are trying to do. However, this group of amendments is timely and makes an important point. Whether or not we agree that we should be supporting these to the letter is not, I think, what the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Ritchie, were trying to ask in tabling them. They were trying to make an important point. The issues which the noble Lord, Lord Frost, quite rightly reminds us are real on the ground in Northern Ireland absolutely are. However, this situation is now unique to Northern Ireland, and in every instance where there are a set of problems that relate to one specific geographical area—perhaps especially Northern Ireland, but it could be Wales or the north of England—the idea that you would try to resolve them unilaterally, without proper engagement with communities who live there, is unrealistic. Whatever happens with our deliberations on the Bill, with the negotiations or even if there are to be elections, and as a consequence of all that, we will not be able to move forward unless all the parties in Northern Ireland get together and agree a way to proceed. Any other way of going about this will not provide us with a durable solution, and that durability of an agreement is what we all want.
The Government were warned about the protocol at the time. It has been said, “But we were in a bit of a hurry because we weren’t allowed to leave without a deal; we just had to do something and this was better than nothing.” We have heard all that, and whatever we think about a Government making that kind of argument when they had an 80-seat majority and could pretty much at that point do whatever they wanted, we are where we are. However, these problems were completely foreseeable, and I regret that we have got to where we are.
Some people say that we need to expedite the Bill—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said this—and move on. That is fine, but to do what? What is it that the Government want to do instead? We do not know. Last week, the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said he was concerned that he did not know. We have not seen draft regulations. We are being asked to agree to something without knowing what it is we will be left with at the end of the process; that is not reasonable for this Committee.
At the risk of making a wide-ranging and ponderous speech that deviates all over the place and does not address these amendments, let me say that saying, “Oh well, some people on your side said it was a bad idea at the time; therefore we must never do it”, is not a serious response to the challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about this being the legal mechanism to which the UK Government agreed. We have not heard an adequate response from the Government on why they now view Article 16 as an inadequate provision that would not address the issues with the protocol that they say, and we agree, need to be resolved.
Also, on the idea that having this issue on the table will somehow make the EU more forthcoming in giving us what we want—although we lack clarity on that—I think we could be forgiven for not placing too much faith in the brilliance of the UK’s negotiating ability, given that it has brought us to precisely where we are today. The point that the noble Baronesses were making in tabling these amendments is a very important one, and one that we want to take seriously—especially in what the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said about the cross-community nature of that involvement. We absolutely take that on board but it remains a point of principle, and one we should not lose, that we cannot do things to or act unilaterally in a way that has a huge impact on Northern Ireland without proper, full engagement with the communities there.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, I trust that the Committee will forgive me if I, somewhat unfashionably, pay lip service to the Standing Orders of the House and actually speak to the amendments. In so doing, I want to try to live up to the comments from my noble friend Lord Cormack. As an admirer of Harold Macmillan and the Baldwinite tradition in the Conservative Party, I will try to deliver my comments in that quiet, calm, deliberative way of which Mr Macmillan was so fond.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, for his kind words. I fear that, from now on, I will only disappoint him. Without going over the history, I say that he is well aware of what my views were three years ago but, as I have said many times, I am less interested in how we got here and more interested in how we can move on and get out of here into a more satisfactory state of affairs.
Before I turn directly to the amendments, as this is my first opportunity to speak from the Front Bench since the passing of May Blood, I want to reiterate a number of the comments made about her last week. She was an absolutely fearless and tireless champion of the rights of everybody in Northern Ireland. Her record in bringing people together, particularly through her work on integrated education, was absolutely inspirational.
I have just been sent a text. Some people will have come across a chap called Bob Mauro, who was the director of Irish Studies at Boston College; I see the noble Lord, Lord Hain, nodding. Sadly, I have just been informed that he has passed away. He was a man with whom those of us who have been involved in the affairs of Northern Ireland over a number of years had a great many dealings, so our sympathies go to his family and colleagues as well.
I emphasise a couple of points on which I strongly agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and which underline the frustrations that we all share in this House over the lack of devolved government since February. A number of us have sadly been through this experience on too many occasions in recent years, and Members opposite went through it from 2002 to 2007. It is not a satisfactory state of affairs. We are firmly committed to the Belfast agreement, to its institutions and to getting devolved government back up and running as soon as possible. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will have this at the top of his agenda when he meets the political parties in Northern Ireland over the coming days.
Amendments 4 and 5, in the names of the noble Baronesses, would essentially, by requiring the prior approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly, undermine the ability to exclude elements of the protocol and therefore undermine the entire operation of the Bill. In application, these amendments, if passed, would be wrecking amendments. We are very committed to restoring a fully functioning Executive and Assembly, but I remind the Committee that it is because of the operation of the protocol in its current form that the Northern Ireland Assembly has not sat since February. Sadly, we cannot be sure how long that state of affairs will persist. Therefore, these amendments risk setting a test which, in the current circumstances, could not be met due to the lack of an Assembly. The disapplication of elements of the protocol is also an excepted matter of foreign affairs reserved for the UK Government. Although we of course engage with parties in Northern Ireland, it would be improper, effectively, to transfer a new competence to a devolved Assembly in this way.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, that we are committed to the Sewel convention and that we are pursuing options for obtaining legislative consent to the Bill from devolved Administrations. The Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office wrote to the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service regarding legislative consent and it remains our hope that we can reach a positive resolution on this point as soon as the institutions are restored. Regarding conversations with MLAs and political parties in Northern Ireland, I assure the noble Lord that these continue all the time, involving the Secretary of State, the Minister of State and me. We are in Northern Ireland, talking to political parties, all the time. It will not surprise the noble Lord that these issues surface from time to time. Without going into details of individual conversations, we continue to engage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, referred to the letter sent earlier this year to the then Prime Minister, setting out opposition to the protocol Bill. This was raised by a number of noble Lords. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, I am somewhat surprised, as one who spent many years as an adviser in the Northern Ireland Office and was told that particular arrangements for Northern Ireland were completely unsuitable because they did not have the support of a minority, now to be told that somehow majority rule, after a 50-year absence, ought to make a return. As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, cross-community consent is at the heart of the Belfast agreement. Following the May election, the largest single designation in the Assembly remains unionist. Under the 1998 rules, we would still be looking at a unionist First Minister. That remains the largest single designation and it is worth pointing out again that not a single unionist Member of that largest designation in the Assembly supports the protocol in its current form. In those circumstances, it is fair to point out that we have a problem.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. Could he perhaps give an instance in which Norway has not immediately adopted a piece of European legislation since the EEA agreement came into effect?
Lord Caine (Con)
The noble Lord is a former diplomat. He is a far greater expert on these matters than I will ever be. However, my noble friend Lord Hannan has just whispered in my ear “the post office directive”. I will come back to the noble Lord with further details.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I know that we will come on to the application of EU law in later groups, but since the Minister has helpfully referred to that, it would be good for him to be clear that, even under this Bill—the dual regulatory regime that the Government are proposing—there will be direct application of EU laws.
Lord Caine (Con)
As the noble Lord rightly pointed out, we will deal with this subject in the fourth group of amendments. I shall be responding for the Government, so if he can contain himself, we will deal with it at the appropriate point—if we get there this evening.
In summary, we do not think that it would be right to make implementation of measures in this Bill contingent on the restoration of the institutions, given the urgency of the situation in Northern Ireland to which the Government must respond.
I turn briefly to Amendments 68 and 69, also in the name of the noble Baroness. Taken together, these would make the commencement of all operational aspects of the Bill dependent on the approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly. At the risk of repeating myself, it is because of the operation of the protocol that the Assembly has not sat since February. We do not know how long this state of affairs will persist. The situation in Northern Ireland is urgent, and we cannot allow addressing the problems with the protocol to be delayed indefinitely.
The noble Lord, Lord Bew—I should really call him my noble friend—rightly referred to the fact that trade has been a reserved matter ever since the Government of Ireland Act 1920. The amendments would essentially prevent the Government making secondary legislation in a reserved area. That is another reason why we cannot accept them.
Given the urgency of the situation—the need to fix the protocol—it would not be right to make the implementation of the vital measures in this Bill contingent on the restoration of the Assembly and Executive. For those reasons, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I begin by echoing the Minister’s comments on May Blood. On behalf of these Benches, I pass on our condolences to her family. I heard about her when I first went to Belfast, and she was held up as a role model for so many in Northern Ireland.
At the outset, I said that this would be a probing amendment. It would be fair to say that it has provoked and probed quite extensively. We have covered a variety of topics, with some very interesting and thought-provoking speeches. In particular, I single out the very measured speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and that of my noble friend Lord Bruce, who perhaps displayed his irritations and frustrations with the situation a little bit more clearly than I did.
As ever, I found myself agreeing entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. They are both absolutely right in their analysis that things are being done to Northern Ireland rather than for it. That is, in essence, the purpose of these amendments: they are probing amendments about the principle of consulting, and not just with one part of one community.
I totally agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. It was a wonderful piece of common sense. Would that we could all now finish what could perhaps be described as a waste of our collective time. There was an interesting series of contributions none the less.
I want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, who rightly said that the amendments are about the principle of consultation—consulting the Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and, in their absence, making sure that they are properly involved in the process. I fear that the Minister did not really expand on how that will happen in the weeks and months ahead.
It is, perhaps, one of the peculiarities of this Bill that no one department ever seems to want to take ownership of it. However, it was very welcome to have the Minister from the Northern Ireland Office today because, with all his experience, he was at least able to speak first hand about the consultation and the details of this legislation.
To repeat, the Northern Ireland protocol is a problem of this Government’s own making. Finding practical solutions needs to be their responsibility. However, it is important to listen to all voices in Northern Ireland and, as I said earlier, not just those of one part of one community. It is hard to see how creating further ill will through this legislation will achieve that aim. However, I will not press these amendments this afternoon but reserve the option of re-tabling them on Report, depending on what happens in the weeks ahead in Northern Ireland around the possible elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
Member’s explanatory statement
This is part of a series of amendments based on recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee which states that a number of subsections in the Bill “contain inappropriate delegations of power and should be removed from the Bill.”
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I rise to move Amendment 7 and to perhaps add some mascara to this porcine proposal for the satisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I tried to give a preview of the excitement of later groups to retain the attention of the Committee. Alas, we might be on to more of a core group with Clause 4. In many respects, it is the core of the Bill. We have been told by the noble Lord, Lord Frost—who is no longer in his place—that it contains the proposals which will resolve the issues. However, in many respects, the Bill should be called the Northern Ireland delegated powers Bill, because 19 of the 26 clauses are delegated powers clauses and not proposals that we are able to scrutinise properly.
On why imminent peril and the invocation of necessity is so important, it is because it is at the heart of the reasoning why Clause 4 exists. I shall not recap the discussion on the previous group or the first day in Committee, but there is still a lack of clarity about the Government saying that the protocol is the issue but then that it is not the issue, it is its implementation. They have said in their legal paper that the situation of necessity needs to be addressed urgently but also that they have not yet made up their mind on solutions and addressing them will take time. They have said that there is imminent peril, but the Advocate-General told me on the first day in Committee that imminent is as long as the Government might consider it to be, so it is important to try to pin down when the imminent peril started.
I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, is not able to stay for other groups in Committee because I wanted to respond to what he said. If this Bill is a negotiating tactic, he has completely undermined the Government’s argument for invoking the doctrine of necessity for this Bill, because it cannot be both. It cannot be a way of addressing grave and imminent peril and also be a negotiating tactic with the EU. I heard said from a sedentary position, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, “Why not?” If the whole reason of grave and imminent peril for the invocation of international law is to set aside treaty commitments but there are negotiations under way to resolve them, you cannot invoke the doctrine of necessity because the doctrine of necessity under Article 25 of the International Law Commission can be invoked only if there are no other means of resolving the issues, so it simply cannot be both.
I am trying to pin down when this peril actually started and how we are to consider what the baselines are. The noble Lord, Lord True, told the Chamber in January 2021 that concerns about the implementation of the protocol must not be overstated. He said:
“I acknowledge that there have been issues—that was never denied—but, overall, goods are continuing to flow effectively. Supermarkets are able to move their lorries into Northern Ireland. There are some specific issues, as we have seen with individual suppliers, but it is holding up well overall.”—[Official Report, 14/1/21; col. 884.]
A week later, his then Secretary of State Brandon Lewis told BBC “Question Time” viewers—I quote from the transcript of the programme: “The protocol means that as part of the United Kingdom Northern Ireland is going to have this unique competitive advantage in the world, in the sense that Northern Ireland has the ability to trade in and as part of the United Kingdom as well as through the single market with the EU. That is going to mean if you are a business that deals with the UK and a business that deals with the EU, the place to invest and grow your business is in Northern Ireland. You have got that ability to trade both ways and I think that gives Northern Ireland a competitive advantage and a huge opportunity.”
Therefore, the Government rest their case on grave and imminent peril somewhere between January 2021 and the publication of the White Paper. During that period, I asked repeatedly for information on UK-EU trade, and we were also asking questions about east-west trade between GB and Northern Ireland. Ministers stated to me in response that it was impossible to disaggregate factors such as Covid and then the global supply chain. They have found ways to do for this for GB-NI trade, but it is hard to discern from official government statistics produced by the Northern Ireland statistics body, and the Department for Transport’s data for UK major ports have not shown major shifts. So I would be grateful if the Government would publish this information directly. They have indicated that trade diversion exists, but they have not published statistics showing their case. I am very willing to look at them if they have published them, but they have not yet done so. Therefore, we need to have more information as they are seeking powers to put forward a dual regulatory system of both UK and EU procedures.
I appreciate the comments that were made on the first day in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and others that the protocol has not been implemented in full yet, and I understand that, but neither has the TCA for any UK port of exit and entry for goods into the UK. We are on our third delay for Dover and all other ports, and they are not fully operational. For trade between the UK and the EU, there is not a single fully operational port under the measures of the TCA in any of the four nations.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
I was hoping that others would take on the strain. I spoke at Second Reading, and I have tried to come to this really representing the settled views of the committees of this House that have been considering these areas. I think we have heard quite a bit already in debates about the wisdom, or lack of it, of passing something that has the appearance of being an illegality. It does not matter whether or not it is; it is the appearance that is hugely damaging in terms of the rule of law point.
I will add briefly to those general views by saying only that there is a further view, and that is that we have to do an awful lot of deals with the EU over the coming years on a whole lot of things, and it is fairly unwise at this very early stage in the new relationship to have such a big black put up about us not being a reliable partner. I am deeply concerned about that, and it is a concern that has flowed through to the various reports that we have written over many years in this area. I am looking at a solid former member of the European Union Committee in my noble friend Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, who made a very good speech in the previous group, and at my noble friend Lord Pannick, who made an equally good speech and who has been strong in this area. In this group, I do not want to follow up on that, but in view of the fact that everyone seems to be going very wide here in Committee I thought I would just make that point now rather than very late tonight.
The particular point I want to raise came out of the June 2019 report of the European Union Committee, Scrutiny of International Agreements: Lessons Learned. The important thing to note here, I think, is what the man in the street had in terms of scrutiny at an elected or a parliamentary representative level in the moment before Brexit. The cherry had three bites out of it—or, really, two bites and a nibble. The first bite was that his representative in the European Parliament was going through the thing very carefully indeed, as most trade deals and many international agreements were on European matters. The second bite was that, through the action of the scrutiny reserve resolutions, the European Union Committee structure in this House and the European Scrutiny Committee structure in the House of Commons were going through things in exhaustive detail, and the interaction of those two committees and the European Parliament began at the start of any process and followed it all the way through to the end.
The third little nibble came with CRaG, a simple thing which looks at the eventual results; it is a quick yes or no procedure, where the House of Lords does not have any power at all and the House of Commons has precious little. We said in our report of June 2019 that
“the CRAG Act is poorly designed to facilitate parliamentary scrutiny.”
That is pretty clear, and it seems to me on rereading the report over the weekend that it is a pretty good report. I am coming at this in a slightly different way, but what worries me now is that these are core changes to an international agreement that could be made without any form of parliamentary scrutiny—that is true of this group but other groups as well—not even the CRaG form of scrutiny, just a Minister making an agreement. For core changes to core treaties with core partners, there must be a very good parliamentary scrutiny process.
I have not arrived with the answers to exactly what the process should be but I am saying that it must be a very serious process. I think the net effect of amendments like these would be to remove the ability of a Minister to make a decision like that but leave a mechanism whereby a Minister could come back to Parliament and—after suitable scrutiny with a suitable process—have a parliamentary agreement to back up whatever the change being discussed. I have been sitting over this for six and a half years, and I find it very difficult to discuss such changes in the abstract. I would like to discuss specific changes specifically, which is why I feel very supportive of this line of amendments and thankful that they have been tabled.
Lord Cormack (Con)
In effect, we have heard this evening a reiteration of Dunning’s Motion in the reign of George III:
“The influence of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.”
We are seeing in the Bill not only an abrogation of international law and our obligations, which is what primarily concerns me, but in the process, by the design of the Bill, an accretion of power to Ministers and the Executive—an unbalancing of the relationship between Parliament and the Executive.
The Executive are answerable to Parliament in our constitution. Here, great chunks are being given to the power of the Executive. We owe an enormous debt to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and his committee, and other committees in this House, which have pointed this out calmly—to use a word I used earlier—but very forcefully. We are embarking on a road towards executive superiority such as is incompatible with our constitution, which is moving away in the 21st century from what our forefathers fought for in the past. We cannot emphasise that too greatly.
The person who could make this speech far better than I and whose name is on the amendments spoken to eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. Time and again, in a variety of Bills and contexts, he has pointed out to your Lordships’ House how the accumulation of Henry VIII powers in the hands of Ministers, without proper accountability to the House, is the road towards executive domination such as is incompatible with our constitution, as I said a few moments ago.
In wholeheartedly supporting these amendments, I urge my noble friend, when he comes to reply from the Front Bench, to address this issue and address it directly. I have great admiration for my noble friend Lord Caine. I certainly have great admiration for his knowledge of, and concern for, Northern Ireland, to which he has dedicated a large part of his life; but is he really happy to be put in a position, or see any of his ministerial colleagues put in a position, where they can override Parliament effectively by diktat?
Lord Pannick (CB)
I completely agree with the noble Lord, particularly in relation to his tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. In his absence—as his junior as it were—I draw this Committee’s attention to the quite extraordinary report of your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory and Reform Committee to which reference has been made before, particularly at Second Reading, but it bears repetition. Its seventh report of this Session says at paragraph 4 that this is
“a skeleton bill that confers on Ministers a licence to legislate in the widest possible terms.”
It continues:
“The Bill represents as stark a transfer of power from Parliament to the Executive as we have seen throughout the Brexit process. The Bill is unprecedented in its cavalier treatment of Parliament”.
That is quite an extraordinary criticism of this legislation. It is made not by novices but by highly experienced and respected Members of your Lordships’ House across party lines. I find it deeply regrettable that the Government should think it appropriate to continue with a Bill that has attracted such cross-party criticism.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I came into Parliament nearly 40 years ago and was told first of all that you should never ask a question to which you do not already know the answer. Now that I have been here so long, I feel that I can take the risk of asking some questions to which I do not know the answer, about a very important aspect of the Bill that has just been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
There are two criticisms of the Bill, the first being that it is allegedly against international law. I do not believe that and have not really heard any answers to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bew. What happens when you have two conflicting international obligations? The second criticism is that it relies, very largely and to an almost unprecedented degree, on Henry VIII clauses. Historically, I am very reluctant to rely extensively on Henry VIII clauses, and I was rather shocked by the committee report to which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has just referred.
The questions that I want to ask, and to which I do not know the answer, are: first, what is the alternative in the context in which we are to have open-ended Henry VIII clauses; and secondly, why did the Government not adopt that alternative? I assume that the alternative to the Henry VIII clauses is to spell out in detail, in primary legislation, what you intend to do, but the context in which we are doing it is that we are simultaneously legislating and negotiating.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said that we cannot do that. It seems to me perfectly compatible with the doctrine of necessity to do that. We have to do something, we need the power to do something, we have taken the legal power to do something, but we would like that something to be negotiated if possible. So we are simultaneously negotiating and legislating. If we spell out in primary legislation, in detail, the outcome that we want to get, in the context of a negotiation that involves give and take, we either have to spell out the maximum we want—what we want to take without any give—or the minimum we are prepared to accept: what we are prepared to give without any prospect of taking.
In this unusual situation of having to have the legal powers to act while we are negotiating and hoping for a negotiated solution, I am not sure what alternative there is to what the Government have done. I would be grateful to hear what noble Lords would do who share my reluctance to rely on Henry VIII clauses. Effectively, we are saying we are recreating the royal prerogative in the negotiation, giving the Government a free hand, while giving them the power to take legislative action if those negotiations do not achieve a satisfactory result.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, in an earlier debate the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, pointed out precedents whereby the Government relied on regulations to give meat to a Bill and they had been published by this stage, so that we had some sight of what we were signing up to.
I am interested that on this occasion, on this group of amendments, my noble friends on the Democratic Unionist Benches have been strangely silent. Given what we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in moving the amendments and from others who supported him, to me, this amounts to a democratic deficit. All the conditions that would normally be put in place, involving a review of the regulations before they came up, appear not to be in play at this time. I hope my noble friends will find common ground with me, recognising that this could be a democratic deficit the likes of which they would not like to see.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, set out this group of amendments, he rightly said that Clause 4 is at the heart of the Bill, and the debate has really encapsulated that point.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. We will have several debates about the scope of the delegated powers proposed, but as this is the first group dealing with the reports by the DPRRC, it is worth recalling just how unprecedented these were. The DPRRC has chosen on a number of occasions to publish a report while a Bill is still in the Commons—there is nothing unusual in that—but rarely has it been so scathing, labelling the Bill
“unprecedented in its cavalier treatment of Parliament, the EU and the Government’s own international obligations”,
as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said.
The committee was unable to propose tweaks to various powers in the Bill, including those in Clause 4. Instead, it recommended gutting several key clauses. As mentioned in the debate, the Government opted not to respond to the DPRRC before we moved into Committee, even though they had from July to do so. It is hard to see how the two sides can meet in the middle, so, if we proceed to Report, it is quite possible that this House will have to strip out several clauses.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, made interesting points when he talked about the previous level of scrutiny of EU law, in which this House played a very prominent part. I am sure many Members of this House served on those committees. The EU Committee scrutinised legislation, as did this House and a whole series of committees, and the House of Commons, of course. That was a far higher level of scrutiny than anything being proposed at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, asked an interesting question—and he was fair in saying it was a genuine question—about the alternatives to this multitude of Henry VIII powers. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response. It seems to me that the alternative is to go through things in detail, as the old EU committee structure in this House used to do routinely. I will be interested to hear the answer to the noble Lord’s question.
We are sympathetic to this group of amendments. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is going to do but we are happy to support him.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I am well aware of the sensitivity in this House regarding Henry VIII powers, and I respect that; it is a serious argument. However, Northern Ireland looks at these things from an angle that is not entirely the way the House of Lords looks at them. For one thing, there are what you might call Louis XIV powers all over the place in terms of European law and regulations, but there is silence about that.
The second issue, which has already been alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, is that again and again, we have had the most dramatic demonstrations of Henry VIII powers in areas where I and other Members, a majority in your Lordships’ House, are in agreement—abortion laws and so on. We do it all the time. When we as a local assembly like it, when it is our kind of opinion, we have no problems. When we do not like what is proposed, we discover that this application of Henry VIII powers is intrinsically terrible. To be blunt, the House needs to avoid looking totally hypocritical on this point.
I feel that I have been living for a very long time with Article 16 and the potential illegality or otherwise of the Government’s legislation. When I first encountered it, in fact, it was Article 15 in Theresa May’s Bill; it was that long ago. I read and reread it until I was blue in the face. Let me say what the problem is in attempting to challenge the Government’s position. The best argument against the current position in the legislation is that Article 16 could be and should have been applied. At the moment, it is ridiculous. We are in the middle of a serious negotiation with the EU and it would break that up, so it is fatuous and politically absurd. Apart from the principle of reality, I can see why people want to argue that, but it is not going to happen now because the Government want this legislation with the EU to succeed. In the Financial Times as recently as September, the EU was defining the application of Article 16 as an outrage and so on. The situation would simply be aggravated.
The other weak point of this argument is that saying, “We want Article 16 but nothing else” is the sound of one hand clapping. None of those who have argued for it in this House since Second Reading has shown any grasp of the central difficulty of the relationship between the two treaties and their interaction. If you are going to argue, as distinguished international lawyers have done before both our Select Committees, that the Government have a case of sorts but Article 16 should be applied first, that is based on the idea that there is an interaction between the two treaties and this is the best way of acting to defend the Good Friday agreement. That is a perfectly respectable intellectual legal argument, but it just does not fit with the political moment we find ourselves in, with ongoing negotiations.
The sensitivity that people in this Chamber have about the attitudes and feelings of the EU is quite remarkable when they do not seem to feel it themselves; they feel that they are quite adult enough to get on with this negotiation anyway, regardless of the Bill. As I pointed out, the Irish Foreign Secretary said openly that they do not like the Bill but that is not a reason for not having the negotiations. Still, it is wonderful to see people stick up for other people’s rights and interests when they themselves do not seem quite so keen or worked up about the subject.
The main point is that just saying “Article 16” is simply one hand clapping. The only possible viable argument is to say—as indeed both the House of Commons and our own Select Committee have been told—that that is indeed the way you could use it to get a result. The best criticism of the Government is that you cannot really prove necessity unless you have gone down this route. It so happens that the Government are stuck in a moment of real politics, the real negotiation that is going on, so they cannot do it, but the majority of speakers in this House say, “I would like Article 16”. That is an amazing recent conversion to Article 16. A few months ago, most of us hated it and regarded even talking about it as a piece of British brutishness. Now we really love it because we prefer it to the Bill. Unless you add to that that you accept that there is a real problem with the interaction between this agreement and the Good Friday agreement, as the former Lord Chancellor said in the House of Commons, then, in the Chinese phrase, it is just one hand clapping.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bew, raises a fascinating conundrum, but what he said about Article 16 was based on a misunderstanding of what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said earlier. I do not think I have met anybody in this House who believes that the right course of action, in abstract, is to use Article 16. The right course of action is to apply the treaty that we signed: that is what a lot of us believe. Clearly, there are others who take a different view. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, was making—which is clearly correct, and has been made several times by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—was that there is Article 16. It exists. It is the designated route—the agreed route, the treaty route—to deal with a dispute about the implementation of the protocol. I am not saying that we should be using Article 16. I am saying that we should not be using another means and pretending that it is legal so to do while Article 16 exists. That seems to be the rub of it.
I will try to deal in an amateur way with the interesting questions from the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. I do not know the answer either, but one answer would be the Irish answer: “I wouldn’t be starting from here.” I am sure that the noble Lord agrees with me that if you read Clause 18(1) or Clause 22(1) and (2) of the Bill, the only question in your mind is: is this Lewis Carroll or is it Stalin? These are astonishing powers taken for the Minister, by regulation, to do whatever he likes, providing it is broadly to do with Northern Ireland. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, the reports that we have seen from three committees—but particularly the Delegated Powers Committee—are devastating. I cannot remember seeing in this House such strong language used in a unanimously agreed cross-party report.
The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, would agree with me that we do not want to be in this situation. There must be another solution. As a former negotiator, I would say that it is crucial to avoid putting the ball in your own net. Frankly, attempting this legislation while also attempting—or claiming to be attempting—to conduct negotiations, is absurd. Here I part company with my friend the noble Lord, Lord Frost, whose third argument today was exploded by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. He said that it is necessary for negotiating reasons to advance this protocol; this is what will make the other side sit up and pay attention. You cannot argue both necessity and that. In my view, you would be mad to argue that, because on the other side of the table it is not a playground spat. On the other side of the table is a grown-up group of 27 countries that believe in the rule of law and are concerned that bad precedents should not be set. They cannot possibly concede that, because there is a blunderbuss on the table, they must give you what you are asking for in negotiations. They are not going to do that. Therefore, my answer to the conundrum of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is that it is a great mistake to legislate in these terms while you are negotiating. If Ministers are telling the truth about their wish to negotiate a solution to this, the last thing they should be doing is putting forward this Bill.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I really agree with every word that has just been said. I have another suggestion for the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. The truth is that most liberal democracies in the world exist in an environment where major changes to international agreements or the making of international agreements are scrutinised by Parliament on a fairly open basis. We all know, for instance, that Mr Šefčovič has a mandate. In fact, we know an awful lot about that mandate. Mr Šefčovič regularly briefs committees in the European Parliament and has a pretty good ability to bring the European Parliament along with him, which is important—and, indeed, to bring the 27 nations along with him as well.
I am not suggesting that we should copy and paste that, but I note that the PACAC, a committee of the other place, was in Norway last week. I had a detailed discussion with a member of that committee on Friday about how Norway deals with this. In fact, Norway also brings along its Parliament in a very open way and this does not appear to interfere with the negotiating process in the way the noble Lord was worried about. These are major changes to an international agreement. The international agreements process that we have, which we need to rebuild in this Parliament, should take account of that and should apply. That is a fairly open process to the committees and Members of both Houses; I feel that strongly. I do not see any other liberal democracies doing this. We are unique in having cut Parliament out of the process. I see no other democracies having problems of the nature that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is worried about. I could see that he was genuinely worried, but I have to say that I am not.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I will not rehearse what I said previously about Article 16, but I will see if I can answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. If you are faced with two instruments that appear to be in conflict—which I think is what we are arguing—the first thing you do is have a detailed analysis of these instruments to see whether there is a provision in them that will enable you to reconcile the difference. The advantage of Article 16 has just been set out by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. You are adhering to the treaty by using a term within the treaty that helps you avoid being in conflict with the other treaty. That is a possible way of doing it.
Lord Bew (CB)
If I may intervene briefly, I have tried to explain that I had an intense relationship with Article 16 when it was deeply unfashionable in this House. Many times in the last year, I have wanted to argue privately with the Government that it should be applied. The arguments made for it are impeccable and have been for years; that is simply the case. The problem is that this is not conceivably a rational moment. There are complaints about the Bill. Does it matter what the Irish Foreign Minister says? It is said that it does not matter; we are choosing to disregard it. This is a moment when we are negotiating seriously with the EU. Suddenly to come in and say, “By the way”—and the logic is, in general terms, superb—“we are applying Article 16 now”, is bound to be destructive of the negotiations that are proceeding. We must respect the reality of the moment.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
But if the consequence of doing so is to embrace a Bill which drives a horse and cart through the procedures and principles by which this Parliament operates, surely that is an inhibition and we should avoid it at all costs.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
To prevent the noble Lord, Lord Bew, having to get up and sit down again, I ask him again to appreciate and acknowledge that, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, nobody in the debates we have had, whether at Second Reading, on the first day in Committee or today, is arguing to invoke Article 16. No one is advocating its use, let alone now. All that is being said is that the legal argument of necessity invoked by the Government is undermined by the fact that they have never resorted to the use of Article 16; hence necessity is on very shallow foundations.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, is there not a very short answer to all of this: not to proceed with the Bill?
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, if I may make a short point before the Minister gets up to speak, it is clear that we are going to have a debate on international law and so on about every set of clauses. All I want at this stage is to draw attention to the actual situation and practical reality for people moving goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as a result of the application of EU customs law for those goods coming to Northern Ireland. Briefly, and cutting through the arguments about international law, let us have a look at the reality.
The Government will have spent £340 million through the Trader Support Service helping traders process 2.3 million customs declarations for trade between two parts of the United Kingdom. For those 2.3 million declarations, by the end of the year the taxpayer will have forked out almost £350 million, and that comes on top of the movement and assistance schemes and other schemes designed to help people with the paperwork. According to some estimates, it could amount to £500 million. That support is not guaranteed to continue into the future. It has been extended for another year but at some point those costs will have to be borne by hauliers—the companies which move those goods—and consumers. There will certainly be a massive increase in the cost of living. Already, as a result of the paperwork that people have to go through, even with that support we have seen example after example of firms in Great Britain simply refusing to have any further dealings with Northern Ireland. It is simply not worth their time, effort or money, even with those vast millions going into the Trader Support Service.
I urge noble Lords to look at what people in companies such as McBurney Transport and McCulla—the people who transport goods to the Irish Republic as well, not just Northern Ireland—are saying about the paperwork and the reality of these customs burdens on trade between one part of the United Kingdom and another, and then tell people that this is a sensible way of approaching it. We need change. I understand the arguments about international law and all of that but we need to have this rectified. We cannot continue to fork out this kind of money and still have companies refusing to do business with one part of the United Kingdom; namely, Northern Ireland.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I acknowledge that, as with the previous group, we have perhaps gone wider than the specific amendments. In the interests of time, and since we need to make progress on the Bill, I am not going to go into the more general arguments. My noble friends on the Front Bench and I have articulated several times the Government’s position on the need to proceed with the Bill, and those circumstances remain. I am reminded that when the debate started this afternoon, my noble friends Lord Cormack and Lord Howell, I think, among others, returned to the Front Bench the point about the necessity—to use a legal term, but not in its application to the Bill—to proceed with it. I assure the House as one of the three Ministers responsible for the passage of the Bill that, while in the middle of a reshuffle, our weekends—I speak for all three of us—have been focused on the detail of the Bill and proceeding with it. The fact that the three of us are still present reflects the Government’s current intent, because we feel that this is necessary.
I have heard the arguments again today, many of which were articulated at Second Reading and in our debates so far in Committee, and I understand the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I listened carefully on the issue of Article 16, and he is of course right. I know that the noble Lord has a different perspective, but that is why I say that we have never said that Article 16 is off the table. It remains an instrument available to the Government within the treaty that we have signed, as noble Lords have said. However, there is a reality, which was articulated very well just now by my noble friend Lord Dodds. The reality is what businesses are now facing. The protocol is not working and if is not working in the interests of any part of the United Kingdom, as its Government we are obligated to ensure that we provide a practical solution which works in the interests, first and foremost, of the citizens of our united United Kingdom. That remains the primary intent of the United Kingdom Government.
I will pick up on some of the specifics. In introducing his amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked about published statistics. What I can share with the noble Lord is that HMRC has published summary data on the numbers of declarations, their associated value and the number of businesses importing goods into Northern Ireland from Great Britain in 2021. I will give a couple of summary statistics, if I may: in 2021, over 1 million full declarations were declared to HMRC. The number of businesses associated with those full declarations was 10,400, while 100 GB businesses have stopped supplying the Northern Ireland market already. The requirement to follow EU rules is one of the factors behind this situation, as was alluded to in the detail of the contribution of my noble friend Lord Dodds.
I turn to the amendments in front of us, including Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord. As many noble Lords noted, a number of the amendments are on the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, to which the Government will respond, as I said earlier, as they will to the report of the Constitution Committee. I have checked with officials and we will certainly seek to respond in advance of Report.
I acknowledge the reservations raised today. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, is someone who I respect greatly and have great admiration for. I assure noble Lords that in our engagement on the Bill, it did not surprise me at all that the majority of our discussions began, as he said, “Well, Tariq, you know what I’m going to raise with you.” Yes, the Bill has many clauses where the Government seek to take certain powers because we believe that they are necessary. The Government remain of the view that these delegated powers are required, and will enable secondary legislation to set out precisely the UK or non-EU movements that will be excluded by Clause 4(2).
The operation of the protocol, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bew, and my noble friends Lord Dodds and Lord Lilley, has shown that the manner and nature of the issues faced by businesses in moving goods have not been static over time. There needs to be flexibility to respond to the changing circumstances in order to maintain the effective flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As noted in the 2025 UK Border Strategy, we are seeing long-term shifts in how goods move; for example, through increasing e-commerce and advances in technologies for Governments to manage flow. It is therefore appropriate that means are available to adapt arrangements to be fit for purpose at all times. In the Government’s view, this power is drafted with the appropriate breadth for them to confidently address issues which may arise from time to time that disrupt businesses.
I listened carefully to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on the importance and appropriateness of making secondary legislative provision and what the alternatives would be. The EU legal acts in the first 10 points in Annex 2 alone are over 1,500 pages in length. Before one even comes to the remaining 37 points contained therein covering other pieces of EU law, that is already longer than some of the longest pieces of legislation currently on the statute book. To draw a totally different example, the Companies Act 2006 is 1,260 pages long. It would therefore not be appropriate, in the Government’s view, to have this amount detailed in primary legislation.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
The Minister is referring to the dual regulatory regime. I would like the Government to understand that this will work for some businesses but for other types of industry, such as the dairy and beef industries, it will not. It may be useful for the Government to take further evidence from those industries in Northern Ireland which have practical, on-the-ground experience of, for example, where there is a need for a department of agriculture certificate to certify that milk is milk and is of perfectly good quality. That needs to be addressed adequately.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, it would be a choice for that particular business or sector, as my noble friend Lord Caine, has just reminded me, but I take on board the noble Baroness’s point. That is what I have already suggested. When I was preparing for the sitting today, I asked officials if there were different approaches to different sectors. She has highlighted them. It would be helpful on the specifics, and I will certainly take that back to the department, but I have already offered that we could provide more insight and explanations.
On consultation, which the noble Baroness alluded to, we are doing exactly that. Our colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office are speaking with businesses and the practical issues are, where necessary, being highlighted so we can address them. As we proceed with the Bill and have further discussions, the ultimate objective is to ease the burden on the ability of businesses from Great Britain to operate effectively and in a fluid nature within the context of the wider United Kingdom, inclusive of Northern Ireland.
Clause 4(4) sets out a non-exhaustive list of criteria which may be considered when prescribing those movements. It is these “qualifying movements” which will be ultimately entitled to enter our proposed green lane. Clause 4(5) provides a power under which a Minister can make regulations about the meaning of those goods which are heading for the UK, or which are non-EU destined, including by providing the basis under which a trader registered under a prescribed scheme, such as trusted trader scheme, can state whether goods being moved are UK or non-EU destined.
Finally, Clause 4(6) defines the meaning of “qualifying movement” for the purposes of the clause. Qualifying movements are those from any place other than the EU to Northern Ireland and the reverse, including movements within the UK and movements of goods by sea into ports in Northern Ireland. Clause 4 is right at the heart of our intentions in rationalising the processes alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, which are required when goods move into Northern Ireland. We have been clear that we do not believe it is appropriate to continue to require full customs and SPS processes when goods are not destined for the EU, and it is this clause that will allow us to put in place a more sensible regime. That is why I recommend that noble Lords allow this to stand part of the Bill.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response. We will get to SPS issues later, as well as some of the customs elements that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, highlighted.
I thank the Minister for his information from HMRC, which I of course read before this debate—it is static information for one calendar year. One of the frequently asked questions under that data is:
“Does HMRC hold data on NI movements from GB before January 2021?”
The answer is:
“No, the collection of data for goods moving into NI from GB has only been required since 1st January 2021”.
The Minister then added anecdotal evidence, which the noble Lord, Lord True, told us that we should not use. Both things cannot equate: a static set of data for one calendar year does not necessarily demonstrate the implementation of the protocol, especially since the trader scheme would have operated under many of these declarations anyway—but we will no doubt pursue some of these matters later on.
I accept that the Minister is open with the offer of a briefing, but it is the draft regulations that we need to see; it is not briefing on what the theoretical operation of a dual regulatory system might be. We need to see the regulations that would operate that. In the previous group and on the first day in Committee, we heard that the Government have practical solutions, and the Minister has referred to them. But, as the junior to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, indicated, an unprecedented breadth of regulating powers will be provided to Ministers. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, was absolutely right: part of the unprecedented nature that is so egregious is that these will effectively be treaty amendments, and we have the well-established CRaG process for scrutinising and effectively approving treaty amendments.
Finally, the reason why all this is important—it addresses one element of the point from the noble Lord, Lord Lilley—is that the Government accept that they are breaching their commitments and that these are wrongful acts. The Minister shakes his head, but they have.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I am not clear on the noble Lord’s point. What have the Government accepted?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The Government have admitted that these are breaches of the obligations under the protocol because they have invoked the defence of necessity for wrongful acts. You cannot invoke a defence for a wrongful act if you do not believe that you have committed a wrongful act.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
But if the original instrument is not working in the first place, which it is not—
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
It is all very well to be critical. I accept the points that have been made about Article 16, but let us not open up that debate again. What specifically is the noble Lord’s proposal?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Let us have an extra set of processes if we are now scrutinising alternative proposals. We are holding the Government to account here and trying to scrutinise the information. When we see the draft regulations, I will of course be able to give some thoughts about them—but how on earth can I respond to something that I have not seen? That is what the Government are asking for and why the DPRRC believes that these powers are not appropriate for primary legislation, and I agree.
On the defence of necessity for a wrongful act, the FCDO’s delegated powers memorandum admits that it is breaching its commitments, so this is not me making an assertion. I am sure that the Advocate-General will intervene on me if that is incorrect. I am just referencing the delegated powers memorandum. Even if this is a defence of committing a wrongful act, invoking the International Law Commission’s Article 25 on wrongful acts—and if the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is correct that there are now competing treaty obligations—Article 13 of the protocol allows any other treaty mechanism under the TCA or the withdrawal Act to supersede the protocol. So, if the treaty is competing with other obligations, and if the Government accept the case of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley—which they have not—we have put mechanisms into statute to trigger the superseding of the protocol if we wanted to open up new negotiations under the existing treaty. The Government have not signalled that they are willing to do that, so the noble Lord’s case is not particularly strong, even if the Government do not accept it.
In the later groups, we will no doubt return to some of these aspects and points of principle in detail but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 7.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Newlove) (Con)
My Lords, if Amendment 9 is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendment 10, by reason of pre-emption.
Amendment 9
Lord Purvis of Tweed
Member’s explanatory statement
This is part of a series of amendments based on recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee which states that a number of subsections in the Bill “contain inappropriate delegations of power and should be removed from the Bill.”
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Clauses 5 and 6 standing part. There is consistency in some of the arguments to some extent, so this will not necessarily need to be as long.
As the DPRRC indicated, the Government have not yet formed their policy on the precise elements that they are seeking powers for. The DPRRC indicated and highlighted—I agree with it—that we should not legislate when government has not yet formulated its policy. Let us be clear that the Government’s memorandum states that the powers that they seek under these clauses could make criminal offences by negative instrument. Can the Minister confirm that in his response? We should not make new criminal offences by negative instrument.
The Government also state that they need these powers but should not present them through primary legislation. This includes certain areas of new powers for HMRC and other agencies. In primary legislation—in the Trade Act and elsewhere—proper procedures for dating sharing on customs arrangements within the UK have been brought forward. The Government felt that primary legislation was necessary for that, but, under this Bill, they say that they do not believe that primary legislation is the correct approach for it. This is simply not consistent.
I am interested to know what the Government consider to be the interactions with the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. The regulation-making powers under this legislation, providing more powers for HMRC legislative competence, were not provided for Northern Ireland under that Act. I am not sure what has changed. The interactions between Sections 30A, 30B and 30C of that Act are not clear.
Secondly, we can perhaps explore what the Government seek to do on the use of delegated powers to make new law in an area where we have made an international agreement—as we heard, they have not provided illustration for it. The Government’s response to the European Union’s proposals in October 2021 has not been entirely clear either. I am not sure whether they supported its proposals for having just one certificate per consignment of food products, rather than per product—presumably, that would have a major impact on the HMRC statistics and declarations that the Minister referred to. The European Union indicated that that would remove 80% of checks on products of animal origin, or new procedures for prepared meats, such as sausages, import of which into the EU is generally prohibited. So I am not sure what impact assessment was carried out for the EU proposals, had they been fully adopted.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said, the Ministers took credit for the Trader Support Service, but they now seem to suggest that it has failed. Why? What has been the impact of the Trader Support Service? As I understand, it raises all the documentation and it states that it has been successful. It is on a lucrative contract from Fujitsu Services Ltd, which is at the centre of the Post Office scandal, so what is the Minister’s view about how Fujitsu has carried out its contract? Fundamentally, legislating first before introducing proposals should not be done, and trying to say that legislating for areas where agreement can be made will not be sustainable elsewhere.
I close by thinking that there must be a prize somewhere for government irony. As we know, the delegated powers memorandum on Clause 6 states that it is a breach of an “international obligation”. Paragraph 56 says that
“regulatory procedures … can be updated to ensure compliance with, or give effect to, any international obligation or arrangement to which the United Kingdom is a party.”
That is quite welcome. However, it is a shame that these powers are removing those obligations and are providing such unprecedented breadth to the regulation-making powers for Ministers. The case has not been made; therefore I beg to move.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I will speak briefly to Amendments 10 and 11, which we have tabled because, like the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, we too wanted to highlight concerns about these issues. As I am sure noble Lords can see, in the current Bill, delegated powers are to be used when Ministers consider it “appropriate”; we would change this to “necessary”. Prior to tabling these amendments, we have signalled our general concerns about delegated powers fairly consistently throughout the process of leaving the EU, since the EU withdrawal Bill in 2018. It is disappointing Ministers’ fondness for this technique seems to have grown; we now see it frequently in things that are quite wide-ranging. I was recently involved with the Schools Bill, which was riddled with these powers because, frankly, the Government did not know what they wanted to do on a wide policy area, so inserted a bunch of Henry VIII powers to give themselves the flexibility to backfill their argument later and decide what they wanted to do once the Bill had passed. Obviously, there was a huge row about that and the Schools Bill is no more, so we can only hope that lessons were learned.
We have been raising concerns again and again about how the Government are just relying on delegated powers, but for some reason the scope of the powers in EU-related Bills seems incredibly wide and we are starting to tease out, with the Minister, some of their intentions. However, an intention stated at the Dispatch Box—or something indicated in other government documents—is not sufficient when we are talking about these sorts of issues. What we really want is clarity and the ability to scrutinise and have those discussions on the Floor of this House, but the way the Government are going about this denies us this opportunity. One of our main concerns is the Government deciding to use skeleton Bills in the way they are.
These are quite general concerns. As we have heard, there are much bigger concerns about the Bill and we have covered some in our debates today and last week. We fully understand the concerns raised about Clauses 5 and 6, which enable the creation of new customs arrangements without primary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, did a very effective job of going into those in some detail, which I do not feel I need to repeat. This is quite a precedent to set and we feel deeply uncomfortable about delegating these kinds of powers to the Treasury and its agencies. In the past—I mentioned the Schools Bill, but there have been other examples—the Government have backed off, removed some of these powers from legislation and changed tack by putting in place genuine checks on their use. In all honesty, I do not think that particularly helps us with this Bill because, as many have said, a whole face of make-up could be applied to this Bill but it really would not help.
That said, it is important that we, as a House, put down a marker and make our view known to the Government on this issue of delegated powers, because this is quite an extreme example in the Bill. Perhaps when some more stability is available to Ministers, this might be something we start to see less of, because the government agenda would become clearer. I must say—noble Lords can hold me to this—that should my party win power in the coming months or years, I hope that this is not an approach that we would seek to take. I am very well aware that this is on the record and will be quoted back to me. Such is our concern about the overuse of these powers that I am very happy to be held to my words.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. On that final point from the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, I am sure it will not only be held up for scrutiny but highlighted in several colours. Of course, we look forward to robust debates, and I am sure I speak for everyone in your Lordships’ House in saying this.
First and foremost, I will not go over what we have already discussed. I have heard noble Lords very clearly. Addressing the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, specifically, I am aware of the details of what the DPRRC report argues, and therefore I assure noble Lords of my good offices in seeking to have the report published on the Government’s response to the issues raised by not just that committee but the Constitution Committee.
In response to the amendments in front of us, the DPRRC report argues that Clause 5(1) contains an inappropriate delegation of power—on the basis that the skeleton construction is not justified by the circumstances and that it relates to matters of international law—and recommends it be removed. While noble Lords will have different perspectives, I have already discussed why the Government feel that there is an urgency in tabling this Bill, as well as the importance of flexibility in our approach in discussions and negotiations elsewhere, particularly with our colleagues and friends in the EU.
In relation to future policy direction, the Bill and the accompanying delegated powers memorandum provide a description of the types of circumstances under which regulations laid under Clause 5(1) may be made. This also includes necessary processes on UK or non-EU destined goods, the application of pre or post-movement requirements for those movements and the ability to undertake any checks or controls necessary to safeguard animal, plant and human health. These processes and their requirements may also be subject to change over time—due to changing risks, technologies and business practices—and it would not be proportionate to table new primary legislation every time this occurred. I have already referred to the details that would be required in this respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, referred to a couple of issues about criminal offences within the instruments and the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act. I have asked for responses to that, so I will write to the noble Lord specifically on those two points and will share it with your Lordships.
I now turn to Amendments 10 and 11 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington. These amendments would restrict the use of certain powers in the Bill to make provision only on that which “is necessary”, rather than provision which “the Minister considers appropriate”.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, that, as someone said to me over the weekend, after 10 years on the Front Bench, this is not an argument that I am dealing with for the first time. I acknowledge that there have been various Bills where this language has come in. I just mention to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that I even recall that, in 2017, when I was taking through the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill, we had similar discussions on the use of these words.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think I may be a bit premature; I was going to ask the Minister for an example, but I have a feeling that he was about to give one.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The example that I was just detailing is that, in this clause, this would potentially limit the ability to design a green lane that aims to preserve the unity of the UK internal market and minimises risks to the EU’s internal market. It may also prevent the Government responding to issues facing Northern Ireland in a flexible way which, in turn, will have a negative impact on Northern Irish businesses and individuals. The issue was well-trodden ground in important legislation in recent years, particularly the EU withdrawal Act in 2018 and the withdrawal agreement Act, where your Lordships’ House accepted that “appropriate” is in fact appropriate. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will feel able not to press her amendments on that basis.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The example was good, but I am not sure that it meets the question in my amendment. I would have thought that a Minister would be able to make the regulation as he referred to in his example using the wording suggested in my amendment.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
As I have alluded to, it is a question of where that bar is set. The Government are, in this instance, looking for that extra level of flexibility for the Minister concerned to be able to make that appropriate act. I accept what the noble Baroness is saying regarding her amendment. Certainly, I am sure that there will be some practical examples and insights that we will exchange on what can be met by those particular tests.
Clause 5 ensures that a Minister of the Crown also has the power to make regulations in relation to the movement of goods to which Clause 4 relates—[Interruption.]—my apologies: that is my phone. This is what happens when you have a 10 year-old and an eight year-old at home—they may be providing me with an answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman.
Specifically, the clause provides for the creation of secondary legislation, which will enable Ministers to define how the green and red lanes work in practice. Regulations made under this power may, in particular, provide for the application of any checks and controls before or after a movement of goods on UK or non-EU destined goods moving into Northern Ireland in order to ensure that appropriate processes are in place to manage, for example, biosecurity risks. Such powers may also be used to ensure that goods that are heading to the EU comply with relevant regulatory processes, such as sanitary and phytosanitary controls. Much of this is operationally focused or deals with the processes to be applied by the relevant government departments. We believe that this clause is essential to enable the appropriate Minister to have the flexibility to deliver the UK’s proposals for this new regime for the movement of goods.
I turn briefly to Clause 6. Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, alluded to the issue of the Treasury and HMRC having the power to make regulations in relation to the movement of goods for customs matters. Alongside Clause 5, this will enable the delivery of new green-lane arrangements, which remove unnecessary costs and paperwork for businesses trading within the UK. We heard in the previous debate from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, on challenges being faced by businesses.
Specifically, the clause provides for the creation of secondary legislation to administer the green lane through appropriate checks, controls and administrative processes for goods that would otherwise be subject to EU customs rules. It is the Government’s view that this clause is absolutely essential to enable a Minister of the Crown to have the flexibility to deliver the UK’s proposals for the green and red lane arrangements. Taking power to provide for the regime is required and the precise detail of the regime will be properly subject to consultation with stakeholders. I therefore recommend that this clause stand part of the Bill.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply—he can tell his kids that we are also doing trick or treat here, although I am not sure what the balance is between the tricks and the treats. I am grateful for his response and for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who is of course here in spirit if not in person.
I strongly agree with the noble Baroness. On a sensitive issue such as this, the powers that Ministers have should be absolutely necessary in order to deliver what they have said they want to deliver. They should not be any broader than that. But the Government have not formulated their policy yet, which is at the heart of the frustration. We are being asked to legislate to give powers to Ministers, but they have not said what they then want to implement. They have not indicated what the interaction with the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act will be or why HMRC will be given statutory powers which that Act does not provide it with. I do not believe that we should be in a position where we give in primary legislation the “level of flexibility”—as the Minister said—to Ministers when they have not explained to us what they want to do.
I do not think that the Minister has persuaded me at this stage. I welcome the noble Baroness’s commitment that, if her party wins power, they will not bring forward proposals such as this; on behalf of these Benches, I can give the same commitment that when we achieve power, we will not bring proposals such as this either. In the meantime, before Report or we achieve power, whichever comes sooner, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the patience of the Committee on this trio of groups. Clauses 7 to 10 are at the real heart of the proposals, which links to the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, before about trying to understand how the Government will really manage the situation that they want to put in place with the dual regulatory regime.
The dual regulatory regime may be fairly neutral, but it of course means that Northern Ireland will be perpetually part of the EU single market. Clause 7 suggests that a trader can choose to operate under the EU law system or under a UK system, as the Minister referred to on an earlier group. That EU law system would be under separation agreement law.
My first question is genuinely a probing question: there may be a good reason for it, but what impact will the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill have on the implementation of EU regulations in this regard? I do not know what effect the mechanism for updating, as proposed under that Bill, will have on separation agreement law under this Bill. Do we have to legislate for any changes when it comes to the EU changing its regulatory approach?
Is this going to be a dynamic system where we will automatically update domestic statute if the EU changes its approach? If it does, then we are back to square one from our colleagues from the Democratic Unionist Party, who have been railing against that, but we will in effect be in a worse position because this is automatic updating of domestic legislation for another set of statutes from another power, which none of us will have any say over. I find this hard to believe and would be grateful if the Minister were able to say that this is not going to be the case.
The questions now relate to the green and red channels—the dual regulatory system. I would like to know from the Minister: who will operate them? The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee says in paragraph 42 in reference to Clause 9:
“This is the frankest admission by the Government that policy is so embryonic that it has not yet been consulted on. And yet Parliament is being presented with a major Bill on the subject. Legislation has preceded policy development rather than vice versa. Nor is it remotely credible to say that it is not possible for these matters to be put on the face of the Bill. Why should the Bill say so little, with so much left to regulations?”
Perhaps we can get clarity for business on the dual system. The Government say that businesses will be able to choose. I would be grateful to know how. Will they have to fill in a declaration? What default system will be in place if they ship products without a declaration? Will they be prohibited from shipping to Northern Ireland if they have not declared what their route is? How will they know what status their GB or EORI classification gives them? We have been led to believe that if they operate under the Trader Support Service with an EORI classification, this process is already streamlined. Will there be a Trader Support Service for both the separate routes now?
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked a valid question: for how long will this scheme operate? If the Government felt it was necessary that there was a Trader Support Service for a scheme which operated under EU procedures and regulations, and they are proposing that they will still be operating under EU regulations—under the dual regulatory system—so will a Trader Support System operate permanently? At what stage does a business choose? Is it for each consignment, or will the business have to choose at what stage of production it opts for each of the routes? What if it wants to use a UK route but also needs an EU conformity assessment? Will there be a public register of who is operating, and how will it be monitored? Who will have access to the data, and is this going to be a public mechanism for which routes certain enterprises choose to operate? The latter questions are vital, I think, because it has to be known, as it may well be challenged under a legal system, and what will that legal system be?
Clause 10(1)(d) relates to the use and import of goods. Is the choice for the seller or for the purchaser? This is fundamental if it is to do with east-west trade, so can a purchaser from Northern Ireland determine that their supplier uses the UK route, or is it the supplier who says, “I am very sorry but I have opted for the EU route, so this the situation that is going to have to be received, and the good that goes into the market has to have the EU mark on it”? I do not know, so I would be grateful for clarity.
Michael Ellis, the Paymaster-General, told the Committee in the Commons that the choice of using a route is completely voluntary, but Clause 11 means that it could be compulsory. Why? Which is it? Is it voluntary for businesses, or could it be voluntary until a Minister says it is compulsory? I think this is a breeding ground for utter confusion: an entire system being established at the outset, only for there to be a broad regulation-making power, which could be put in place without consultation—there is nothing in the Bill that states there will be consultation—to say, “All of your choices that you have been making for this, we have now said that you have to use this particular route.”
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for his clear elucidation of the impact of these amendments. To give a practical example, the dairy industry in Northern Ireland, which I mentioned earlier, is largely all-Ireland in nature, because the greater proportion of the processing of dairy products is in the Republic of Ireland. If grain comes into Northern Ireland through either the red or green lane and could be used by a dairy farmer, the DAERA vet—the department vet—cannot certify whether the milk is produced to EU standards. How can he do so with no certificate? The milk is therefore not going south for processing. That also applies to animal healthcare products. The green and red lanes probably work for retail, but not for food processing. It does not work for primary processers who export.
It is worth noting that in 2021 the Northern Ireland dairy industry represented 31% of UK dairy exports overall. Green and red lanes, or the dual regulatory zones envisaged in this Bill, would cause huge damage to the dairy industry. I know that certain elements of the dairy industry, such as Lakeland Dairies, have had discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Caine, and, prior to that, former Minister of State Burns. I know it would be deeply appreciated if the noble Lord could have further discussions with them, because they know the practical outworkings of that.
Further to that, it is clear that these issues are fundamental to the negotiations, including the technical negotiations, that should be going on between the UK and the EU. We want to see resolutions to these issues. I recall what my noble friend Lord Hain said: where there are problems with the protocol—such as with its implementation—there are solutions. If there is good will on all sides, exactly those negotiations will try to resolve those wrinkles and difficulties.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, having listened to the debate thus far, I have again noticed that a number of noble Lords seem to be exercised about the DUP’s well-known opposition to the protocol. To be clear, not one unionist or unionist party in Northern Ireland accepts the protocol. Rather than just mentioning the DUP, I ask noble Lords collectively not to obsess over the party and realise that there is a serious problem to be dealt with. Clearly, we have an impasse at present, and until the Northern Ireland protocol is dealt with, we will not move forward into an Assembly. That must be restated.
In this group we are confronted with the proposal that Clause 7 should not stand part of the Bill. The clause deals with the option of dual regulatory routes, which arises from the Bill creating a regulatory route that does not involve complying with the protocol. Thus, those proposing the removal of Clause 7 once again engage their argument that the doctrine of necessity cannot be applied and thus excuse us from complying with the protocol. In that context, they maintain Clause 7 should not stand part of the Bill.
Once again, it seems to me that arguing for necessity and a special dispensation not to obey international law is not the best way of addressing the protocol problem. In making this case, I will pick up on the assertion made by some noble Lords that this Bill is problematic not only because no commitment was made to it in the 2019 Conservative manifesto but because the manifesto suggested that the Conservative Party was committed to the protocol. It seems to me that one can assert on this basis that it would be wrong for the Government to bring forward a Bill such as this only if we pretend that Articles 1 and 2 of the protocol are not part of it.
Not only do Articles 1 and 2 subject the protocol to the Belfast agreement treaty, but Article 30 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties makes it plain that, in the event of any conflict, the Belfast agreement should prevail. This clearly implies that if the operation of the protocol undermines the Belfast agreement, action must be taken. This is more than implied in Article 2, which actively places as a matter of international law an obligation on the UK Government to ensure that the operation of the protocol does not diminish the rights set out in the section of the Belfast agreement
“entitled Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity results from its withdrawal from the Union”.
As other noble Lords have pointed out, the operation of the protocol is dramatically diminishing the right in the relevant section of the agreement to
“pursue democratically national and political aspirations”.
This right can no longer be pursued in relation to 300 areas of law that have now been removed from a legislature that includes legislators elected by Northern Ireland and placed in a legislature where Northern Ireland has no legislators. This means that, rather than international law being the enemy of this Bill, it is its friend, because the Government are subject to an obligation in international law—Article 2 of the protocol—to take action to ensure there is no diminishment of the right to
“pursue democratically national and political aspirations”.
There is an additional international legal imperative in this regard which should not be overlooked. It arises from Article 3 of the protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law arising from the case of Matthews v United Kingdom. Matthews lived in Gibraltar and was subject to legislation made by the European Union. As in the case of Northern Ireland, this legislation was made by the European Parliament, in which Gibraltar had no representation. Paragraph 64 of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case concluded:
“In the present case, as the Court has found (see paragraph 34 above), the legislation which emanates from the European Community forms part of the legislation in Gibraltar, and the applicant is directly affected by it … In the circumstances of the present case, the very essence of the applicant’s right to vote, as guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, was denied. It follows that there has been a violation of that provision.”
This case is of seminal importance, because it established that it is not lawful for any jurisdiction to be subject to legislation made by the European Union when the citizens of the said jurisdiction are not given the opportunity to elect their own representatives to the EU institutions to make that law. The Matthews judgment rings out loud and clear across Northern Ireland. The legislation imposed on Northern Ireland, courtesy of parts of the protocol, denies the very essence of the right to vote, as guaranteed by Article 3 of the protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, for giving way. I am following his argument very closely. I do not understand why that argument will not apply to the red route under a dual system. The dual system, by definition, will include the EU route, which will automatically apply EU rules for trade with Northern Ireland, which will still apply to all the areas that he said will have no say.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention, but I want to develop the point on the Matthews case and the human rights.
In the Matthews case, the party at fault was not the EU, which was not a contracting party to the ECHR, but the United Kingdom Government, who were deemed to have failed in their treatment of the people of Gibraltar in allowing them to be subject to the EU without representation. The failure of the UK with respect to the Northern Ireland protocol is even starker, coming, as it does, in the aftermath of the Matthews case law. Some might seek to defend this arrangement on the basis that four years after being subject to EU law without seats in the EU legislature, the protocol affords the Northern Ireland Assembly a vote. Crucially, however, this is not a vote on the legislation made under the protocol but on the protocol itself: the arrangement whereby 300 areas of lawmaking for Northern Ireland are given to the EU, notwithstanding that Northern Ireland has no representation in the EU legislature. Rather than giving MLAs the opportunity to scrutinise, amend and vote on all the laws passed in the previous four years, the vote is effectively to determine whether or not the constituents of the MLAs should surrender their votes in relation to the determination of the law to which they are subject in some 300 different areas, having been denied any vote, even in this regard, during the first four years when their votes were, effectively, taken from them. In this context, we need Clause 7, and indeed this whole Bill, to meet the demands of international law with respect to Article 2(1) of the protocol and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In conclusion, this matter concerning the Northern Ireland protocol may not be the flavour of the month for many in your Lordships’ House, but it must be dealt with to the satisfaction of both communities in Northern Ireland, not one.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I yield to none in my respect for the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, and the way he pursues this argument. It was an argument that we had earlier in our debate, and I share his distaste for the protocol, as he knows. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, that there is no democratic deficit. I think there is a real democratic deficit and it could be put right. It would be good if the noble Lord would think about the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, earlier in our debate. The argument that the protocol is inconsistent with the Good Friday agreement comes across rather badly from those who opposed the Good Friday agreement. I myself was strongly in favour of the Good Friday agreement and I was sorry to see the DUP against it at the time. It is hard to sustain the argument now, in any case, given that all the parties to the withdrawal agreement—in which the protocol rests—do not agree with it. The United Kingdom Government do not buy the argument that the DUP are making—or they have always, up to now, not bought that argument. Although I understand the concerns the noble Lord puts forward, I do not think it works as a matter of law or that the Gibraltar precedent—although he is quite right about it—is relevant.
Lord Hain (Lab)
Will the noble Lord accept a small intervention to follow up on the point he made about the democratic deficit? I agree with him and he agrees with me on it. Would he confirm that Norway, for example, does not have Ministers in the Council of Ministers or direct representation in the European Parliament because it is not in the European Union, but does have consultative rights? It is consulted on all EU single market matters. Northern Ireland could be consulted in a similar way.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I ask the Minister a more technical question about the interrelationship between the trade and co-operation agreement and the withdrawal agreement. The European Affairs Committee spent a very long time writing a report, which came out last December, about trading goods. We were very careful to make sure that we did not talk about the Northern Irish situation for two reasons. First, we have our own sub-committee for dealing with that. Secondly, it was horribly complicated.
I should like some comfort on a problem that would arise should some kind of good head from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. For the purposes of the Minister’s powers, it is a Northern Ireland good. However, it is, at the same time, latently a TCA good for the purposes of moving across an EU border. An immediate set of complications arises from this. I would, therefore, be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on what the interrelationship is between the TCA and the withdrawal agreement on goods in general. I would also be grateful for some comfort that when Ministers are thinking about exercising all the powers that this selection of clauses would give them, they will have do so in regard to all the relevant various international agreements we have. The TCA is not our only agreement with the EU.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak first to Amendments 13 and 14, in the name of my noble friend Lady Chapman. These would replace the word “appropriate” with “necessary”. The arguments are the same as we heard in the previous group and express unease about the scope of ministerial powers. On the others, we can see the case for what the Government want to achieve—a differentiation of goods destined for Northern Ireland or for the single market. We believe that the best way to secure such a scheme is to negotiate with the Irish Government and the EU. The two sides’ proposals to this area differ on various points of detail, but there is undoubtedly room to compromise if there is the political will to achieve this.
As we said on the first day in Committee, we are sympathetic to the case for removing various clauses from the Bill. That is particularly the case for Clause 9, of which the DPRRC said:
“This is the frankest admission by the government the policy is so embryonic that it has not yet been consulted on. And yet Parliament is being presented with a major Bill on the subject.”
That quote was also put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. Despite our calls last week, we have not heard anything from the Foreign Secretary regarding the negotiations, beyond a brief confirmation of a phone call with Vice-President Šefčovič. I ask the Minister: when can we have a fuller, formal report on the state of the negotiations?
The only other point I want to make is to pick up the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea. My party acknowledges that there is a problem with the protocol Bill. Of course, it is the Government who are negotiating this, not Parliament. We, on our side, do not believe that the Bill is helping that process.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to convince noble Lords of the merits of the dual regulatory regime. In doing so, it is important that we just take a step back for a second and consider the overriding purpose of these clauses and the regime itself. It is to remove barriers to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland for goods that will never leave the United Kingdom. It will enable us to address the so-called Irish Sea border, and support trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, as has been government policy since the Acts of Union in 1800, while respecting the integrity of the EU single market.
Northern Irish businesses will be able to meet UK rules when supplying the UK market should they wish, benefiting from future regulatory reform. That in turn will help to create the conditions that in our view can lead to the restoration of a fully functioning devolved Government in Northern Ireland, and therefore the implementation of all three strands of the Belfast agreement. The clauses will enable this to be achieved in the following ways.
Clause 7 makes it clear that businesses will have a choice of which regulatory route to follow when placing goods on the market in Northern Ireland. It introduces, as I have made clear, a dual regulatory regime for regulated classes of goods to which any provision of annexe 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol applies. This will create a new option to meet UK rules compared to the existing protocol arrangements, whereby goods are required to comply with the relevant EU rules. Where the relevant requirements allow, it will also be possible for the same product simultaneously to comply with both sets of requirements.
Currently, as noble Lords will be aware, traders have no choice under the protocol but to meet EU rules when supplying goods in or to Northern Ireland. This deters some companies, especially those trading exclusively within the United Kingdom, from serving Northern Ireland due to costs and administrative burdens required to meet this EU law: for example, retesting, re-marking and relabelling of goods, as well as the appointment of a representative to undertake administrative duties. All this comes at a cost, which I submit is completely unnecessary for goods that are to remain on the UK market.
The dual regulatory regime provides businesses across the UK with choice. If a Northern Ireland-based business trades north-south on the island of Ireland, they can continue, as now, to follow EU rules and sell their products into the EU and across the UK because of the Government’s commitment to unfettered access between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. If their business model is UK-focused, they can choose to follow UK rules and benefit from the opportunities afforded there.
By providing an alternative UK-rules route to market in Northern Ireland, the clause fundamentally protects the integrity of the United Kingdom internal market and addresses concerns over the so-called Irish Sea border for goods that will remain within the United Kingdom. That concern over the Irish Sea border is, as I said in response to an earlier group of amendments, the principal cause of there being no functioning Executive and Assembly in Northern Ireland.
On the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, I am very much aware of the concerns raised by Northern Ireland’s agri-food sector, and in particular the dairy sector, as I know from experience and have seen at first hand on a number of visits. Indeed, a short while ago I visited a farm between Newry and Armagh where the same family have been farming the land since the 1740s. The farmers in question are, if I may use the terminology, from a Protestant unionist background. It is a dairy farm, and everything they produce on it is processed in Ireland. Therefore I completely accept that, for businesses like that, the provisions of the protocol that enable EU single market access are not just desirable but absolutely essential. I assure her that we are very much committed to upholding that seamless EU single market access where it is essential for businesses. We are in favour of retaining those elements of the protocol that work while remedying those elements that do not.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for both the Minister’s full response and his offer to write when he has reviewed some of our questions. I still have questions over what “classes of goods” means and some of the issues that he raised.
I am grateful for the illustration of conformity assessment. It is one of those areas that sounds so technical and boring when you debate it. It is technical and boring, but every good will have to have it in every shop for every consumer. This means that, separate to the protocol, a manufactured good for a consumer in Northern Ireland, such as a toy, will have to have a CE mark on it if it has used an EU conformity assessment body, of which there are a number in GB. However, if it has used a UK-based body, of which there are none uniquely in the UK at the moment, it will have to have a UKNI mark and a CE mark on it. There is no option. So, uniquely in the four nations, consumers and importers in Northern Ireland will have to check that their goods have either a CE mark or a CE/UKNI mark on them. They will not have a UKCA mark on them; it will be different.
This goes back to the sincere points made by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, about how to have a situation where there is no difference between Scotland, where I live, Northern Ireland, England and Wales. The reality of this Bill and this Government’s choices on the marking of goods and where they will be checked is that things will still be different, with different procedures and processes. When it comes to using an EU conformity assessment accreditation body, we have no say over its rules and regulations and what it says. This Bill is not going to resolve that but I am grateful for the Minister’s response.
I am going to call these the Rumsfeld clauses because what we are being asked to put in place in statute are regulation-making powers for the known unknowns. However, in Clause 9 we also want powers for the unknown unknowns. We do not know whether they are going to work so, under Clause 9, we want the powers to be broad enough for us to have the power to make them work if they do not work. I do not think that Rumsfeld powers are something that our Parliament should operate with; the case has therefore not been made.
I look forward to the Minister’s letter and further clarifications, of course—I therefore reserve judgment—but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill
Monday 31st October 2022
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022-23 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 52-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (31 Oct 2022)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that the power in Clause 9(1) is subject to conditions contained in a later amendment to that Clause.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I shall speak very briefly because this amendment gives rise to many of the same debates that we have already had this evening. We have tabled Amendments 12 and 15, which would prevent
“the delegated powers in Clause 9 from being used unless a draft of the instrument, a report of a relevant consultation exercise, and an appropriate economic impact assessment have been laid before Parliament.”
The Government say that Clause 9 is needed because the policy is not yet developed. We are worried about this, so these amendments would act as a safeguard by preventing the power being used unless the conditions in the amendment are met. We think Northern Ireland businesses would be better served if our amendment were to be accepted, notwithstanding all our previous comments on our approach to the Bill more generally. Businesses were telling us—I am sure other noble Lords have heard the same—that they want and need stability, predictability and security. I do not think this will be delivered by the Bill; it comes only through negotiation. We must amend the Bill; it is what we are here to do this evening. We have made this suggestion because we think it would be particularly helpful to the business community to have more of a say and to get more clarity from the Government on what they might intend to do.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I support these two amendments, but they are not even contesting the making of regulations or asking for substance or content; they just require a process for making the regulations. As my noble friend Lord Purvis said in the debate on the previous group, there is nothing in the Bill on consultation. Assuming that Clause 9 remains—which we hope it does not—this amendment is trying to put some meat on the bones that should probably already exist. The Government said in the delegated powers memorandum that the regulations under this clause would
“need to reflect the results of consultation with businesses”.
The problem is that this clause provides for no such consultation. Our Delegated Powers Committee commented:
“This is the frankest admission by the Government that policy is so embryonic that it has not yet been consulted on.”
The committee’s comment on Clause 5 is also pertinent and relevant:
“Ministers are said to need flexibility, but the reality is that policy has not yet been formulated … the Government could have formulated their policy, consulted on it, refined it (if necessary) and then brought forward legislation with the details filled in. This would have facilitated meaningful parliamentary debate.”
Yet, the Delegated Powers Committee went on,
“Parliament is being presented with a major Bill on the subject. Legislation has preceded policy development rather than vice versa”.
I think I may be repeating what my noble friend has already quoted.
Amendment 15 therefore contains reasonable and sensible conditions for a draft of any proposed SI—for a report on consultations with business and an economic assessment to be laid. I suggest that the Government will, or ought to, have some difficulty in finding arguments to resist these amendments.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I intervene briefly in support of these amendments requesting that the Government provide an economic impact assessment.
Nothing could better characterise the extraordinary nature of our debates today, Wednesday and next Monday—and their unreality—than the fact that the Government are asking us to enact a Bill that gives them complete powers to do whatever they like in circumstances where it has been impossible, in the Government’s view, to get a negotiated solution. I recognise that the Government’s preference is for a negotiated solution. They are proposing that we give them a blank cheque for that without telling us what the impact on the British economy or the economy of Northern Ireland might be. That is frankly bizarre. It is not truly credible.
Of course, we all know that, in the event and after we have given them those powers, they would probably publish something, but we need to know now. We need some guesstimates—I accept they could be only guesstimates—of what the likely consequences would be if the Government’s preference for a negotiated solution cannot be achieved and they use the powers in the Bill that they are asking us to enact. I cannot honestly think of an argument against it.
Five years before we joined the European Communities, the then Labour Government issued a White Paper under George Brown which was an impact assessment of joining the European Communities. Why is it impossible to do that now? Why can the Government not say what the impact would be if the car goes over the cliff? I hope the Government will relent and will provide some impact assessments of these matters, because we really need to see them before we are asked to vote on the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, for Amendments 12 and 15 in her name.
Since the Bill was introduced, the Government have engaged extensively with groups across business and civic society in Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK and internationally. In addition to routine engagement, as I have mentioned, during the summer, the Government held over 100 bespoke sessions with more than 250 businesses, business representative organisations and regulators to inform the details of how the dual regulatory and trade boundary models should work in practice. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, I refer to some of my own engagement, not just with the dairy and agri-food sectors, but with business representative groups in Northern Ireland. That has been a similar experience to that of my right honourable friends, the Minister of State and the Secretary of State. We are very committed to this and we are reflecting on the huge wealth of feedback that we have received as we continue to develop the details of the underlying regime.
The clause is designed to provide stakeholders in Northern Ireland with certainty that the Government will deliver the solutions we have outlined. The House will have the opportunity to scrutinise regulations in the usual fashion, and the Government will provide all the usual accompanying material under normal parliamentary procedures. The full details of the new regime will be set out in, and alongside, regulations made under the Bill, including economic impacts where appropriate, so that Parliament may make informed scrutiny of the new regime which is being put in place.
The regulations themselves will be the product of engagement with businesses to ensure the implementation of the new regime is as smooth and operable as possible. Stakeholder views are of course important, but it is ultimately for Ministers to exercise these powers, and for Parliament to scrutinise and hold them accountable in the usual way. An additional requirement for the Government to lay an assessment and a report when it makes regulations using this power is therefore, in our view, unnecessary, and in that spirit, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister and to others who have contributed to the discussion on this group of amendments. I just gently say to the Minister that we do appreciate and respect the fact that a great deal of engagement is being undertaken by the Government and by others; we are all talking to businesses, and so we should. But that is not the same as a proper consultation process in line with Cabinet Office guidelines, which is what we really need here, because at some stage there will be decisions made by the Government about what they want to do, and it would be really unfortunate if those decisions were implemented without sufficient consultation. That is the point we are trying to get across to the Government at this stage, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(3) In exercising any of the powers under this section, a Minister of the Crown—(a) must act in a way that is compatible with the terms of Article 2 of the Northern Ireland Protocol,(b) must not suspend or seek to diminish any of the other provisions of the EU withdrawal agreement or the Northern Ireland Protocol so far as they relate to Article 2 of the Protocol, and(c) must not suspend or repeal, or make alternative provision to, domestic law so far as it gives effect to Article 2 of the Northern Ireland Protocol or any other part of the EU withdrawal agreement to the extent that it relates to Article 2 of the Northern Ireland Protocol.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to protect the operation of Article 2 of the Ireland-Northern Ireland Protocol.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendments standing in my name in group 6, which all seek to protect the operation of Article 2 of the protocol. There is much that is highly contentious about the Bill that we are considering, but I hope that there is at least one issue that is not controversial: that fundamental human rights should not be undermined by this Bill. As my noble friends Lady Kennedy and Lady Goudie both argued in their powerful speeches at Second Reading, they are too fundamental to the Northern Ireland peace process to risk that happening.
The purpose of Article 2 is quite clear: it is to protect the rights that those negotiating the Belfast/Good Friday agreement identified as the basis for moving Northern Ireland forward. The fear that Article 2 addressed was that these rights were underpinned by European Union law, and that that underpinning could be weakened, and in some cases destroyed, when the UK left the EU. The operation of Article 2 has never been regarded as controversial; indeed, when the Government identified the list of controversial issues in the protocol, Article 2 was explicitly identified as uncontroversial. So far as I am aware, no unionist politician—and in fact the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, referred to Article 2 earlier in a previous debate—has ever tried to argue that the operation of Article 2 is a problem for them, whatever other problems they consider the protocol to give rise to.
The Government themselves appear to have recognised the importance of Article 2 in Clause 15(3) of the Bill, which provides that the powers given to Ministers in that clause cannot be used to repeal Article 2. However, welcome as that protection in Clause 15(3) is, it does not deal with the problem. First, it does not apply to the vast panoply of ministerial powers granted by other clauses. Secondly, even regarding the limits it places on the exercise of ministerial powers under Clause 15, it only prevents Article 2 ceasing to have effect, not a weakening of Article 2 that falls short of repeal. Thirdly, it does not protect Article 2 from other provisions of the Bill that limit its scope immediately the Bill is brought into force and which are not dependent on the exercise of delegated powers to Ministers.
What is the problem and why are a significant number of amendments needed to protect Article 2? Simply put, the effectiveness of Article 2 in practice depends on other provisions of the withdrawal agreement and the protocol threatened by the Bill. To use an analogy, having a chair to sit on is pointless if all its legs are sawn off; it ceases to function as a chair. If the necessary supports for Article 2 are removed, it will cease to function. If the Bill is passed in its current form, it appears it will cut off one crucial support immediately, as well as enabling Ministers to remove all the other supports as they please.
I turn to the detail. I will identify the key questions which I expect the Minister to answer immediately or at least before Report; immediately following this debate, I will forward to him the text of the questions to which I seek answers.
When read together with Article 13 of the protocol, Article 2 requires that Northern Ireland equality law keep pace with EU equality law. This is the dynamic alignment requirement. My first question is this: may a Minister by regulation under Clause 14(4) provide that Article 13(3) of the protocol is disapplied in relation to Article 2? If so, can this power be used to prevent the equality directives in Annexe 1 being subject to dynamic alignment? Amendment 23A is relevant in this regard.
Clause 14(4) provides that:
“A Minister of the Crown may, by regulations, make any provision which the Minister considers appropriate in connection with any provision of the Northern Ireland Protocol and other parts of the EU withdrawal agreement to which this section relates.”
My second question is: does this mean that a Minister could, by regulation, provide that the provisions of the withdrawal agreement that enable disputes relating to Article 2 to go to international arbitration if they cannot otherwise be resolved—Articles 170 to 181 of the withdrawal agreement—may be disapplied with regard to disputes concerning Article 2? Amendment 23A is relevant in that regard.
Clause 15(2) provides that:
“A Minister of the Crown may, by regulations, provide for any provision of the Northern Ireland Protocol or any related provision of the EU withdrawal agreement … to become excluded provision”.
My third question is: does this empower a Minister to disapply Article 5 of the withdrawal agreement, which requires that the provision of the agreement be applied in good faith, in so far as it applies to Article 2 of the protocol? Amendment 31A is relevant in this case.
Clause 15(2) also appears to permit Ministers to designate Article 14(c) of the protocol as excluded provision. My fourth question is: does Clause 15(2) permit Ministers to limit the current powers of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to refer matters to the specialist committee under Article 14(c) of the protocol? In this regard, Amendment 31A is relevant.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, has done the Committee a great favour by detailing this particular aspect of the Bill. She has shown that the powers which the Government are seeking to take cover so much that none of us has any idea whatever as to what it may mean. No doubt, the Minister will be able to write a letter which details the answers to each of her excellent questions, but behind those questions is the fundamental falsehood of this Bill. The Bill gives to Ministers powers the strength, width and depth of which none of us have any idea, and the Government have even less idea, clearly, because if they did, they would have restricted those powers and would not have asked this House to accept a proposition which is manifestly undemocratic and which could not be accepted by any democratic House in any country in western Europe.
By the noble Baroness’s detailed forensic explanation of her particular interest, she has revealed the basic falsehood in the Bill and the reason that many of us are not going to allow it to pass, because it is contrary to everything that we have ever done in our political lives. I have been in politics in one House or another for more than 40 years, and no one has ever suggested a Bill of this kind ever before. Ministers had better understand just how serious this is.
I want to say one thing about Ministers too. Having been a Minister for 16 years, which is longer than most people are in post, I learned how important it was to have parliamentary restrictions—how important it was that civil servants could say to you, “I’m afraid, Minister, you can’t do that because that requires Parliament’s acceptance.” It was a vital part of the democratic process. We are being asked to remove that from Ministers, and I say to my noble friends that it is very bad for them, as Ministers, because it is that restriction and control which ensure that they do not move beyond where they ought to go merely because it is convenient.
The last thing that I will say about the excellent offering of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, is this. However detailed the answer is, it will not overcome the fact that any promise made in this House can be taken apart if we give the Government these powers. It is not for Ministers to promise us things, because, if the Act gives them powers, however fine they may be—and what a fine list of Ministers we have—their successors will be able to use these provisions in a way which undermines any promise made to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. That is why I wanted to come in particularly to congratulate her, because she has revealed the fundamental falseness of this whole proposition and the reason why this Bill, of all Bills, should not be passed by this House.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I rise to comment on the nature of the Bill, which has now taken on gargantuan proportions. It is a raging beast running through our constitutional rights and liberties.
However, to be clear cut, it is a good deal more modest. It says that there will be no hard border. It guarantees that it will protect the European single market. Just before the dinner break, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, pointed out that, even if the Bill were implemented, it would not restore Northern Ireland completely to the UK single market in some pure form. He was quite right but it rather misses the point that this Bill is significantly more modest.
As for human rights, a very serious topic—the record of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, in this respect is unequalled—the fact of the matter is that the Bill’s focus is the trade aspects of Articles 5 to 10. It is an attempt to remodel them so that it could reasonably be argued that the commitment in the protocol that the UK single market will be protected is lived up to rather better than it currently is. This seems entirely reasonable to me. I understand that there is a new doctrine in the House: if we read a document, we are all struck dumb by what was in the protocol and cannot even think. All further thought and debate about it is now over, as some mental trauma afflicts us all and we are so lost in admiration for it, but it is a problem. One of the many problems is this: there is a commitment to protecting the UK single market but we have many examples of how it is not protected.
However, the Bill is more limited than many would guess from listening to our discourse today. The crucial point with respect to this amendment is that Article 2 is not the target. That article and its points on human rights remain untouched by this Bill. It is Articles 5 to 10, which deal with the way trade is to be conducted, that are the target of the Bill. The Bill is therefore much more limited, and possibly less of a threat to our constitutional traditions, than has been said.
Above all else, there is a very simple thing that nobody seems to accept is critical: rather than saying, “We’re terribly sorry about the democratic deficit and so on,” how do you respond to the communities in Northern Ireland, who have a right under Article 1 of the international Good Friday agreement to have their aspirations protected by the sovereign Government and are saying, “We have a major problem here: the major issue of our alienation”? That seems to have disappeared entirely. For all its problems, at least the Bill is an effort to do this.
I am not convinced that the constitutionality of the United Kingdom and its great provisions are incredibly protected or defended by saying, “We just could not care less about that question.” This is about a more complicated balance. Is it not obvious that there is a balance to be found here? I desperately hope that it is reached in the negotiations with the EU. Is it not obvious that these strong, dramatic statements on both sides are not helpful in the struggle to reach the balance that must be found?
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I want to bring the focus back to Article 2. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, said that this Bill is modest but the problem is that the law of unintended consequences could come into play here.
My noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed coined the phrase “Rumsfeld clauses”. I do not want to detract from his trademark on that phrase—he will kill me—but, as concerns Article 2, the Bill shows some evidence of having been written on the back of an envelope. Concerns about human rights and equality have been at the heart of the conflict in Northern Ireland, so those concerns were central to the Good Friday agreement.
Thus Article 2 of the protocol, ensuring a non-diminution of the wide range of rights set out in the Good Friday agreement, is a key clause. However, there are worrying implications of the Bill for human rights and equality protections, which are in danger of being overlooked. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland point out that the Explanatory Notes to the Bill make no reference to any consideration having been given to compliance with Article 2 of the protocol. Those two commissions have previously recommended that this should be the case regarding all relevant legislation. I understand that the Leader of the House of Commons, the right honourable Penny Mordaunt, is talking about draft guidance to Bill teams on this matter. This is in response to concerns that have been raised for quite a few months now by various committees, such as the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Women and Equalities Committee in the other place, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I have the pleasure to sit, and our own Northern Ireland Protocol Sub-Committee. They have all raised concerns about compliance with Article 2 of the protocol.
The Government gave assurances about their commitment to Article 2, and it is true that this article gets a degree of protection under the Bill; for instance, that Clause 15 does not permit Ministers to make regulations defining Article 2 among “excluded provisions”. However, even Clause 15 needs completion, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, pointed out. The logic of protection of Article 2 is far from fully reflected in other clauses of the Bill. Hence these amendments—and I support all those tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, not just the two I have co-signed—propose a strengthening of Clauses 9, 10, 13 to 15 and 20.
This Government do not like the European Court of Justice, but its role is essential at various points in relation to Article 2. That article includes a commitment to keep pace with EU laws, as the noble Baroness pointed out, with EU law developments falling within the scope of the six equality directives listed in Annexe 1 to the protocol. As these directives are updated or replaced under the normal process of EU legislation, the UK Government are committed to ensuring that domestic legislation in Northern Ireland reflects any substantive enhancements in relevant protections. There are also other relevant EU laws beyond the six equality directives that underpin rights in the Good Friday agreement, such as the victims’ directive, the parental leave directive, and the pregnant workers’ directive.
The Government are committed to ensuring that there will be no diminution of protections as contained in relevant EU law on 31 December 2020. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland have acquired additional powers to oversee the Government’s commitment under Article 2. However, it is essential that Clause 20, which removes the binding nature of judgments of the European Court of Justice, is amended to ensure that the dynamic alignments—the keeping pace—guaranteed under the protocol for citizens’ rights in Northern Ireland can be delivered. The same applies to Clause 13.
The UK-EU joint committee supervises the implementation of the withdrawal agreement, but where there is a dispute regarding the interpretation of EU law which the joint committee or the arbitration panel cannot resolve, then under Article 174 of the withdrawal agreement, the ECJ must be asked to give a binding interpretation. This needs to be recognised and incorporated in Clause 13.
I mentioned Clause 15. The remaining problem there is that it does not prevent Article 14(c) of the protocol, which provides for the UK-EU specialised committee to consider matters brought to its attention by the two commissions in Northern Ireland—human rights and equalities—from becoming excluded provision by sort of oversight. The same applies to the lack of protection of the protocol’s Article 15, which provides for a joint consultative working group on the effective operation of Article 2.
The other amendments in this group raise similar and related issues. For reasons of time, I will not dwell on them. I am sure that noble Lords get the drift. One is left to conclude that there was either a lack of thorough preparation on the Bill—hence my quip about the back of an envelope—or a disturbingly cavalier disregard for Article 2 of the protocol. I am not sure which is worse. Neither is excusable, but I hope the Minister can tell me that the Government will take away especially all those excellent, very dense and precise questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. Quite honestly, what is in the Bill at the moment is not remotely satisfactory to honour and safeguard Article 2 of the protocol.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, these amendments relate to Article 2 of the protocol. However, it is clear that Articles 1 and 2 subject that protocol to the prior treaty, the Belfast agreement. That is the fundamental point that must not be overlooked. There is merit in examining in detail what, for instance, Article 2(1) says, because it lends weight to arguments that we have advanced on our side and that have been advanced very eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Bew. Article 2(1) specifically places an act of duty on the UK Government. That duty is as follows:
“The United Kingdom shall ensure no diminution of rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity as set out in that part of the 1998 Agreement entitled Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity results from its withdrawal from the Union”.
However, the operation of the protocol, as it is currently being operated and is designed to operate, is diminishing the rights set out in
“that part of the … Agreement entitled Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity”
and in the Belfast agreement, which sets out
“the right to pursue democratically national and political aspirations”.
That applies right across the whole remit of lawmaking in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Up until 31 December 2020, the people of Northern Ireland were represented in all the lawmaking to which they were subject.
However, since then, more and more laws are being applied that have been developed by the European Union, in which Northern Ireland representatives have absolutely no representation whatever. It is helpful that we are looking at Article 2. The operation of the protocol is therefore actively diminishing the Belfast agreement’s
“right to pursue democratically national and political aspirations”.
People in Northern Ireland can currently not do that—by standing for election or electing someone to the relevant legislature, whether here at Westminster or at Stormont—because they cannot make any laws. They have no say in any laws to which the people of Northern Ireland are subject in over 300 areas, hence the need for the Bill, which will return lawmaking powers for goods destined for Northern Ireland to a legislature within the United Kingdom.
I have listened to the outrage—as the noble Lord, Lord Bew, described it very well—that has been expressed about the powers that will be taken by Ministers. However, there seems to be little or no outrage felt at all about the absolute lack of any democracy whatever when it comes to whole swathes of laws over the economy in Northern Ireland. Never mind giving the powers to Ministers, or bringing forward regulations or statutory instruments capable not of being amended but at least of some scrutiny in a United Kingdom legislature—these are laws being brought forward on a dynamic basis, aligning Northern Ireland to EU law, different from UK law in many cases, with no scrutiny, say, vote, or anything else by anyone elected in Northern Ireland.
Where is the outrage about that? Where are the fulsome expressions of how this is a travesty of democracy, the like of which has not been seen—I cannot count any kind of precedents for it. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, referred to the idea of a stool that has legs being cut off it. It reminds me of the description of the Belfast agreement as amended by the St Andrews agreement: a three-legged stool, with strands 1, 2 and 3; strand 1 being the internal affairs of Northern Ireland, the Assembly and so on; strand 2 being north-south; and strand 3 being east-west. When you interfere and cut the leg of the east-west relationship, which is what has happened as a result of the protocol, and you also interfere with the cross-community voting mechanisms of the Assembly itself in order to undermine any kind of unionist opposition to the protocol, you are cutting away at the legs of the Belfast agreement as amended by St Andrews. That is the reality, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bew, said, we need to focus on the fundamental problem, which is that the Belfast agreement is being undermined by the protocol. Until it is sorted out, there will not be proper functioning of that agreement.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I want to rise very briefly in support of these amendments and also to say that my noble friend Lady Ludford made an extremely clear and very good case. I just want to add three very brief points.
The first is that I refer the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, to Hansard in 2019 and my contributions, among others from these Benches. We debated these issues and highlighted them, and he knows that. I am sure this evening it is just rhetoric in our Committee. He knows we have raised the concerns that he just outlined now. They are why we opposed it. So I do not think he can present that fact towards these Benches.
The second is that in my view Article 2 of the protocol should not be seen in a static form. Article 2(1) states:
“The United Kingdom shall ensure that no diminution of rights … results from its withdrawal from the Union”.
This is a permanent agreement, a permanent commitment, and therefore it cannot be seen that those that were in place in 2019 are now kept in aspic. So my noble friend is absolutely right that if you are taking away what is case law and when those rights and freedoms protected by Annexe 1 powers are adapted, unless they are dynamic, there is a diminution of those rights, by definition. The Bill proposes retaining them in aspic. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, is absolutely right to highlight the fact that those Article 2 rights need to continue to be dynamic.
I know the hour is late, but I want to remind the noble Lord, Lord Bew, and others of Northern Ireland Protocol Bill: UK Government Legal Position, which is the founding basis upon which this Bill has been brought for our consideration. The final sentence of the penultimate paragraph is:
“The UK urges EU Member States to provide a new negotiating mandate to the Commission, wide enough to change the terms of the Protocol to respond to the full range of issues addressed by this legislation.”
So far, I have not heard a squeak from any Minister saying that the position of the Government is still that there should be a new negotiating mandate from the Commission to EU member states. I have not heard that; I am willing to be intervened on, or, if not, I want to hear from the Minister whether that is still the position. That was the legal position of the Government: that they are seeking a new negotiating mandate from the Commission. It is there in black and white, but I have not heard whether that remains the same. When it comes to putting faith in the negotiations, what is the basis of these negotiations if the Government’s legal position is that there has to be a new mandate and that is not forthcoming?
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I will comment again briefly. I have said on the Floor of this House during these debates that I did not consider it necessary to reopen the mandate. If the EU can genuinely commit itself, as it is committed in the protocol, to defending the Good Friday agreement in all its parts, although it has not really understood what that means, my personal view is that that would be enough. I can understand why the Government feel the EU should reopen the mandate, but it is not a problem for me. I accept the point and I believe there could be successful talks without the reopening of the mandate; that is, providing that the EU accepts what it said itself that this is about protecting the Good Friday agreement in all its parts. As long as that part of the commitment, which has already been made, is upheld, I think there is a good prospect for these talks.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I open by thanking my noble friend Lady Ritchie for tabling this group of amendments. It has provoked an extremely interesting debate, with some strongly held views. First, in welcoming these amendments, my noble friend built on the contribution of my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, who spoke last week about the importance of preserving the rights of people from all communities. The withdrawal agreement was not about the practicalities of trade; first and foremost, it was about setting out matters relating to the rights of citizens. Article 2 of the protocol reflects this, with the Government having committed to
“no diminution of rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity”
under the 1998 agreement.
The concerns raised by my noble friend Lady Ritchie are legitimate and need a detailed answer from the Minister. The Government’s obsession in relation to the European court is not helpful when it comes to questions about the rights of individuals. As my noble friend said, this is indeed an opportunity for the Government to show that they are protecting Article 2 at all costs.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, asked a couple of very important questions. I think I wrote down correctly that he said that the Government do not even know the extent of the powers they are asking for in this Bill. That is quite a statement to make. He also gave a very telling comment about the importance of parliamentary restrictions when one has the responsibilities of a Minister. I thank him for making those points.
The noble Lord, Lord Bew, had a different view. He said that the Bill is less important than the noble Lord, Lord Deben, seemed to imply and that really the focus was on Articles 5 to 10; they are really the target of the Bill, not Article 2. I would be interested to see how the Minister reconciles those two points of view.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, spoke of the law of unintended consequences. She went into some detail—almost the same level of detail as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie—with a number of questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer, maybe in writing at a later stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked some interesting questions and reminded us all that two committees have highlighted the unprecedented nature of the Bill. This is an opportunity for the Minister to reassure us that the Article 2 rights can indeed be dynamically maintained through the Bill.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, as ever, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, for her amendments, which have provoked a wide-ranging debate at this late hour. I put on record my acknowledgment of her forthright defence of human rights in Northern Ireland over very many decades.
I note that some of the amendments that have been debated this evening follow on from briefings and comments made by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, both of which are important institutions that were established under the 1998 agreement and were set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. They perform a hugely important function, as noble Lords have pointed out, as part of the dedicated mechanism under Article 2 of the protocol. I do not think there is any difference between us on that point.
I therefore reaffirm at the outset that the Government are committed to Article 2 and to ensuring that rights and equality protections continue to be upheld in Northern Ireland. If noble Lords will forgive me, I think I have long enough experience in Northern Ireland itself to understand the importance of those protections. That is why Article 2 is explicitly protected from being made an excluded provision by Clause 15 in the Bill. To be clear, the Government will not do anything to undermine the provisions of Article 2. We believe that the Bill gives us all the powers we need to ensure that we can protect it. The noble Baroness’s amendments therefore seek to address problems that we do not envisage arising from the Bill.
I could go into great detail now but, given the lateness of the hour, I will say that we will continue to look at these issues as we consider plans for secondary legislation under the Bill. We will be particularly mindful of any interactions with Article 2, given the interest of the Committee. In that spirit, I look forward to receiving the detailed questions from the noble Baroness in writing. Of course, I give her an undertaking that we will provide her with very detailed responses, which will be placed in the Library well in advance of Report so that noble Lords have a chance to consider them.
On the noble Baroness’s specific question, Article 2 is not excluded and cannot be. Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 will always apply. None of the provisions that the noble Baroness mentioned ceases to apply to Article 2 under this Bill, including Article 13(3), the arbitration provisions, Article 5 of the withdrawal agreement and Section 7C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. As I say, I am happy to put this down in much more detail in writing so that all noble Lords will have a chance to consider the responses.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, regarding the EU negotiating mandate, I am happy to confirm that the Government are still engaging with the EU in talks, and we are clear that movement from the EU is needed that goes beyond its 2020-21 proposals. We need to be able to make changes to the protocol.
To conclude—
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I know that it is late; it is very kind of the Minister to give way. Just so we are crystal clear, that means that we have formally sought EU member states to seek a new mandate from the Commission.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am sure that the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not give a running commentary on the negotiations. I have set out the Government’s position, and I do not really want to be drawn beyond it.
Lord Deben (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but when he replies to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, will he answer the question not just whether the Government will do these things but whether they would have power to do these things? That is the question that most concerns me and many on this side of the Committee.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend, and I will ensure that the answers to the noble Baroness are as full and detailed as possible.
In conclusion, given the lateness of the hour and the need to make progress, I genuinely believe that the aims of the Government, the noble Baroness and other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate this evening are broadly aligned. There might be differences of approach, but we do not believe that the amendments are required. I will write to the noble Baroness in detail and, in that spirit, urge her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, including the Minister who responded. I obviously look forward to the detailed answers following the submission of my speech, outlining the questions to him. What the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has just expressed, and it is the thread running through the contributions made by noble Lords this evening, is the fear of the power that Ministers will have through the regulations. That will have a damaging impact on Article 2, perhaps by default, but it is the worry and the concern of both commissions in Northern Ireland. I understand that they have a statutory duty under the dedicated mechanism to deal with these issues, but it might be useful for the Government to enter into discussions. I do not know whether that is possible, because one is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive and the other is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Office, but it might be useful, because of their joint responsibility, to have further discussions with them in relation to these issues.
Because of the lateness of the hour, I look forward to the answers from the Minister. I believe that the problem lies with the further powers in the regulations that are yet to be revealed to your Lordships’ House. At this stage, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, with the proviso—dependent on the answers received—that I might bring some of these issues back on Report.
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill
Wednesday 2nd November 2022
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022-23 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 52-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (31 Oct 2022)
Lord Purvis of Tweed
Member’s explanatory statement
This is part of a series of amendments based on recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee which states that a number of subsections in the Bill “contain inappropriate delegations of power and should be removed from the Bill.”
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, in rising to move Amendment 16, I warmly thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for supporting this suite of amendments, which raises concerns about the breadth of the order-making powers that Ministers seek to gain from this legislation.
I start by thanking the Minister for his holding letter indicating that he is conferring with the noble Lord, Lord Caine, on responding to the questions raised on Monday. I am grateful for that and the efficiency of his private office.
The information from the Northern Ireland Executive suggests that there are approximately 14 live areas where there are subsidy controls, which operate within Northern Ireland under one element of the protocol. The purpose of my amendment is twofold: first, obviously, to raise the concern about the breadth of the power, which is in breach of international obligations, and about powers that the Government seek without formulating policy first.
Secondly, the purpose is to further probe what the Government intend the position to be with regard to subsidy control for Northern Ireland, and when they came to their conclusions. We are told that the position is grave and imminent—that is the defence of necessity for breaching international obligations. But we spent a lot of time in Committee and on Report on the Subsidy Control Bill. I moved two amendments relating to Northern Ireland, and the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, also raised these issues in Committee. Like others, I asked on a number of occasions what interaction there would be with the protocol and what difficulties operating two systems would cause. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, reassured me that they would work together.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, I must inform the House that, if Amendment 16 is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendments 17, 18 or 19 by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I shall be very brief and will say nothing about the breadth of the power being sought by Clause 12. I will read Clause 12(3):
“A Minister of the Crown may, by regulations, make any provision which the Minister considers appropriate”.
We all know what that means: a Minister will be empowered to create any regulations as he or she thinks fit. That is not objective: as he or she, sitting down, thinks fit. It is purely subjective. If we allow this piece of legislation to go through, we are saying to the Minister, “At whatever time it may suit you, take a blank sheet of paper and either write with a pen or type on your laptop whatever you think you want”. That will then be put before the Commons and the Lords, and, as they have not rejected anything for an eternity in real terms, it will become law.
Is that really how we think that power should be given to Ministers anywhere within the UK? It surely is not. There are other ways of making regulations. Good heavens, no Minister needs a lesson from me in how to create regulations; we are bombarded with them all time. But I do ask the House: is this really how we expect to be governed? The Minister can do what the Minister likes. The clause uses a different and longer phrase—“considers appropriate”—but it really means no more than whatever he or she wishes. It is not good enough.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I simply express my very strong support for what the noble and learned Lord has said: there is absolutely no limitation on the power conferred on the Minister to make
“any provision which the Minister considers appropriate”.
There is no test here of necessity or a requirement that the Minister should be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for thinking that the regulation is necessary. In any event, the regulation is both unamendable—as all regulations are—and subject to the negative procedure, which means in effect that it will never be discussed. So it is thoroughly bad. I have no doubt that it is for that reason that the Joint Committee recommended that this particular power should be removed from the Bill, and if I am given the chance to vote for that view, I shall do so.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, in the spirit of trying to help the Government, I will repeat what I said in relation to an earlier group of amendments: it would help the Committee, as well as the other place, if the Government could give us an indication of the type of regulations that they have in mind, so that we do not have this blanket provision before us today. There is still time to do that.
I will also ask a question of information. I understand that the “provision” to which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, refers in removing it from this particular clause does not apply to agricultural subsidies. So, if it is the case that agricultural subsidies are still going to apply, who is in a position at the moment to decide on that, and within what timeframe would that be?
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I have been looking at Clause 12 through a particular prism. As my entry in the register of interests discloses, I have a particular interest in financial services. I am also an investor in various enterprise investment and seed enterprise investment companies, which I will refer to as EIS and SEIS companies, and venture capital trusts. For those who are not aware, EIS schemes are those which allow UK investors to invest in UK companies and deduct the amount invested in those companies against their income tax at prescribed rates to encourage investment in private companies.
For some time, I have been frustrated that these truly excellent schemes have been hampered by restrictions. The schemes are hugely popular. EIS has helped some 66,000 companies in the UK in total, with some 3,755 companies raising over £1.5 billion last year alone. Since 2018, VCTs have made some 1,000 investments, raising £1.7 billion, of which 45% were less than £1 million. So I am very concerned by anything that threatens the existence of these schemes and am keen to find ways of enhancing their effectiveness. There are, however, restrictions and regulations reducing the opportunity for UK businesses to raise this vital small equity for essentially risky enterprises, and I have been concerned that these restrictions have in part been due to the requirements of EU state aid rules.
The enormous success of the EIS and VCT schemes is very much a British phenomenon and probably viewed with some mistrust by the EU, given our tremendous track record in starting and growing new UK businesses. In fact, most businessmen and investors I have spoken to are amazed to discover that it is governed by EU state aid rules. Fortunately, at the moment we have EU approval for the design of the EIS and VCT schemes under Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and the smaller SEI schemes, due to their size, fall within Article 21 of the general block exemption regulation. However, as we decide how to plough our own path post Brexit, it is important that we are entirely free to create our own rules concerning subsidies that might amount to state aid—within, of course, the constraints of WTO and other commitments.
As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, we now have our own Subsidy Control Act but, under the protocol, some EU state aid rules still apply. I can see the issue, namely that the EU is worried that a company based in Belfast has cheaper finance than a competitor in Dublin—but, frankly, that should be our choice and the choice of other countries to offer incentives to finance their businesses.
Why do we have this problem? As Andrew Harper helpfully wrote in the British Tax Review in autumn 2020, the two sides promote opposing perspectives: the EU very much promulgating its state aid regime on the basis of the level playing field and the UK adopting the subsidy language of the World Trade Organization. This is much more than a semantic or linguistic distinction. It is one of substance, both in the scope and the enforceability of the rules.
In these circumstances it appears sensible to point out the key issues that could arise. Without Clause 12 —and I am aware that there is a stand part debate following—first, the EIS and VCT schemes as they operate in Northern Ireland will presumably have to remain fully EU state aid compliant because of EIS companies and VCT investees based in the Province trading with the Irish Republic or the wider EU. Secondly, following from that, barring the UK Government being prepared to countenance two separate systems within the UK, the EIS and VCT schemes as they apply to England, Wales and Scotland will be difficult to modify.
Thirdly, if, post transition, these schemes were to diverge as between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, what is the position in the case of, say, an English EIS company raising scheme funding that would be in excess of that sanctioned by EU state aid rules? If that English company then sends its goods to Northern Ireland, where potentially they can be traded with the south or the rest of the EU, how will that be allowed to happen? It simply cannot make sense to exclude Clause 12.
Lord Pannick (CB)
May I ask the noble Lord two questions? First, should these problems not have been considered by the United Kingdom Government before they signed the protocol? Secondly, is there any reason why these problems cannot be raised in the negotiations with the EU to take place in the near future?
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I cannot answer for the UK Government on whether they should have been raised before; that is clearly historical and we are where we are. In theory, there could be a negotiation with the EU to try to deal with some of these problems, but we would be on the back foot and there would be no reason for the EU to agree, whereas Clause 12 deals with it satisfactorily.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I associate myself with my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who have made the case in very strong terms for why subsection (3) should be removed. I pause only to make one observation: it does not even specify the Minister but says:
“A Minister of the Crown”.
So not only is it an extremely wide power, it is a power available to any Minister in any ministry of any kind, at any time, without any restraint whatever. How can that possibly be consistent with the principles on which we pass legislation in this Chamber?
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for not having been present for the first two days in Committee for family reasons. I am in violent agreement with my noble and learned friend the Convenor. It seems to me that this amendment, others in this group and, indeed, others in the Marshalled List seek to address something of a legislative slough of despond. If that is the case, it is a swamp that needs draining. I think noble Lords on the Government Front Bench will realise that the bar will be set very high indeed on Report.
I shall briefly address two other contributions. First, to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, I may be misremembering but, from my past, I think “a Minister” is used as a generality in drafting to reflect the collectivity of government. It could be any Minister given the particular responsibility at the time, although I agree that some of the flanking provisions might draw that into a certain amount of doubt.
As for the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, she is ever the peacemaker but I would discourage noble Lords from pursuing the idea of putting in an illustrative list of measures that might be subject to these powers. Illustrative is only illustrative: if they are not in the statute, they are simply a bit of an Explanatory Memorandum, if you like. Even if they are in the statute, no drafter or Minister will allow them to lie there without the assertion that they are not an exhaustive list, so that anything can be added at the whim of Ministers. As my noble and learned friend the Convenor pointed out, quite a lot is being done at the whim of Ministers.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, I too support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, for all the reasons that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, gave. When the Minister replies to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, will he point to the incident that triggered the grave and imminent peril that forms the basis of the doctrine of necessity that the Government have used in justifying the Bill, with its extraordinary powers for Ministers?
Lord Cormack (Con)
I should just like to ask a question of whichever Minister will reply to this brief debate. I am of course entirely on the side of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in what they said. I understand why my noble friend raised his commercial points, but between us and him is a great gulf fixed. What we are concerned about is the arbitrary and unfettered power of Ministers.
I have great respect for all three of the Ministers who are handling this Bill, and great sympathy for them, but are they truly happy to exercise such unfettered powers without reference to Parliament and proper debate? We go back to where we were on Monday: the imbalance of power and the excessive power of the Executive, which has been growing like a mad Topsy for the last few years. It is deeply disturbing to anybody who believes in parliamentary government, and I want to know if it is deeply disturbing to the Ministers on Front Bench this afternoon, because if it is not, it should be. I would be much more worried than when I got up if they tell me that they do not mind.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Could I suggest to the noble Lord, before he sits down, that the real question is not whether the Ministers on the Front Bench would be happy to exercise these powers, but whether they would be happy for their opponents, were they to be in office, to exercise these powers.
Lord Cormack (Con)
As so often, the noble Lord puts it very well. It ought to be a parliamentary lesson to us all: never seek to take to yourself powers that you would not be happy to see the other side have. The noble Lord put it very succinctly and I endorse what he said.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The big point about this clause is the one made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. We should not be writing into our statute book such extraordinary sweeping powers, to be exercised at the stroke of a pen, with no real supervision or scrutiny by the Executive.
I would like to speak briefly to the second important point, which is, in my view, the one made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, when he spoke of the “chill effect”. I also found things I agreed with in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, rather to my surprise. The chill effect is real and will continue. Investors will be deterred from coming to Northern Ireland, and Northern Irish businesses will be deterred from investing, by the uncertainty which will not be resolved by the passage of this Bill but created by its passage. The effect of Clause 12, taken with Clause 22, is to enable the Minister to establish a different regime in Northern Ireland from the regime in Great Britain. The assumption might be that if the protocol falls, what results is the status quo ante: the UK rules. That is not the case. The Minister would be entirely free to produce whatever rules for Northern Ireland he thought fit. It is obvious what that uncertainty does to investment.
I am surprised at the silence of the DUP.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I am delighted that the silence may be about to be broken. It seems to me it would be odd to be insouciant about this uncertainty. The DUP may have been given assurances that only UK rules will be applied and nothing will be different, in which case I suppose it might believe such assurances. That would be a triumph of hope over experience, because we would not be where we are today—we would not have this Bill to discuss—if the DUP had not been betrayed and misled by the last Prime Minister but one.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I am truly grateful for the opportunity to participate, and would have done so earlier had I stood up more quickly. I will address some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge.
First, the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, touched on the reasons behind Clause 12 and why it is necessary, and I think it is worth reminding noble Lords of the current position following the approval of the Subsidy Control Act. Under the provisions of that Act, Northern Ireland is specifically excluded from the UK subsidy scheme. Therefore, we are subject, as per Article 10 of the Northern Ireland protocol, to EU state aid laws, and all the laws listed in Annexe 5 to the protocol shall apply to the UK
“in respect of measures which affect that trade between Northern Ireland and the Union which is subject to this Protocol.”
I have spoken to Invest Northern Ireland—the body that looks after foreign direct investment into Northern Ireland—about these matters. In effect, while the UK is setting up a new, more flexible state aid regime, under Article 10 of the protocol the UK subsidy control regime would apply only to about 50% of the financial support that will be provided to Northern Ireland, with the remainder continuing to fall within the scope of EU state aid rules, applying mainly to the manufacturing of goods.
So, Northern Ireland will be forced to adhere to the strict rules and conditions of EU law on things such as no expansions, maximum grant rates, only new establishments and so on, and when the projects are large or outside the scope of the exemption regulations, Northern Ireland will have to seek European Commission approval. Effectively, we have two regimes which are very different in policy terms and practical effect. Under the UK scheme, things effectively will be automatically approved unless specifically prohibited, and in Northern Ireland, under EU rules, everything will be prohibited unless approved—very different policies, and two very different systems operating in one country.
The reasons behind Clause 12 are sound; otherwise, there will be no level playing field across the United Kingdom for state aid. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, talked about uncertainty, but Invest NI has expressed concerns about the application of this dual regime. We will be at a disadvantage compared to other parts of the UK competing for inward investment. Other parts could be much more attractive as a location for investment as a result of not having to wait for European Commission approvals, for instance. Northern Ireland approvals will take significantly longer than the new timescales envisaged in the Subsidy Control Act for the rest of the United Kingdom. Other areas could have far fewer conditions or restrictions and might well receive greater levels of funding and subsidy than will be possible under the EU regime in Northern Ireland, which prohibits subsidies greater than 50%, whereas under the Act subsidies should be “proportionate”, but no maximum is specified.
Indeed, your Lordships’ Select Committee on the protocol in Northern Ireland, on which I am honoured to sit, wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, on this matter. He responded by letter on 22 March 2022, saying that he recognised that
“in some cases a more flexible approach will be available in Great Britain than in Northern Ireland and that this could affect all subsidies relating to trade in goods.”
There are real concerns about the application of EU state aid to Northern Ireland when it is not applicable to the rest of the United Kingdom.
On the issue of what replaces the EU regime for Northern Ireland, I have heard what has been said. That is why I am on record in this House as agreeing with the Opposition Front Bench that we need to see the regulations, and they should be published in good time for your Lordships to consider in detail. It is not enough simply to have broad outlines of policy or indications of where it might go; we need to see the regulations at the same time as the legislation. I fully accept that this should be done, and I said so in a previous debate.
I understand also the very strong opinions, many of which I share, on the idea of giving the Executive more and more power at the expense of the legislature. However, I ask noble Lords to bear in mind the situation we are faced with in Northern Ireland as a result of the protocol. Powers have been taken away in 300 areas of law affecting the economy in Northern Ireland. Powers have been taken away from this House, this Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly in Stormont, and handed over to the European Commission in Brussels, which initiates law in all those areas.
Noble Lords have expressed great dissatisfaction with the idea, which is regrettable in many cases, that one of His Majesty’s Ministers may be able to sit down with a pen and paper or an iPad and write what comes to mind; but we have a situation where somebody in the European Commission building in Brussels—I do not know who or where they will be, or their name; they are certainly not accountable to anyone here or in Northern Ireland—will write laws for Northern Ireland. It will not be a question of putting them down in statutory instruments, which this House may reject—although we have heard that it hardly ever rejects them. There will be no system of approval or disapproval at all. There will be dynamic alignment of the laws of the European Union with Northern Ireland. Legislators and the people of Northern Ireland will be handed those laws by the European Commission and told: “That’s the law you’re now operating.” Those laws are not necessarily going to be made in the interests of Northern Ireland. They are made by people who have their own interests.
I understand why noble Lords may rail against the delegated powers in this Bill, but why is not the much greater problem of the powers that have been given to Brussels to impose laws directly on part of the United Kingdom in the 21st century a subject for even more outrage? People may say that the Government signed up to this. I agree—they did, against our advice. We voted against it, as did other noble Lords in this House and Members of the other place. But we have this problem and we need to fix it. If it cannot be fixed, we are in serious trouble. I hope that negotiations and the negotiating mandate of the European Union will change to allow these things to be negotiated, but there is no sign of that thus far. If they do not change, this sovereign Parliament must take action to protect the people of Northern Ireland against laws imposed on them. Surely that should have the support of all true democrats in this mother of Parliaments.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, listening to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, just then, my mind drifted back a decade or so to a debate in the domed hemicycle in Strasbourg on the issue of state aid in a neighbouring jurisdiction, one that was partially under single market regulation; namely, Switzerland. One after another the MEPs from different groups got up and fulminated against the unfair competition and unfair subsidies that were being carried out in particular Swiss cantons. It became clear as they spoke that what they regarded as unfair subsidies were lower taxes—lower corporation and business taxes, and a lower VAT rate. My point is that what we regard as an objective measure will not necessarily be seen that way in Brussels when it has full control of these things.
I did not make the wise life choices that my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley did, so I have no idea how efficacious these vehicles are, but surely that is an issue that ought to be determined through our own national democratic mechanisms and procedures, rather than handed to us by people over whom we have no control. It is this point of trade-offs that I think is being missed.
Of course, how could one not be persuaded by the customary wry, terse brilliance of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, in the way he phrases the problem of executive overreach? I think that all of us on all sides recognise the problem. But we are dealing with a world of imperfections, and the alternative is an also unconstrained, and to some degree arbitrary, power where decisions are made, often by middle-ranking European Commissioners who are not accountable to anyone. Inadequate as the statutory instrument is, there is some mechanism of control here. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, just explained, we will have a situation where the state aid regime in Northern Ireland is being imposed by people who are completely outside the democratic process.
Now, I very much hope that this Bill goes through without these amendments. I realise that I am a very lonely supporter of it in these debates, but I hope that once it has gone through, Northern Ireland can become a bridge between the United Kingdom and the European Union, and a forum for co-operation. But that will be possible only if we live up not only to the Belfast Agreement but to the wider principles on which it rests: above all, representative government and a proper link between taxation, representation and expenditure.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, there has been much discussion today, and it goes back to the issue of democratic deficit and how we deal with what Northern Ireland’s public representatives cannot deal with. There is a very simple solution. Under the Good Friday Agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, amended by the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006, provision was made for the institutions according to a three-stranded approach: the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly, the North/South Ministerial Council, and the British-Irish Council, with east-west, north-south, and internal to Northern Ireland being addressed.
At the moment, we have no Northern Ireland Assembly, no Northern Ireland Executive and no North/South Ministerial Council that would hold these matters to account and address that democratic deficit. I would say to the DUP: there is a duty and an obligation to ensure, working with all the parties in Northern Ireland and both Governments, that those institutions are up and running. That will allow all of these issues to be adequately addressed by the MLAs who were duly elected in May.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, but, before doing so, I repeat what I said the other day: I feel extreme discomfort about the extensive reliance on Henry VIII clauses in this legislation. I sit near enough to the Convenor to almost feel partly convened on the issue of Henry VIII legislation: he and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, did suggest how this particularly egregious example of it could be constrained a little. However, I think neither was here when I posed the question of what the structural alternative was, in the context of negotiations, to relying on Henry VIII legislation. I still await a satisfactory answer to that question.
To return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, I share an interest with him in the EIS, because I was the Secretary of State who introduced them. I had forgotten that I was until he reminded me. Indeed, slightly earlier, when I was invited to speak on the 25th anniversary of their formation, I found that I was the warm-up act for Mike Yarwood at that event. But they are important and have been useful. They, at present, will cease under EU legislation unless that EU legislation ceases to apply in this country.
I want to make a general point, which I made earlier: the protocol is intrinsically temporary under European law. The Europeans themselves said, while we were negotiating the withdrawal agreement, that they could not, under Article 50, enter into a permanent relationship with the United Kingdom. Any arrangements reached under that agreement could only be temporary and transitional. Consequently, the protocol is transitional and temporary and not permanent. Indeed, in Mrs May’s protocol, it specifically said in the recital that the withdrawal Act, which is based on Article 50, does not aim to establish a permanent future relationship between the EU and the UK.
Lord Pannick (CB)
There are many difficulties with that argument, the first being that there are good-faith negotiations that the United Kingdom is involved in. One cannot assume that they will not succeed. We do have a protocol.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, made a point which has been made previously in Committee, concerning the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland. There is a provision in the protocol that expressly addresses democratic consent in Northern Ireland: Article 18. It sets out a detailed procedure to ensure that there is democratic consent, and it requires in detail provisions to ensure the consent, in due course, of both communities, the nationalist and the unionist. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, will say that it is far from perfect and that he does not like the detail set out there—but that is what we agreed. It simply cannot be said that the subject of democratic consent has been ignored. It was negotiated and it was agreed.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
Does the noble Lord accept that the provisions of Article 18 are contrary to the agreement that was made between the European Union and the UK Government in December 2017? Article 50 of the joint report said that before there could be any regulatory difference between Northern Ireland the rest of the United Kingdom, there had to be the assent of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive. The current arrangements are in breach of an EU-UK agreement and the process for giving consent is deliberately made a non-cross-community vote, contrary to the Belfast agreement.
Lord Pannick (CB)
It is elementary as a matter of diplomacy and of international law that a country is perfectly entitled to reach a new agreement in the circumstances as they then exist. That is what happened when the protocol was agreed. Both sides agreed a mechanism in Article 18 for ensuring democratic consent.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for effectively giving way. He rightly said, both in his letter to the Times and his remarks today, that, as long as there was good faith, fair enough, but if good-faith negotiations failed to reach an agreement—not if there was any lack of good faith, I think—we would be entitled under Article 62 to repudiate the treaty.
Certainly, the EU is showing a lack of fulsome good faith in two respects. First, it is refusing to accept in the current negotiations that any change to the protocol can be made—only to its implementation. Secondly, it is repudiating its original position that it could not enter into a permanent arrangement, which was the whole basis of the negotiations we entered into under Article 50. It is now trying to make something which was intrinsically temporary, and which it said could be only temporary and provisional, into something permanent. I would have thought that, in both respects, had the British Government taken such positions, he and his friendly noble Lords would have denounced it as an appalling demonstration of bad faith.
Lord Pannick (CB)
If the noble Lord’s position is that the EU is acting in bad faith, the United Kingdom, if it takes that view, is perfectly entitled to use the procedures set out in the protocol of independent arbitration—if it does not like that, it can go to the Court of Justice—to resolve any dispute. What the United Kingdom cannot do is ignore the dispute resolution mechanisms that are set out in the protocol and simply make an assertion that it thinks there is no good faith. Indeed, I had not understood it to be the position of the Government at the moment that there was no good faith. They are about to enter into negotiations.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, it is certainly my understanding that the negotiations are being undertaken in good faith on both sides, and it would be useful to have that confirmed by Ministers when they reply.
There are a few issues here, but I say first that it is very helpful to have the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, make his contribution on his concerns about chapter 10 of the protocol, because sometimes our discussions can get a little philosophical—that may be the wrong word—and it is very helpful to have them grounded in reality. His view is that he does not want a scheme that is any different to that which exists in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is understood and we know why he thinks that. We may not feel that it is realistic in the circumstances that we find ourselves in after Brexit, but there are most certainly good prospects to negotiate, come to agreement and perhaps find exemptions that would give him close enough to what he needs to be able to move us forward and give clarity and certainty to businesses in Northern Ireland, which is surely what we all want to see.
I am worried about the potential for retaliatory measures should Clause 12 of the Bill come into force. We know that this is something the EU is deeply concerned about. That does not mean that we cannot negotiate a much better position for ourselves, but there is the prospect of some form of retaliatory measure being forthcoming from the EU. I would like to know from the Minister what assessment has been made of the potential for this—although I am not quite sure which Minister to address my gaze to on this.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
It should be to me.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is helpful, thank you. What kind of measures do we anticipate, and what would be their impact? It is all very well to play hardball and say, “This is what we will do”, but that will always have a consequence and we need to understand what that might be. Not to do so would be deeply irresponsible.
Then there is the issue of powers. A lot has been said and I agree with pretty much all of it. Clause 12(3), which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, referred to, says
“may, by regulations, make any provision which the Minister considers appropriate in connection with any provision of the … Protocol to which this section relates.”
That is incredibly broad and we ask whether it is necessary for it to be so broad. If I have understood the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, correctly, he seeks to put some sort of frame around it. We are all very concerned about where those powers might lead us.
The problem is that we have to look at this in conjunction with the Subsidy Control Act, which is itself very broad, has powers for Ministers and lacks clarity about what the UK Government intend for Great Britain’s subsidy regime. We are compounding one unknown with another. That is quite a lot for noble Lords to swallow. We have been asked to show a lot of faith in Ministers when really what we need, and what the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has signalled he would like too, is some more information and draft regulations. We want to know where we are going with all this so that we can assess whether it will be the right approach to benefit businesses in Northern Ireland and answer the challenge made by the DUP. At the moment, I can see a set of circumstances in which it would not.
It is right that these issues are resolvable only by negotiation; we all know that. We have to start accepting that and asking ourselves whether the Bill’s approach will assist those negotiations in reaching a positive outcome. My noble friend Lady Ritchie said that this is something where we want the voice of the Northern Ireland Assembly. We want to know what MLAs from all communities have to say. It really matters that we hear from all sides, because this is about solving problems, not making things worse. The Bill really does risk making things worse.
The only other thing I would add is that there is now a different subsidy control regime in Great Britain, but where are this interventionist Conservative Government, who are making use of their new powers up and down the country? Speaking as somebody from the north-east of England, we see lots of tinkering and plenty of things that we could have done whether we were in or outside the EU. I do not particularly see that there will be the massive difference that warrants the kind of tension this is leading to. I suggest that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and my own are designed to be helpful. These are issues that we will not make progress on through this Bill.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I agree with the noble Baroness that I was trying to create a framework, in a very amateurish way that is way above my normal pay grade. I take her point that she is trying to do the same thing with her Amendment 18, which is sensible, but does she think removing Clause 12 would weaken or strengthen our hand in the negotiations? If a vote on the clause standing part was to take place, what would be her plans for those people planning EIS investments in the future?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is a very helpful question. I do not think the situation is about being with or without Clause 12. The Bill places the future of the regime in Northern Ireland in some doubt because nobody is clear about what is to be negotiated, what the outcome will be and what the rules will be. Even with Clause 12 in the Bill, we do not know the answer to those questions. The negotiations need to pick up pace, and they need political leadership as well as technical negotiations at official level. Experience tells us that you need that leadership—that buy-in and that clout—from the Prime Minister down. That is how you get resolution, and that is the approach I would take. I do not think the Bill, or this clause, are the make-or-break questions to resolve this issue.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and fully acknowledge that there are issues that noble Lords have raised before. In particular, I refer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who once again, in his usual forensic and specific way, highlighted with great brevity the main issue of concern. I acknowledge that this has been raised by noble Lords during the passage of the Bill. However, I will revert to the specific amendments and seek to provide answers to some of the questions raised. I caveat that by saying that we will review some of the specific technical questions relating to previous debates—and, indeed, to previous Bills and treaties—and ensure that we provide a comprehensive response.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for acknowledging the letter. I hope that having three Ministers on the Front Bench is better than one. It underlines the importance that we attach to your Lordships’ House on the Bill. I also want to say from the outset, on the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised about the extent of the EU mandate, that we shall ask it to change from its earlier negotiating position.
My noble friends Lord Dodds, Lord Lilley and Lord Hannan alluded to the essence of why the Bill is necessary. Of course these things are negotiated. Every contract and treaty is made in good faith. The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, was right to gaze in my direction. We are of course negotiating in good faith. If we were not, it would be a non-starter—it is as simple as that. I mentioned that I was in the last call that we had with the European Commission. We want to pursue a negotiated settlement because we believe it is in the interests of all parties and, in particular, it takes forward the concerns to which my noble friend Lord Dodds alluded. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, that it is important that we hear a broad debate about all the concerns that exist, particularly among all the communities in Northern Ireland.
Turning to Amendment 16 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, the power in Clause 12(3), also referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, is in line with those contained elsewhere in the Bill, but it ensures the proper implementation of the regime set out elsewhere in Clause 12, including taking account of any developments that could arise as a result of changes to the subsidy control landscape.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh raised the issue of agriculture. To respond to her, my understanding is that Clause 12 applies to agricultural subsidies. The purpose of Article 10(2) was to provide the flexibility needed to avoid Northern Ireland businesses losing out from leaving the common agricultural and fisheries policies. Clause 12 achieves flexibility by disapplying EU state aid law, rendering the carve-outs unnecessary. Agriculture and fisheries will be dealt with under the domestic regime. The new domestic regime provides a single coherent framework for all sectors. The inclusion of agriculture and fisheries will protect competition and investment in these areas across all parts of the UK, as it does for other sectors.
My noble friend Lord Dodds also talked about the detail of the regulations. Of course, I accept the importance of the need for the regulations. There will be opportunities to look at the regulations and for them to be scrutinised through normal parliamentary procedures. However, I note the points that have been made by my noble friends and other Peers in this respect. As I indicated earlier in respect of the information that we will seek to provide—
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
I intervene on a narrow point. Why is my noble friend against the test of necessity being included on the face of the Bill?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I believe that my noble friend is talking about the ministerial powers that exist here. We have had this debate before as well. We believe that a broader nature is necessary, and that is why “appropriate” is being used: to allow the maximum level of flexibility that the Government believe will be required. Of course, I accept there are differing opinions and views on this. Indeed, in conversations I have had, including with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to which I have alluded previously, there have been various Bills that have gone through your Lordships’ House where this discussion about “appropriate” and “necessary” has taken place, particularly with regard to the powers of Ministers and how those might be exercised. Of course, I note the point my noble friend is making.
The issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on TCA structures and state aid continues. TCA structures allow disputes to be raised, and the withdrawal agreement also provides structures for consultations as well. That very much remains the case. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, also asked why the Government concluded that they had to remove state aid requirements from the protocol. The Government have been clear about the problems caused in practice by Article 10 of the protocol. This was first raised in our Command Paper in July 2021.
The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, talked about a trigger point. Partly, this has been a culmination of the evidence and the practical experience, as was articulated by my noble friend Lord Dodds. The current system of operating two subsidy control systems within one country has created complexity and uncertainty, which is impacting policy across the UK. Irrespective of how noble Lords are approaching this Bill, either in support of or against what the Government are proposing, we all recognise that what needs to be resolved is the situation in Northern Ireland. Article 10 has also placed considerable administrative and legal burdens on businesses; for example, facing detailed questions about their operations from authorities to establish whether subsidies could be in scope of the protocol itself.
I have already referred to the powers. Noble Lords have been very articulate in making their concerns about the powers known but, again, I have underlined the importance of the necessity of these powers. To demonstrate in detail, in the previous day in Committee, we alluded to what this would require if everything was put into primary legislation.
Turning to Amendments 17 and 19, tabled by my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley, I am grateful for my noble friend’s contribution and for his reaching out to officials before this debate. My noble friend has powerfully illustrated the problems arising from Article 10 of the protocol and how they can arise in unexpected places across the United Kingdom and our economy. Article 10 can lead to uncertainty and delays in the delivery of subsidy schemes in Northern Ireland in comparison with Great Britain. They are exactly the sorts of problems that Clause 12 is seeking and intending to resolve, including to unleash further investment, to which my noble friend alluded, across the whole of the United Kingdom. The concurrent operation of two subsidy control regimes is a fundamental challenge for public authorities and beneficiaries across the UK. The solution put forward in the Bill truly addresses the challenges the Government believe exist, and will provide certainty across the UK.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Can I take from what the Minister said that the intention is that there would be one UK-wide scheme? If that is the case, that surely could go in the Bill.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I acknowledge what the noble Baroness has said. As I said, what we are looking to do in the basis of the Bill is to provide clarity and simplification in the current procedures.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
No, I think we are. That is exactly what we are seeking to do. It is clear that the noble Baroness remains unconvinced.
Turning back to the amendments themselves—
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I do not think it is clear; I do not understand. If the wish of the Government is to apply UK state aid laws in Northern Ireland—and that would be the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds —why does the Bill not say that? Why, instead, does it import this uncertainty, which would be continuing far into the future, because the regulations applying in Northern Ireland would depend on the whim of the Minister, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, pointed out?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I have listened again to the noble Lord and, if I may, just for clarity, I will ensure that I get a full response to this. I will check with my officials again and provide the added clarity that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are seeking. If that needs to be followed up in writing, I will, of course, do so as well. Ultimately, I stand by what I said earlier, that what we are seeking to do here is to address the specific issues that there are in practical terms.
My noble friend’s concerns about the scope of the Bill’s delegated powers were raised by other noble Lords. I hope that I can reassure my noble friend that the power may already be exercised only to make appropriate provision in connection with the exclusion of Article 10 of the protocol and the domestic provision that Clause 12 places on it. This provides a clear and limited framework for what the power can do; providing further constraints would provide additional uncertainty to businesses and consumers. In this case, it would put off, and potentially circumscribe, the ability to facilitate an effective domestic subsidy control regime that applies to the whole of the UK, leaving Northern Ireland being treated unfairly compared with the rest of the UK.
The Government are aware that regulations with retrospective effect are exceptional. However, it is clear that the continuing application of the state aid acquis in Northern Ireland has led to a sense of disconnection for many people, particularly the unionist parties, and puts the re-establishment of power-sharing arrangements at risk. As the EU state aid acquis is removed, it may be necessary to ensure that actions granted under the regime are appropriately reconciled with the UK regime. Removing Ministers’ ability to make retrospective provision, which was mentioned by several noble Lords, could undermine the Government’s ability to ensure a single, coherent, domestic subsidy control programme throughout the UK. It would also, in the Government’s view, create further uncertainty for businesses in Northern Ireland and across the UK. Any such regulations would already be subject to the higher level of scrutiny in the House. I know that my noble friend is concerned about creating uncertainty for investors, to which he alluded in his contribution. I hope he is reassured by what I have said: that the Government’s intention in this case is only to provide certainty. There will be time to examine any subsequent regulations.
The amendment also seeks to ensure that the power can make incidental and transitory provision. I am happy to be able to inform my noble friend that this is already the case by virtue of the operation of Clause 22(2)(e). The amendment also seeks to make necessary regulations subject to annulment by Parliament. We will, of course, debate this further when we reach Clause 22, but the Government’s proposition is that this is appropriate when regulations are making retrospective provision or amending an Act of Parliament, but that it would not be the appropriate level of scrutiny for other instruments making what are likely to be smaller or more technical free-standing provisions. I hope, for these reasons, that my noble friend will be minded to not move his amendment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister’s response. He knows that I respect him greatly, but he said the current scheme had complexity and uncertainty and, with great respect, I do not think he added simplicity and clarity regarding the successor scheme.
My lack of a social life will bear witness to the fact that I was in for every day of the Committee and Report stages of the Subsidy Control Bill, as I will be for this Bill. I asked about complexities and uncertainties. The Minister replied to me in February:
“To respond to the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that state aid rules would continue to apply even if the UK’s negotiating position were accepted, these are specific and limited circumstances. I trust that this will allay the Committee’s concerns on this important issue.”—[Official Report, 2/2/22; col. GC 244.]
The Minister is now saying that those “specific and limited circumstances”, which the Government said would result if they were successful in their negotiations, will be impossible to secure, so they are now seeking sweeping powers. He did not indicate when that policy change happened. It is a major change, and I simply do not know when it happened.
That position is also contradicted. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, referred to Invest NI. As I did at Second Reading, I will read from the Invest NI website:
“This dual market access position means that Northern Ireland can become a gateway for the sale of goods … This is a unique proposition … These additional benefits”.
Invest NI is using dual market access to promote Northern Ireland. The Government may be right that this is now acting to the disbenefit of Northern Ireland, and we have asked for evidence for this. If they are designing a new scheme, the real risk, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, indicated, is that uncertainty will have a major chill effect that will bring about the very things the Government say they are concerned about.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, that we are asked to legislate for unknown unknowns. On Monday I called these “Rumsfeld clauses”. The Government are seeking powers for known unknowns, but if they get it wrong in the future—which they do not know about—they want powers to deal with it now. The problem is that none of the powers in this Bill, which is replacing the Subsidy Control Act, has any of the restrictions and requirements of the regulating powers of that Act. The breadth of the powers goes way beyond the Subsidy Control Act, which is now proposed to be a single element.
Supposedly, these powers are simply for what Ministers consider appropriate, but I am not sure that a Minister would ever think their actions inappropriate when they bring forward proposals. It is for the law to say what is not appropriate in regulations; that is our job. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is absolutely right: it is not about what just Ministers or even necessarily just opponents on the Opposition Benches might use. It might be their successors as Conservative Ministers—we have had a fair few of them—who completely change policy. This is so broad.
A point of substantial importance is that there is a deep inconsistency in the Bill. The Government seem to think that it is acceptable to have a dual regulatory regime for goods but one route for subsidised goods. I have seen no mechanism that might cover a subsidised good. I really do not know whether that situation is clear.
With the greatest respect to the Minister, I do not think the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, received a sufficient response to her question. She will make up her own mind about this, of course. Agricultural subsidies are not included in the Subsidy Control Act—we debated this long and hard—and although the Minister said that this will now be covered in the proposals, I do not know where. The danger is that there is now an enormous black hole in the provision of agricultural subsidies. Given the agricultural support scheme announced earlier this year, I do not think it fair to have these concerns.
I do not think the Minister has satisfied the Committee. I hope that he and his officials will reflect on Hansard and provide more of the information we want to see. Unless the Government’s proposals are made much clearer, significant doubt will remain. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We come to Amendment 20. If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 21, 21A or 21C on grounds of pre-emption.
Amendment 20
Lord Purvis of Tweed
Member’s explanatory statement
This is part of a series of amendments based on recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee which states that a number of subsections in the Bill “contain inappropriate delegations of power and should be removed from the Bill.”
Lord Purvis of Tweed
My Lords, Amendment 20 is, in many ways, connected and therefore I need not be as long about this
Let me quote from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on Clause 13:
“Parliament has no knowledge of the Government’s plans but is meanwhile expected to rubber stamp all the regulation-making arrangements.”
That surely is not a means by which we make good legislation. The committee is highlighting Clause 13(1), which states that
“Any provision of … the EU withdrawal agreement, is excluded provision so far as it confers jurisdiction on the European Court in relation to … the EU withdrawal agreement”.
As highlighted by the DPRRC and others, it is a stretch to say that the invocation of the defence of necessity would permit the extending to all parts of the exclusion of the European court. I should be grateful if the Minister could state in clear terms why the Government’s legal position, which does not clarify this, states so.
There is a policy concern, which was aired so well by Stephen Farry MP when this was considered in Committee in the Commons. If, as seems to be the Government’s position, there will still be Northern Ireland direct interaction with the EU single market—with north-south trade as a major part of the Northern Ireland economy—without the European court having application, it puts at risk what that genuine market access is for Northern Ireland. He made that point in clear terms and I need not add to it, because the case is very strong. The policy paper The UK’s Solution, when it highlighted the problems, did not suggest the removal of the court altogether either. So is this a red line in the talks for the Government?
Secondly, concern has been raised about human rights consideration. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has highlighted the fact that the breadth of the powers in
“Clause 13 of the Bill would restrict the CJEU’s interpretive role in disputes relevant to Protocol Article 2”.
We discussed on Monday the need for that to be dynamic in relation to the obligations under Article 2, and its potential removal will create concern. I hope that the Minister is able to be clear, in response to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, that there would be no diminution of rights.
Given that the Government have not made the case, and given the concerns about the impact on the operation of the single market and Northern Ireland’s position within that, as well as the human rights concern, I beg to move.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I shall not repeat myself, but I shall draw attention to the fact that, in the debate on the previous group, the Minister kept telling us that the word “appropriate” had been used in circumstances like these, as if that was something to be greeted with joy. Each of those pieces of legislation was a dreadful abdication by Parliament of its responsibilities. Even if the Minister is right—I am not challenging his veracity or judgment; let us assume he is right—that so far none of them has caused any problems, it would be nice to know that and I take it from the Minister that none has, but that does not mean that they may not cause huge problems in the future, or that when we have a change of Government, which we may have, that will not cause problems when their Ministers decide that they are going to apply these regulations. I really find that argument “It has been done before; therefore it is a precedent”—and I am a lawyer—but I do not think all precedents are wise and that one is a particularly unwise one.
I know I am trespassing back on to the previous debate, but I have another concern. During his reply, the Minister offered a number of reasons why this regulatory-making power was needed. Fine, but why are they not then put in the legislation, so that we can have a look at what these regulatory powers, at any rate at the moment, are designed to address? For the purposes of this group, if there are matters which the Government have in mind which they think can be served by a regulatory-making power, fine, but let us see what the primary legislation should contain.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 21B, 21C, 23B and 23C, in my name and the names of my noble friends Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lady Goudie. I am grateful for their support.
On Amendment 21B, Clause 13(1) removes the jurisdiction of the EU’s Court of Justice altogether, but the Court of Justice jurisdiction is essential to the operation of the single electricity market to keep the lights on in Northern Ireland, which the UK Government have said they wish to see remaining unaffected. This amendment ensures that there will be no inadvertent disruption to the single electricity market through the coming into force of this clause. Surely the Government should accept that.
On Amendment 21C, Clauses 13(4) and (5) allow a Minister of the Crown to make regulation in relation to any provision of the protocol relevant to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice or the application, supervision and enforcement of the protocol. There is a possibility that this could inadvertently affect the operation of the single electricity market. This amendment requires the Minister to make and publish an impact assessment prior to regulating under this clause in order to prevent such a risk to the single electricity market. I do not see what the problem with my amendment might be; it seems to me entirely reasonable.
On Amendment 23B, the operation of the single electricity market on the island of Ireland comes under the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union and is required to be interpreted in the light of case law of the CJEU. The scope of Clause 14 makes this impossible. This amendment would ensure that Ministers regulating in this area under Clause 14(4) would have to make and publish an impact assessment, prior to the regulation, in order to consider its possible negative implications on other aspects of the protocol that the Government wish to protect, including the single electricity market. Again, I cannot see what objection there might be to Amendment 23B.
On Amendment 23C, the operation of the single electricity market on the island of Ireland comes under the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the EU and is required to be interpreted in the light of its case law. The scope of Clause 14 makes this impossible and puts Article 9, on the single electricity market, at risk of being excluded from the protocol by accident, even though the Government say they wish to protect it. This amendment would ensure that the functioning of the single electricity market is specifically protected from the scope of this clause to maintain its operation, which is necessary for the electricity supply in Northern Ireland. Again, surely this is a no-brainer for all of us, including government Ministers.
By way of background, a wholesale electricity market is where electricity is bought and sold before being delivered to consumers. Market arrangements require generators and wholesale suppliers of electricity to forecast their generation and consumption and to bid at the price at which they are prepared to buy and sell. Competition between suppliers with equal access to a grid system should ensure value for customers, with a market price based on the minimisation of production cost.
Power markets have been evolving across Europe since the early 1990s. Since the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty in late 2009, the EU gained formal competences in energy and embarked on electricity market reform. A core part of this was the so-called third energy package. To enable cross-border trade in electricity and gas, each coupled market adopts a common set of rules and standardised wholesale trading arrangements so that system operators can work together to allocate cross-border capacity and optimise cross-border flows. This is what is at work in the integrated single electricity market on the island of Ireland.
The SEM is a cross-jurisdictional wholesale electricity market that came into being in 2007. It allows generators and suppliers to trade electricity in a single market across the island of Ireland. Fundamentally, it helps ensure that there is sufficient capacity to meet electricity demand at all times in both Ireland and Northern Ireland. Being part of an all-island market brings benefits to electricity customers in Northern Ireland by reducing electricity prices and increasing the security of supply. It was further cemented in 2018 with the integrated pan-European market design of the third energy package.
An intergovernmental UK-Ireland memorandum of understanding co-ordinates non-mandated market arrangements, but the SEM functions through an overarching European Union-mandated convergence of energy policy and market structures, as governed by certain parts of the European Union acquis. The Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol to the withdrawal agreement provides the basis for the continued operation of the single electricity market after Brexit by including the minimal amount necessary of EU laws on energy markets.
To do this, Article 9 states:
“The provisions of Union law governing wholesale electricity markets listed in Annex 4 to this Protocol shall apply, under the conditions set out in that Annex, to and in the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland.”
Annexe 4 then lists seven Acts that apply to the
“generation, transmission, distribution, and supply of electricity, trading in wholesale electricity or cross-border exchanges in electricity.”
These key elements of European energy law applying in Northern Ireland are, notably, largely in devolved competences. For example, the EU’s regulation on energy market integrity and transparency—REMIT—prohibits insider trading and energy market manipulation and makes provision for the monitoring of the market by regulators. REMIT continues to apply in Northern Ireland through the protocol.
The application of these Acts entails circumscribed participation in the EU market, which requires acceptance of EU governance. In practice, this means that the ultimate arbiter of EU law is the Court of Justice of the European Union. An essential criterion for transposing EU law into single electricity market rules is that single market rules cannot be differentiated across jurisdictions and alignment must be guaranteed for the future.
Article 13 of the protocol states that
“the provisions of this Protocol referring to Union law or to concepts or provisions thereof shall in their implementation and application be interpreted in conformity with the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.”
This includes the provisions listed under Annexe 4. This is to secure the governance of the internal energy market, as it covers the single electricity market. This is removed by the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, Clause 13(1) of which sets out:
“Any provision of the Northern Ireland Protocol, or … the EU withdrawal agreement, is excluded … so far as it confers jurisdiction on the European Court in relation to … the Northern Ireland Protocol”.
The Explanatory Notes underline:
“That is the case whether the CJEU jurisdiction relates to excluded provisions or any other matter.”
With the removal of the CJEU and no means of referencing its case law or jurisprudence, the governance of the single electricity market is put in jeopardy and, thus, the continued functioning of the all-island market is as well. This is happening at a time when the pricing of electricity, security of supply and balancing supply and demand are at an almost unprecedented level of concern to consumers this winter on the island of Ireland and elsewhere in the world, including Great Britain.
A lot of concern has rightly been expressed about the unknowable consequences of the Bill, given that so much of its effect will come through powers that are neither clearly demarcated nor spelled out—the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, has spoken at length on this. However, I draw to noble Lords’ attention the dangers in what we do know about the Bill’s actual, if unintended, effects. On coming into force, even this skeleton Bill will be powerful enough to undermine the foundations of the protocol completely, with direct, immediate and practical consequences for Northern Ireland. This is primarily because the Bill removes the Court of Justice of the EU from having a role in the oversight of the protocol. Clause 13(1) sets out that any provision of the Northern Ireland protocol or withdrawal agreement is excluded so far as it confers jurisdiction on the Court of Justice,
“whether the jurisdiction relates to excluded provision or any other matter”.
As such, Court of Justice jurisdiction is removed altogether. Furthermore, Clause 20 means that domestic courts and tribunals cannot refer any matter to the Court of Justice in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol, and that they will not be required to follow the jurisprudence of the CJEU from the day the Act comes into force.
This is not merely a theological matter. Article 12(4) of the protocol spells out what the Court of Justice of the European Union has been given jurisdiction over for Northern Ireland. This includes customs and the movement of goods entering Northern Ireland and technical regulations and certification for goods, but it also includes the single electricity market. In addition, Article 13 states that the implementation and application of the protocol provisions referring to union law, concepts or provisions should be
“interpreted in conformity with the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.”
The EU has been absolutely clear that Northern Ireland’s free access to the EU single market is contingent on the jurisdiction and jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the EU.
I am sorry that I am speaking at some length on this, but it is quite complex and important. To change the position of the Court of Justice as proposed in the Bill would immediately erode the basis for an open Irish border. It is either naive or disingenuous of the Government to claim that the single electricity market will be unaffected by the Bill: the position of the Court of Justice is absolutely essential to its operation. The prospect of the collapse of the single electricity market at one point led UK officials to consider putting generators on barges in the Irish Sea in the event of a no-deal Brexit, which tells us that this is deadly serious.
I remind the Government, keen as they are to claim sovereignty over Northern Ireland, that it is their duty, not the European Union’s, to keep the lights on in Northern Ireland. If the EU decides to prevent the continued free flow of goods and electricity across the Irish border because of the removal of the CJEU from the protocol, it would be not a sign of its malintent but rather a well-flagged consequence of the wanton recklessness of the Government in writing the Bill in this way.
I will refer to another skeleton analogy: the Government are trying to claim that the benefits of the standing, walking protocol can be retained at the same time as cutting off its head and removing several of its major bones. Equipping the Government to fashion new plastic limbs over time to fix the problems that the Bill is deliberately inflicting on the protocol is one thing, but removing the head, in the form of Court of Justice jurisdiction, will of course mean that the protocol simply cannot function, and thus neither can things that it sustains, such as the open border and the single electricity market.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, in declaring an interest as chairman of the Climate Change Committee, I wish to follow on from what has just been said. As the Democratic Unionist Party knows, we have reached out to Northern Ireland particularly because of the difficulties the economics of that part of the United Kingdom have in meeting the climate change requirements. Indeed, I found myself in what my noble friends might well feel are the unusual circumstances of defending the Northern Irish Government against an assault by Sinn Féin and the Greens, demanding answers in Northern Ireland that were, in our view, not possible. The Climate Change Committee is clear that we do not ask of people things they cannot do. Therefore, Northern Ireland has a much more limited demand on it: to reach something like 85% of the 100% we want for net zero in 2050. That means that the rest of the United Kingdom must do better to make this possible.
I beg my noble friends the Ministers to recognise that, although they know that I am deeply opposed to this Bill in every aspect, I am asking for their help on this because the Bill presents a peculiar and particular difficulty: the single electricity market in Ireland is crucial to trying to meet the requirements that we place before it. First of all, it is crucial to keep the lights on Northern Ireland—I ask noble Lords to forget climate change for a moment because this is absolutely vital, and this is why it is set up in this way. I know this because I had to understand it to do the work that we did to help the DUP present its case to the Northern Ireland Assembly for not doing what most of us would love the Assembly to do: to reach the net-zero target that we have as a United Kingdom by 2050.
I beg the Minister to take this very seriously indeed, and to think of it differently from the way he wishes to think about the rest of the Bill. There will be issues if we interfere with the single electricity market; I cannot even see how we keep the lights on now. We must make enormous changes to meet the net-zero target, which the Prime Minister reaffirmed today as essential for our economic future as a United Kingdom. So if we are talking about the protection of the United Kingdom —the union—this is crucial to get right. This is not just about keeping the lights on; it is about ensuring that we can go on keeping the lights on without costing the earth. That is going to be very difficult for Northern Ireland to do—I recognise that. We have had extremely good conversations about how we might do it, but we will not be able to do it if we throw this bit of co-operation into debate or dispute, because Ireland as a whole—as an island—must meet this target together.
Indeed, one of the arguments properly put by the DUP when we were discussing all this was that the Republic of Ireland has not explained how it is going to meet its targets—we accepted that. We said that this does not excuse us from being detailed about meeting our targets. Instead, it means that we must recognise that those targets are not going to be met on a north of Ireland basis; they will have to be met by Northern Ireland within the context of the whole of Ireland meeting them.
The detailed examination of this, as put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, is crucial in debating the Bill. In a sense, I wish that I liked the Bill, because that would enable my noble friend the Minister to see that I am being specific about this issue, wholly separately from the fact that I think the Bill gives the Government powers they should never have. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, again pointed out that, every time we discuss any of these things, the big problem is that we are uncertain as to how these powers would be used. The problem here is not that, but rather, without excluding the single electricity market, we explicitly say that neither the European Court of Justice nor its previous decisions can be used in these circumstances. There is no way that the single electricity market can be run unless we maintain and protect the mechanisms which have in fact proven perfectly reasonable ever since they were put in place. Consequently, unless we maintain those mechanisms, there is no way we can keep the lights on because there is no way we can make that mechanism work.
Similarly, to those of us who are passionate about the serious issue we have so short a time to fight—climate change, the biggest physical threat to our society—I say that we are now throwing into doubt, maybe for years, the mechanisms without which we cannot do that job in Northern Ireland or Ireland as a whole. I plead with my noble friend the Minister to forget all the other arguments and recognise that there is something here that the Government must change in passing this Bill, whatever else happens. The Government know perfectly well that I hope the Bill will not pass and that I will do anything in my power to stop it passing, because it is a very bad Bill. However, this is so disruptive that it must be looked at, even by those who believe in the Bill.
If the Government want the co-operation they are hoping to get through this Bill, I hope the Democratic Unionist Party will explain to them why they must protect the electricity supplies. There is no way of doing that—or of ensuring that we fight climate change in Ireland—unless we accept that the electricity system be excluded from the operations of this Bill.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I continue to be worried by the interrelationship between the trade and co-operation agreement and the withdrawal agreement. I mentioned this before in Committee on Monday, but I did not develop the point at all. The trade and co-operation agreement is 1,246 pages long. If you get to Part 7, “Final Provisions”, on page 402, you find a provision called “Relationship with other agreements”. I will just read it out because I think it is critical; we have been talking about Rumsfeld problems, but I think this is a kryptonite problem. It says:
“This Agreement and any supplementing agreement apply without prejudice to any earlier bilateral agreement between the United Kingdom of the one part and the Union and the European Atomic Energy Community of the other part. The Parties reaffirm their obligations to implement any such Agreement.”
This provision has been the topic of quite a debate around the place in articles, conferences and things, but it is an interlinking provision between the critical trade and co-operation agreement and the withdrawal agreement. As an interlinking provision, it means that, if something happens to the withdrawal agreement, that in turn—so goes the argument—could come back and torpedo part of, in some way, the trade and co-operation agreement, which, as I have said, is such a critical piece of our trade with our largest trading partner.
I feel that it is very important to consider that. First, I would like to ask the Minister—I am not sure who is answering this section; I now know it is the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad—whether he accepts that this an extremely important thing to consider. If by doing something to the Northern Ireland protocol and the withdrawal agreement you are causing damage to the trade and co-operation agreement, that could be very serious. Certainly, as you sought to make a change to the protocol, you would need to come back to a parliamentary process. You would need to stop and think very carefully about what would happen. That is why, when I look at Clause 13(4), naturally I agree with everything that the noble and learned Lord the Convenor said earlier about this, but I have an additional worry that any old Minister of the Crown could rush into making some regulations and not remember page 402 of the trade and co-operation agreement.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I want to make yet another appeal to my noble friends on the Front Bench to pause this ridiculous Bill. We heard a very powerful speech from my noble friend Lord Deben, following another powerful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hain. Although I understand what both of them said and endorse what both of them said, nothing that they said can make this Bill any better than it is—and it is useless.
In fact, it is worse than useless because on the one hand the Government are saying to us, “We prefer and want to have a negotiated settlement”. Amen to that. But how can you have proper negotiations if at the same time you are obliging Parliament to put you in a straitjacket—one that also confers on you frankly uninhibited powers. The whole thing is contradictory in so many ways.
Yes, we accept that the protocol is not perfect, although it was thrust on us by the Government and willingly entered into by them. Every amendment that comes before us shows that, yes, you can tinker here, you can tinker there, but you cannot make this Bill a good Bill. All the scrutiny from all the learned minds, including that of my noble and learned friend Lord Judge, cannot make this pig’s ear into a silk purse. It is impossible. If we are going to have unfettered negotiations, then for goodness’ sake let us pause the Bill and, as I said the other day, not continue, frankly, to waste Parliament’s time.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I keep hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, will say something with which I can disagree—but he keeps on letting me down. I strongly support Amendment 20, of course, for the obvious reasons that I need not repeat. I also support Amendment 21B, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and strongly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Deben.
I ought to declare an ex-interest. I used to be a director of a power company and, if I remember right, Northern Ireland is a net importer of electricity but a large net exporter to the Republic. The trade with the Republic is less than the trade that comes in from Scotland on the interconnector. It follows that, if the Bill goes through in the form it is in now, unamended by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, the collapse of the common electricity market will do very grave damage to the Republic as well as to Northern Ireland. For Northern Ireland, it is important for security of supply and to keep costs down; in the Republic, it is much more important because the Republic is a net importer; it is very short of generating capacity.
So I say to the Minister that I really hope he will buy Amendment 21B from the noble Lord, Lord Hain —I cannot see any reason why he should not. If he does not buy it, would the Government please produce before Report a clear statement of the discussions they will by then have had, if they have not already had them, with the Government in Dublin about how the crisis that this would create for the Government in Dublin is to be avoided or mitigated.
I will also add a word on the very important point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. He made it very gently. There is no doubt that the European Union means what it says when it says that, if we put this Bill in its present form on our statute book, the TCA bets are off. We are heading for a trade war if we do this. I hope the DUP will bear that point in mind because, although the trade war would be acutely damaging to the whole United Kingdom, it would do particular damage to the economy of Northern Ireland.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I understand what the noble Lord is saying—that the European Union would likely invoke some kind of trade war—but does he understand that, for many people in Northern Ireland, this Bill is the only thing that is giving them some hope that there will be real change? A trade war is very worrying, but there are also very worrying signs in Northern Ireland of deep unrest, concern and instability. That is why the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that we should get rid of this Bill would be deeply damaging to relations in Northern Ireland.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
With great respect to the noble Baroness, that is not what the public opinion polls are telling us. At present, they seem to be telling us that what a majority of people in Northern Ireland, and a great majority of younger people in Northern Ireland, are looking for is certainty, and they are reasonably content with the protocol.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
The opinion polls told us that remain was going to win the referendum—they were very wrong.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I have no expertise to match that of the noble Baroness. But I do think we need to remember that, in the last Northern Ireland election, the voting for the DUP was about one in five of those who voted—and, since the turnout was about 60%, it was a pretty low proportion of the electorate. It is worrying, or at least curious, that the DUP, which constitutes, on its voting last time around, 0.4% of the UK electorate, should be able, it seems, to wag the dog. It is a very small tail that is wagging the dog—and, if we all end up in a trade war with the European Union, it will be the tail that gets the most pain.
Lord Deben (Con)
Will my noble friend accept this, just to get the two noble Lords together—if I may put it like that? The fact is that nobody in Northern Ireland is going to accept measures that turn the lights off. Most people in Northern Ireland actually want to do something about climate change; the polls are absolutely clear about that. This Bill will mean that we will not be able to fight climate change properly, and the lights are certainly in danger—and, if the lights went off, I do not think that people would thank the DUP for that.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 21B, 21C and 23C in the name of my noble friend Lord Hain. It is a pleasure to follow him as well as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr.
I am in absolutely no doubt, and all the research indicates, that the protocol is essential to allowing the lights to stay on in Northern Ireland and on the island of Ireland—because we have been in a single electricity market since 2007. The evidence is there to suggest the support of young people for ending political and economic uncertainty, plus their support for action on climate change. I declare an interest as a member of your Lordships’ protocol committee; we took evidence in Northern Ireland and from community groups, and the most important issue to them was not the protocol: it was addressing the cost of living crisis and the cost of doing business crisis.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, referred to the fact that a significant proportion of people are opposed to the protocol. I acknowledge that there is unionist opposition to the protocol, but I also acknowledge that a large majority of Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly who wrote to the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, indicated their support for the protocol—and, in so doing, indicated their support for an end to that political and economic uncertainty. One way in which we can have economic certainty in Northern Ireland is through the continuation of the single electricity market, which deals with issues to do with decarbonisation and climate change. It is essential that the lights keep functioning, but it is fundamental to our businesses on the island of Ireland.
It is worth noting that the protocol provisions addressing the single electricity market on the island seek to ensure the continued operation of that wholesale electricity market from the end of the transition period. That is to be achieved by Northern Ireland continuing to align with a number of European Union directives on wholesale electricity. A report from the House of Commons some years ago indicated that Article 9 of the protocol, alongside Annexe 4, secures the continuation of Northern Ireland’s participation in the single electricity market on the island of Ireland. In that 2017 parliamentary report on Brexit and energy security, the parliamentary committee expressed its support for the preservation of the single electricity market, noting that it benefited Northern Ireland in energy security, decarbonisation and energy prices.
For those reasons, I make a special plea, as a resident in Northern Ireland, to support the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Hain. I urge the Government to accept them, because it is vitally important that there is a means to prevent unintentional and indirect negative consequences of excluding the jurisdiction of ECG on the functioning of the single electricity market. In that respect, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, referred to a large section of the population not supporting the protocol. We took evidence this morning from Peter Sheridan, the chief executive of Co-operation Ireland—and I freely admit that I am a member of that board. It was excellent evidence that clearly highlighted the fact that yesterday he was talking to loyalists and, in their evidence, they did not highlight any particular issues about any return to violence. He had a very constructive meeting with them, from what he told us. So things are not as acrimonious or about to tip into violence as some would suggest.
I urge support for the amendments and, in so doing, support to underpin the single electricity market, which has been an excellent product since 2007.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I wonder whether we should stop and think for a moment. The electricity issue that has just been raised is the most serious—but not the only—disastrous situation that will occur if this Bill is passed in its present form. Since we appear to be having the opportunity for constructive discussions between the United Kingdom—or parts of it—and Ireland and the EU, rather than killing the Bill, which I would like to do, perhaps we might look pragmatically at what might be achieved. Perhaps the Government would seriously consider not proceeding with the Bill until they can see whether the current constructive discussions are bearing fruit. If they do not bear fruit, perhaps they could bring the Bill back in a considerably altered form.
I will add one small point to the splendid speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, about necessity or appropriateness. It may just be that the Government could think about whether they could not require “appropriateness” in every single clause. There must be some clauses where “necessity” would be the reason for changing. I understand why we do not have a Bill with a great deal of information, because it might cut across the negotiations that are being made—but, while they think about how they could improve the Bill, if they were prepared to pause it, they could look at this point about why much of what they are asking by way of regulation could not be by necessity and not appropriateness.
Lord Pannick (CB)
As always, the noble and learned Baroness speaks great sense. I shall address very briefly a point that is not about electricity, although I hope it may spark some general interest.
Lord Pannick (CB)
It is getting late—we are almost at dinnertime, I hope. The point is about international law. Clause 13 would exclude the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which is conferred by the protocol. The test of necessity under international law requires consideration of the necessity for resiling from the protocol by reference to each individual provision: we do not look at it as a whole, we ask whether there is a necessity for this or that. My question to the Minister is: what is the necessity in international law for excluding the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice? What is it about the European Court of Justice that so concerns Ministers?
We have debated at some length, and I agree with all the speeches that have been made on the subject, the difference between “appropriate” and “necessary”, but the test in international law is necessity. Ministers may well think it is appropriate, for political reasons, to exclude the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice—I well understand why that may be the case—but can the Minister please tell me how it satisfies the test of necessity to exclude that jurisdiction?
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, this is the third day we have been debating the Northern Ireland protocol and I know Members may be tired or exhausted, but it seems from a unionist point of view that a lot of Members of this House are either tone deaf or totally blind—because they desire to be—about the reality of the situation with the protocol. I do not know how many times Members have to be told that the protocol is totally unacceptable to any unionist elected representative, any unionist within the Northern Ireland Assembly, or indeed any unionist Member who sits in either of the Houses here. That seems to have been just cast aside.
A few moments ago, we listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, who stressed how important it is that the protocol is not just re-established but is put fully into operation. Then she stressed how important it is that the Northern Ireland Assembly is given its place to support this protocol. I say gently to the noble Baroness, for whom I have a personal respect, having known her for many years in the other place and in the Northern Ireland Assembly, that maybe she has forgotten that majority rule is no longer in existence in Northern Ireland. In fact, the behest of her community, and indeed the marches on the streets and other activities by others she would not necessarily associate herself with, ensured that majority rule was no longer in existence in Northern Ireland. She is basing her remarks upon the acceptance of the Northern Ireland Assembly, debating and then supporting the protocol with Sinn Féin, the SDLP, the Alliance, the Greens and a few other parties, but not one unionist.
Maybe the Committee needs to learn this fact: the very basis of the Belfast agreement was predicated upon cross-community support, not majority rule. That was decided, and indeed lauded and applauded, by every part of this House. We are also constantly reminded that nothing, but nothing, must be done to undermine the Belfast agreement. I noticed that when the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was speaking, he mentioned the polls and what the polls are saying. I suggest we should be very careful about what the polls are saying, because they certainly got it wrong on Brexit and it seems that they got it wrong on the election in Israel just yesterday. I suggest that, since we listened to the Secretary of State say that Northern Ireland is heading to the polls, rather than telling us what the polls are saying, when the people of Northern Ireland speak we will find out what the unionist community believes about the Northern Ireland protocol.
It may surprise noble Lords, but there is a party in this House that when it takes a manifesto to the people, actually stands by its manifesto. I know that is a novel thing for the Government Benches over the years, but it is not novel for the Democratic Unionist Party. I suggest that noble Lords refrain from telling us, because to be honest, I am fed up with people telling us what the people of Northern Ireland want. Let the electorate speak. The Minister, or rather the deputy at the Northern Ireland Office, has told us that we will shortly hear the date of the Northern Ireland election. Therefore, the Northern Ireland protocol will be put to the electorate and we will see what the unionist population believes concerning that protocol.
I note, before I finish, that on a previous occasion when I was speaking the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said that it was novel for us to support or base our opinions on the Belfast agreement when we opposed that agreement. I remind him why we opposed it. It was because the Belfast agreement was putting unreconstructed terrorists into government who would not support the police or law and order. In fact, it took another agreement, the St Andrews agreement, to bring them to the place where they had to say that they would give up their weapons, that the IRA weapons would have to go and that they would actually support the police and call upon their community. So, when noble Lords mention that we did not support the Belfast agreement, that was on the basis of the Belfast agreement at that time bringing in unreconstructed terrorists.
As one who suffered from those terrorists, I say without apology to the noble Lord and to the Committee that I did not agree at that time, but I am also long enough in public life to know that the Belfast agreement is an international agreement and therefore this House has constantly told us that we must do nothing to undermine that agreement. I can tell the Committee clearly that, day by day, those who say that the protocol must continue are undermining the Belfast agreement within the unionist community. I trust and pray that the Government will wisely accept that the Bill is not perfect, but it is certainly better than anything I have heard anyone else suggest we should move forward on.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments brings us to the role of the European Court of Justice, with Clause 13 classifying any provision of the protocol or withdrawal agreement that confers jurisdiction on the ECJ as “excluded provision”. When the Government negotiated and signed the withdrawal agreement, they agreed to a limited role for the ECJ in certain cases. This clause ends ECJ jurisdiction, even when it does not directly relate to excluded provision, and there is a question mark about whether the Government are acting in bad faith on this matter.
Subsections (4) and (5) have been included, according to the Explanatory Notes, to allow Ministers to make arrangements for the sharing of relevant information with the EU. Can the Minister say more about this? To our knowledge, the UK has still not given the EU access to real-time customs data, as required under the withdrawal agreement.
The scope of the power in Clause 13 is very wide. The DPRRC said:
“Parliament has no knowledge of the Government’s plan but is meanwhile expected to rubberstamp all the regulation-making arrangements.”
This point has been made by a number of noble Lords, not least the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge.
Amendments 21B to 23C, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hain and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, on the potential consequences for the operation of the single electricity market, are very important. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify the legal position. I also hope he will rise to the challenge put to him that the UK Government have every intention of maintaining an all-Ireland electricity market. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank again all noble Lords who have spoken on this issue. I will approach the question on the single market in electricity, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for tabling his amendments in this respect. I will start with Amendment 20, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tweed of Purvis.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
Did I say “Lord Tweed of Purvis”? It is written in my notes as “Tweed of Purvis”. It is getting late. I am picking up on the noble Lord, Lord Campbell—it is catching. Maybe there is a suggestion in there—I would be the noble Lord, Lord Wimbledon of Ahmad. My apologies to the noble Lord.
The Government have references to the potential use of powers in Clause 13(4), which several noble Lords mentioned. In short, these would ensure an effective assurance and enforcement regime that could give confidence in the protection of the UK and EU markets. This includes fulfilling our ongoing commitment to provide data to, and to co-operate with, the EU, an intrinsic part of the overall model. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, also raised the issue of data sharing and I will come to that in a moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, rightly raised the protection of Article 2. I assure the noble Lord—I believe I said this on one of the previous Committee days and my noble friend Lord Caine also answered on this—that my noble friend Lady Altmann and I have discussed this, and we have made sure that the response is fully integrated. The UK is committed to ensuring that rights and equality protections continue to be upheld in Northern Ireland, in line with the provisions of Article 2 of the protocol. That is why Article 2, as my noble friend Lord Caine also made clear, is explicitly protected from being made an excluded provision in Clause 15. My noble friend discussed this with and responded to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and I know from exchanges between the two departments that we will respond in writing to the noble Baroness, as promised. We will share that with noble Lords, placing a copy in the Library. I assure noble Lords that this point is not lost. As I have said, where further clarity can be provided during the passage of the Bill, my colleagues and I will seek to provide it.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The noble Lord said that the Government take the view that it is inappropriate for the court of justice to retain jurisdiction, but why is it necessary—that is the test in international law—to exclude its jurisdiction?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I have given the Government’s position, and I am going to totally digress at this point from my speaking notes. I am reminded of something my noble friend Lord Howard, who is not in his place, said to me during my introduction back in 2011, regard people’s various insights. This also relates to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I remember a debate on the withdrawal Bill, taken by my noble friend Lord Callanan, during which certain specific issues were discussed and we talked about the case against the Government at that time. I remember the interventions that were made as I sat next to my noble friend. One was in reference to the actual case. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, corrected the Minister, saying that, actually, as lead counsel on the case, perhaps he could provide an insight. As my noble friend fought the defence of Article 50, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, stood up and suggested, “What would I know? After all, I only wrote Article 50”. So, on this issue, where I am testing a principle of law, I repeat what the Government’s position is but I take note of what the noble Lord has said in this respect.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I am glad to be of service to the noble Lord.
Lord Hain (Lab)
The Minister has been very generous and kind in saying that he was grateful that I raised the single electricity market, but he has not addressed any of the issues I put to him. If he is not going to do so in his closing speech, could he write to me and say in what way, apart from seeking not to jeopardise the single electricity market, which nobody wants to do, obviously, he is going to prevent it being jeopardised, for the reasons I enunciated?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I do not know if I disappoint or please by saying that there are several more pages in my speaking notes which may address in part what the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, and this relates also to his amendments on the issue of assessments on non-excluded provisions. To make a general point, whether it is the perspective of the Government in introducing the Bill or the sentiments we have heard from our noble friends, including those within the DUP, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, I think we are all coming at this with the end objective of ensuring that the benefits there have been from the market should be protected. I am quite happy to discuss the specifics with the noble Lord, together with officials, after the debate to see if there is a specific insight we perhaps have not picked up on in respect of these amendments, and how we can have a further discussion in this respect. I fully accept the key principle—I think we all do—regarding the protections that have been afforded and the gains that have been made. Of course, no one wants any lights going off anywhere.
It is the Government’s view that Amendments 21C and 23B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, would prevent any regulation being made under the powers in Clauses 13 and 14 before an impact assessment had been carried out with regard to the regulation’s effect on non-excluded provisions of the protocol. Regulations under Clauses 13 and 14 should not be presumed to have any impact on non-excluded provisions of the protocol. They are not excluded and will continue to apply—indeed, they will continue to attract the benefit of the EU law principle of supremacy.
However, if the noble Lord is simply after a more general economic impact assessment—this is where I am saying that a discussion may be helpful—I am not sure that these amendments are required either. Regulations under the specified clauses could be highly technical, with little economic impact. For example, Clause 13(5) specifies that regulations under Clause 13(4) may make provision about arrangements with the EU relating to the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol, including information sharing. As such, the Government could be forced to provide an impact assessment on, for example, a data-sharing system between two competent authorities, which has little or no impact on wider parts of the protocol or economic operators—or, indeed, any impact outside of government at all.
I assure noble Lords that the House will have the opportunity to scrutinise any regulations in the usual fashion, and that the Government will provide all the usual accompanying material under the normal parliamentary procedures, including economic impacts where relevant. However, it is the Government’s view that mandating by statute that impact assessments must be provided for every single regulation under Clauses 13 and 14 would be overburdensome, and it does not tally with the standard principles for impact assessments. To add to the point I made earlier, on the specifics that have not been covered in my concluding remarks, I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Hain. As I said, I believe that there is a common cause to be had here, so if time allows, I am quite happy for us to schedule a discussion on this as well.
Clause 13 outlines the exclusions that seek to redress the feeling that a democratic deficit is created by the arrangements for the implementation and enforcement of the protocol. First, via subsection (1), it provides that any provision of the protocol which confers jurisdiction on the CJEU over the arrangements in Northern Ireland is an excluded provision. This means that CJEU decisions, including infractions, will no longer have effect in domestic law across the entire protocol. Secondly, via subsections (2) and (3), it assists in restoring the Government’s sole oversight of arrangements on the ground in Northern Ireland, providing that the provisions relating to the powers and presence of EU representatives are excluded. Finally, to address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, via subsections (4) and (5) it allows for the establishment of replacement arrangements, which provide the ability to put in place new supervisory and data-sharing arrangements with the European Union. This will support assurance processes to protect both the UK and EU markets and facilitate co-operation between UK and EU authorities. That is why we believe that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Again, I am grateful for the discussions and debate on this group. While I am not suggesting that all noble Lords will have been fully satisfied by my response, I hope that they will be minded not to press their amendments at this time.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I reassure him that I am not precious either about my name or my title. My former constituency was Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, and I was once introduced to the Massachusetts state assembly by the Speaker as, “Jimmy Purve from Twiddle, Ettick and Louder”. He managed to get every single word wrong, and then he kept asking, “So, where is Twiddle, Jimmy?”
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and for the Minister’s remarks on Article 2 rights. The point stressed by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission was that the rights are only ongoing rights if they can be both interpretive and dynamic. If you remove the court of justice’s ability to do that, they stop being rights. We are obliged to make sure that they are “ongoing interpretive”, but the power in the Bill puts that at risk. It would be quite straightforward to simply say that that can carry on.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I hope we can make slightly faster progress on the Bill after dinner, having completed only two groups so far.
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill
Wednesday 2nd November 2022
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022-23 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 52-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (31 Oct 2022)
Lord Purvis of Tweed
Member’s explanatory statement
This is part of a series of amendments based on recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee which states that a number of subsections in the Bill “contain inappropriate delegations of power and should be removed from the Bill.”
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, this is a very short group. I will be quick, because to some extent the case has been made—well, the arguments have been presented. I believe that the case has been made; the Advocate-General might consider it not proven, however, for the Scottish reference.
This is another area where it would be helpful if the Government could give some examples of where they seek these very broad powers. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee again has stressed that what is to replace the protocol has not been determined yet because the underlying policy has not been formulated. This is an opportunity to provide some examples and to say why, if there is the defence of necessity, it extends to this clause. I simply do not understand.
If Article 13 of the protocol is to be an excluded provision, it would also be helpful to know the mechanism to supersede it if the Government secure an agreement, or indeed any subsequent agreement, because that is a necessary element within Article 13 that would be removed.
The final point I want to ask concerns Clause 14(3)(a) and (b). I do not know what powers the Government envisage will be necessary to manage the red lane—the EU lane—because that is presumably under EU laws and procedures, and obviously not under a dynamic mechanism. I do not know how the Government envisage the responsibility of managing that process under the EU rules.
My query about paragraph (b) is that I fear that considerable doubt will be raised over how the EU position in the single market will be able to be considered by Northern Ireland Ministers, of whatever Administration. I do not know what the consequences of paragraphs (a) and (b) will be. As I understand the Bill—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, might know if he has had an opportunity to look at this—regulations made under Clause 13(5) could reverse primary legislation that has been removed in Clause 14. We could be in a position where regulations can reverse elements in another clause of the Bill. I think the Government are tripping over themselves.
If the Advocate-General is responding to this, can he give some examples of these areas? That would go some way towards reassuring the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and me. I beg to move.
Lord Judge (CB)
I shall not help the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, out, but I will say that the next time we come to this Bill, I think we will find that Clause 22 is the most devastating of all the Henry VIII powers. As to this amendment, I hope the Committee will excuse me if I do not keep repeating what I have said and would go on saying. I thought of giving the Minister a sheet of paper for him to write on, but then I thought I had better take it away as he might keep it and write on it. That is my point.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
I rise to speak to Amendment 22 and, indeed, all the other amendments. I am conscious that this amendment and others like it have been developed in response to concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report and, as such, are informed by growing concern about the Executive’s use of delegated legislation. In the context of the legislative challenges posed by Brexit and Covid-19, there has been increased use of delegated powers, which has concerned the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and given rise to two important reports, Democracy Denied? and Government by Diktat.
The basic thesis of these reports is that there is a growing democratic deficit arising from the fact that delegated legislation does not afford the same opportunity as primary legislation for parliamentarians to scrutinise its development. The point is not that the delegated legislation is always wrong but that to avoid creating a democratic deficit, wherein the representatives of the people in the legislature are afforded less opportunity to shape legislation than in primary legislation, the use of delegated legislation must be limited.
As a democrat, I applaud this general approach and believe it is imperative in a functioning democracy that the opportunities for people to shape legislation through their parliamentarians in the legislature are maximised. Of course, there are ways in which a democratic deficit has been felt in our politics other than overreliance on delegated decision. In truth, the reason we are considering the Bill at all is the concern about the democratic deficit at the heart of the EU project, which was undoubtedly one of the key drivers of Brexit.
Brexit has been applied in England, Scotland and Wales with the effect that the democratic deficit arising from EU membership has been fixed in those parts of the United Kingdom. Laws are now made for Great Britain by Great Britain, but the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland has not been fixed. It has not been alleviated, it has not even been left untouched and it has not been allowed simply to deteriorate. The underlying difficulties have instead been allowed to become total, such that rather than amounting to a widening of the deficit—a democratic shortfall—that shortfall has been replaced by something much more radical: the complete negation of democracy in relation to the development of 300 areas of law to which we are subject.
The protocol that Parliament imposed on Northern Ireland against the clear wishes of its unionist representatives was one that, rather than addressing the principal difficulty with EU membership for anyone raised in the Westminster political tradition, has made it infinitely worse. In this context, the significance of Amendment 22—and, indeed, all the amendments debated tonight—is that it introduces not a regulation-making power that is part of a process that represents a step backwards, but one that is a step forward.
Finally, to unpack this problem, rather than using my words, I will use some very powerful words of a man living in Northern Ireland who wrote to my noble friend Lord Morrow, who unfortunately is unable to be in his place tonight due to a family illness. This man expressed his dismay at the actions of some parliamentarians from outside Northern Ireland towards our problems. I will be quick and quote just a few passages from his letter.
He writes: “I am deeply concerned about the approach adopted by some Peers who are seeking to remove the regulation-making powers from the Northern Ireland protocol rendering it ineffective.” He goes on, very powerfully, “Anyone who does not understand what a significant, democratic step forward that will be for us in Northern Ireland is completely detached from the reality in which we live and clearly has no idea what it feels like to have your votes slashed, as ours have been. I find it shocking that some Peers seem so absorbed in their Westminster bubble battle against delegated legislation, supposedly in the name of concern for democracy, that they should have completely lost their sense of perspective such that they cannot see how inappropriate it is to oppose these regulations in the name of opposing a democratic deficit. If they wanted to have a fight about delegated legislation out of regard for a concern for democracy, this was the last context in which to do so. It is so striking that the democratically elected House did not pick this fight on this. I would urge you to call Peers to recognise how these regulation-making powers will help restore some much-needed parliamentary democracy in places where it has been completely taken from us and help restore what was promised in the Belfast agreement, namely our right ‘to pursue democratically national and political aspirations’. That right has been taken from us in the 300 areas of lawmaking. These regulation-making powers represent a first step in their restoration. Rather than opposing them in the name of democracy, Peers should examine these powers in context and celebrate them for what they are, a critical step in restoring democracy to Northern Ireland.”
By all means, declare war on regulation-making powers that reduce democratic scrutiny but, please, do not declare war on these regulation-making powers, which take a first, crucial step in its restoration.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, many of us are worried about the powers to regulate, but it is not just about democracy. I have time for the concerns expressed in the email that was just read out—of course I do. I just point out, however, that the situation that we are in that is so objectionable to the noble Lord’s colleague in Northern Ireland came about because of the actions, decisions and agreements made by their elected Government. Sometimes that is how it works, too. The problem that I have with the powers is not just the issues that we have heard expressed extremely well by those far more qualified to do so than I am; it is that we do not know what Ministers intend to do with those powers. There is a circumstance in which the gentleman who wrote the email might find himself doubly aggrieved, because we do not yet know what it is that Ministers will do to resolve the problem that the noble Lord has, or whether the actions of the Government in the future would actually be ones that would satisfy that grievance. That is where I am coming from. It is because there is a lack of clarity, and uncertainty; there is an option to negotiate that is not being taken. I am now repeating myself, and using yet another set of clauses to make exactly the same general points.
I am not going to repeat what has already been said, but I want to make a wider point about the approach to law-making that the Government are getting increasingly fond of. We see some extreme examples of it in this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, when he introduced this set of amendments, said that he could not actually be clear about how Clause 14 would be used by the Government, because, in the words of the DPRRC, the memorandum has so little to say about this broadly worded power. Nothing is said about the sort of provision that could be made under it.
Clause 14 tells us—in case we did not know—that overriding parts of the protocol is going to require a whole host of consequential changes elsewhere, and that is what I will talk about this time when we are talking about powers. We have been here before. Noble Lords will remember that as we approached the end of the transition period, departments rushed to make various changes to the operability of retained EU law. In a worryingly high number of cases during that process, as I remember, the Government made mistakes and further, correcting regulations then needed to be brought forward. This exercise is no simpler than that. If anything—because this Bill is highly contentious and because of the wider context—it is even more complicated than that previous exercise.
We need to be mindful of how these things are going to work in practice. If the Government get their Bill, how is this really going to work? Have they actually considered this? Given the difficulties that the Government had with revoking things such as the duty to post reports to the European Commission, how confident can we really be that an as yet unclear policy direction can even be delivered in a way that is in any sense timely and accurate? That really will matter to the correspondent of the noble Lord opposite. What I am saying is, putting aside my dislike for the Bill, this is not a good way for us to be making law or for the Government to put their policy into practice.
Just imagine that this Clause 14 is available to Ministers —and I hope this does not happen, but suppose it did—can we have some kind of indication from the Minister of how long this process is going to take? How many SIs does he think are going to be needed; how will the Government sequence this workload? The lack of planning around some of this in previous endeavours has really caused problems, and we do not want to be in that place again. I still think this is a bad Bill in principle, but I am afraid that its implementation is likely to render it completely unworkable in practice.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate, which was short because, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, recognised in introducing it, much of the material has been covered before. Noble Lords will, I hope, forgive me if, brevitatis causa, I do not go over all the arguments already deployed and will accept, that, because they have not been deployed, we understand where they apply in the context of this clause, and will bear them in mind when considering our responses.
Amendment 22, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, removes the power in Clause 14(4). Clause 14 prevents those necessarily more broad and conceptual provisions from being relied upon, in the different legal context that will prevail under the Bill, to undermine the legal regime that the Government are putting in place for traders. The power in Clause 14(4) is important because it will allow Ministers to ensure, subject to the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, that the exclusions made under the Bill are coherent. It may, for example, be necessary to make alternative provision where any other provision of the withdrawal agreement or protocol so far as it applies or relates to those exclusions is excluded. It could also be used to provide clarity as to how the horizontal exclusions referred to in Clause 14(1) interact with other exclusions in domestic law.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, sought examples of how it would work out in practice. I ask the Committee to bear in mind that the position in which we are at present is one of anticipation of what will be required in relation to a dynamic situation.
The powers to make secondary legislation allow us to flesh out the precise technical or administrative details of the new regime. The powers also need to be broad to ensure that the Bill can address issues that will arise in future as EU rules continue to change. The Government submit that the powers are both necessary for the legislation to be operable and have been appropriately limited prior to their implementation. As I said earlier, I do hear the criticism in relation to breadth offered by various noble Lords in the debate today and at other stages.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, made points reminding the Committee of the context in which the Government bring forward this legislation, and I am grateful to him for his qualified support. The points he made were no less powerful for having been made before, in the course of various debates we have had at earlier stages.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, from the Opposition Front Bench, refers to the way in which more and more laws appear to be being cast in this fashion, with more and more use of delegated powers. I invite the Committee to consider that, in the case of this Bill, the Government are seeking to legislate in such a vital area, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, reminds us.
The noble Baroness speaking from the Opposition Front Bench posed a number of technical questions. The questions she posed perhaps require an answer in more detail than I am able to give from the Dispatch Box, and perhaps than would be desirable to the whole Committee—but, if she will grant me forbearance, I will write to her.
I have not yet addressed the question of Clause 14 standing part of the Bill. It will support the coherent functioning of the Bill. It is important to ensure clarity in relation to the interaction between excluded provision and any wider provisions in the protocol or withdrawal agreement to which such provision relates. Subsection (1) gives effect to this by confirming that any provision of the protocol or withdrawal agreement is excluded provision to the extent that it would apply in relation to any other excluded provision. Subsections (2) and (3) set out further the kind of ancillary provision that may be excluded.
I discussed subsection (4) in addressing the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, but I provide further assurance that the Bill seeks to establish a coherent domestic regime and that regulations can be made under it in connection with any provision of the protocol or withdrawal agreement to which this clause relates. The Government’s position is that the clause is important to insulate fully any excluded provision from being subject to obligations arising from other provisions of the protocol and withdrawal agreement.
I think I am following the mood of the Committee by not expressing myself in as much detail as my noble predecessor, my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon —or Wimbledon of Ahmad, as he was prepared to style himself earlier—dealt in, but the Committee as a whole will recognise that this provision is tied up with its predecessor.
I hope that, at least at this stage, I have said enough to persuade noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Advocate-General and I will be brief. I welcome his offer to write to the noble Baroness and those who have taken part in the Committee. The extremely pertinent question that was asked about the Government’s estimate of the number of regulations under the Bill that may be necessary to bring about a new regime is really important, so it would be helpful if the Minister could include it in his response.
I found it very interesting when he said that part of the reason these powers needed to be so extensive was that they needed to be sufficiently flexible for the Government to bring forward regulations when the EU changes its rules. I do not know how that brings about a response to the democratic deficit. Under the dual regulatory regime that will be put in place, we will be in the almost farcical situation that whenever the EU changes any of its rules, Ministers will bring to this Chamber negative instruments that will then be nodded through. There may be a fig leaf because it has the Crown on top of it, but it is not necessarily meaningfully different as far as people having an input.
My final element is perhaps for the correspondent of the noble Lord, Lord Browne. I understand and appreciate the frustration, and perhaps our considerations in Committee are long and tedious, but I have the liberty of putting forward amendments. They may frustrate or bore Ministers, but I am lucky to have that liberty. We cannot do that with statutory instruments, which are unamendable, so we do not have the opportunity to ask questions, tease out, challenge and maybe get concessions or further clarifications. If that is the case for framing an entire new system, that is really problematic.
However, on the basis of the Minister’s welcome commitment to write, in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
In Clause 15, Amendment 24, just for a change, Lord Purvis of Tweed.
Clause 15: Changes to, and exceptions from, excluded provision
Amendment 24
Lord Purvis of Tweed
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the Minister’s power to treat as excluded provision for a permitted purpose any provision of the Northern Ireland Protocol or any related provision of the EU Withdrawal Agreement.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
This is a variation on a theme, but this one goes even further—I can be even briefer. The DPRRC reserved its most withering comment for Clause 15. I quote from paragraph 56 of its report:
“Clause 15 contains a power of the sort we rarely see—a power that in essence allows Ministers to rip up and rewrite an Act of Parliament”
and then to retain powers, if any of those new primary legislative functions are, in the Minister’s view, not operating as they should, not to return to Parliament for new primary legislation but to bring forward further regulations. This also completely rips up the entire concept of post-legislative scrutiny, whereby we learn from elements and seek amendments. This is important because, under Article 15(3), three areas of the protocol are not excluded but all the others are, including processes in a joint procedure of dispute resolution, monitoring, evaluation, classification of goods and joint mechanisms designed to be under a process. If it fails, there are mechanisms under Article 16 for safeguarding and rebalancing mechanisms. These are all gone and we do not know what will be in their place.
I understand the arguments presented that anything will be better than what there is at the moment, which is one of the themes. We just cannot be sure, however, because there is nothing in here that offers that reassurance. The breadth of this power, which provides the ability to make primary legislation and then to effect primary legislation again, is really egregious. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has again referred to the issues raised in the eloquent letter read out by the noble Lord, Lord Browne. First, I want to say something directly to his constituent on behalf of the House. This is what the House of Lords does. We have a big thing about Henry VIII powers and would do this with any Bill. I fully expected that and nothing I have heard has been the remotest surprise in several days of debate on the Bill. There has been not even the slightest tincture of originality. However, the problem is that the Bill, unlike the other Bills the House deals with, is not quite being dealt with in the normal way. This is part of a three-dimensional strategy of the Government. The other dimension is negotiations with the European Union. When I said weeks ago in this Chamber that these negotiations would proceed and would clearly not be badly affected by the existence of the Bill, I was greeted with howls of disapproval. In fact, we all know that they are proceeding and they have not been affected by the Bill. That is one dimension and the reality.
The other point is that this is related to a strategy that may very well fail to get the institutions of the Good Friday agreement up and running before the 25th anniversary of that agreement. This strategy may well fail, but anybody who thinks that the immediate dropping of the Bill now would help with the return of the Good Friday agreement and that strategy is also wrong. The UK Government are acting under the international agreement—Article 1(5)—which permits the Government with sovereign power to address the alienation of one or other community, as we did over the Irish language a few weeks ago and as we are now trying to do with this issue, because there is significant alienation in the unionist community over the cause of the protocol.
I simply want to make the point that, although I have been slightly cold in response to the noble Lord’s constituent’s resentment, I understand it—but this is what the House of Lords does. It will do its thing about regulatory powers, delegated powers and so on, and it ought to do that thing. What we and the noble Lord’s constituent are entitled to ask is that it should take some account of the fact that we are involved in a three-part process. The Bill is not quite just a thing in this way. It coexists with other key elements: the negotiation with the European Union, which the House now accepts, somewhat grimly, is going on unaffected by the Bill and is by far the best outcome; and the need to act under our international obligations to address the alienation of one community. I simply suggest that it would be less irritating to the noble Lord’s constituent if those points were at least acknowledged.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I will briefly follow the noble Lord, Lord Bew, because he raised a point of great importance: we are breaking our teeth on a problem with three parts. At the moment, the Government are giving us absolutely nothing in terms of reporting on what is going on in Brussels. It is simply described as a “running commentary”, as if that were answer to the problem—well, it is not.
I lived through the last time the United Kingdom negotiated with the European Union as a third country, known as our accession negotiations. The process of the negotiations was reported on regularly to both Houses of Parliament by the Heath Government. No one said that was a running commentary or the wrong thing to do. We cannot go on like this, without the slightest idea of what is going on in Brussels, because it very much affects what we are discussing here. As the noble Lord, Lord Bew, rightly said, there is not the slightest sign to show whether our discussion here, and the Government pushing this absurd legislation through in an untimely manner, are either helping or hindering what is going on in Brussels.
I plead with the Minister to programme a moment at which the Government will give both Houses a progress report—not of everything going on in Brussels, but so that we have some idea of how that piece fits in with the others.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, Clause 15 contains what the DPRRC called the “most arresting” powers in the Bill, allowing Ministers to rip up and rewrite an Act of Parliament by granting the power to classify parts of the protocol as excluded provision or to tweak the precise nature of that classification, with virtually no parliamentary oversight.
The Minister will argue that the Government have constrained themselves by listing nine permitted purposes for which changes can be made to the application of the protocol, but that list changes very little. The DPRRC describes it as
“a very broad set of circumstances”.
Unlike SIs made under the EU withdrawal Act 2018, which must be accompanied by a declaration of the good reasons for them, the DPRRC says that there is no obligation for a Minister to include a statement setting out why the regulations are being made.
The DPRRC report does not take issue with Clause 16, although this also confers very broad powers on Ministers: they can make any additional provision that they like in relation to additional excluded provision. Once again, we need the Government to publish indicative regulations: we currently have no idea how the use of these powers would look or how often they would be used. We are told that the tearing up of the protocol is to bring stability and predictability to trade across the Irish Sea, yet these powers theoretically allow Ministers fundamentally to alter trading arrangements at short notice, with no reasoning, consultation or formal scrutiny. As with Clause 14, the provisions appear unworkable, and granting such discretion to Ministers is likely to increase uncertainty and instability.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, and I will take that back to the department. As I have said, where we can, we will certainly seek to update noble Lords on our current engagement, negotiations and discussions with our partners in the EU. From our perspective, the end objective is that the protocol must work for all communities in Northern Ireland, as I have said repeatedly. Clearly, it is not.
I turn specifically and briefly to Amendment 24, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed. I will take this together with Clause 15 as a whole, as he did in introducing this group. This amendment would effectively entirely remove the ability for Clause 15 to operate. From the Government’s perspective, Clause 15 is important to ensure that the Bill is flexible enough to tackle any unintended consequences or future issues that may arise and that threaten the objectives of the Bill, particularly considering the importance of the issues the Bill is intended to address. This means that Ministers can make regulations to adjust how the Bill interacts with the protocol, and to reflect which elements are disapplied.
I fully understand that there is concern about the breadth of the powers under this clause; we have had debates on this, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has raised this repeatedly. I reassure noble Lords that the power is limited to a closed list of specified purposes set out in Clause 15(1)—the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, alluded to this—for example, to ensure
“the effective flow of trade between Northern Ireland and another part of the United Kingdom”.
We have also applied the stronger standard of necessity to this clause, given its content. This is clearly an area where Ministers should be asked to reach a higher bar and have less discretion, a point we have debated extensively already. Additionally, as has already been discussed—and just to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, on her amendments relating to Article 2—Clause 15(3) provides that this power cannot be used to terminate the “rights of individuals”, the “common travel area” and
“other areas of North-South co-operation”
in the protocol. Of course, these are not the only areas of the protocol left unchanged by the Bill, but they are specifically defined here to provide particular reassurance on these very sensitive matters. I hope noble Lords are therefore reassured that Clause 15 will be used only in the event that it is absolutely necessary to address the Bill’s core objective of preserving political stability in Northern Ireland, an objective that I know all Members of your Lordships’ House share.
I turn briefly to Amendment 32 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington. We have already talked about the terms “appropriate” and “necessary”, and I put on record that we believe there is an appropriate level of discretion for Ministers in this respect.
I turn to Clause 16, which supports the functioning of the Bill by granting the power to make new arrangements in any cases where it becomes necessary to use the powers contained in Clause 15. This means that new law can be made via regulations, if appropriate to do so, in relation to any element of the protocol or the withdrawal agreement that has been the subject of the powers in Clause 15. This clause can therefore be understood as the equivalent of Clause 15 to the other domain-specific powers provided in other clauses of the Bill.
From the Government’s perspective, it is vital to ensure the functioning of the Bill and to prevent any gaps in the underpinning arrangements. Without it, there is a risk that any new issues arising from protocol provisions would not be properly addressed due to an inability satisfactorily to make replacement arrangements. I therefore recommend that this clause stand part of the Bill.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s response and for those of everyone who has contributed to this short debate. There is a fundamental disagreement of principle with the Government, in that, if they are seeking powers such as this, it should be as a result of agreement. These powers should be powers to implement anything that is agreed.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bew, that we should be legislating to implement the results of the negotiations. Legislation should not be tactical: that is not the point of legislation, and it will never be good if it is. Therefore, this is really quite important to bear in mind. If formal mechanisms have been exhausted, we legislate—but only after agreement or exhaustion of it. The noble Lord seems very confident that negotiations are taking place, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay: we have not heard the Government say that they are negotiating; they are describing them as “technical talks”. These include the “technical talks” about the application of the protocol. Do noble Lords remember “to fix it, not mix it” and “to mend it, not end it”? They are not my words but Ministers’ words. So negotiations are not taking place; “technical talks” are taking place. Yet Parliament is being asked to give Ministers powers to make primary law under regulations as a result of “technical talks”; that is jarring.
“(d) Article 18 (democratic consent in Northern Ireland)”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds Article 18 (Democratic Consent in Northern Ireland) of the Northern Ireland Protocol to the list of articles that a Minister of the Crown cannot exercise powers conferred by subsection (2) to provide cease to have effect in the United Kingdom to any extent.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 25 is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. The purpose of this amendment is to prevent Ministers using powers in the Bill to make Article 18 of the protocol excluded provision. Article 18 sets out a democratic consent mechanism that provides for votes to be held in the Northern Ireland Assembly on whether Articles 5 to 10 of the protocol can apply to Northern Ireland. We have already had considerable debate tonight, in the previous two sessions and during Second Reading about the issue of democratic consent. My only regret is that at the moment, we do not have the facility of the Assembly, the Executive and the institutions to provide that necessary democracy to the people of Northern Ireland.
Through this amendment I want to ensure that the wishes of people in Northern Ireland will be respected. I would also like to address the issue of the difference between the protocol and the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. There is a variation of the false assertion that the protocol can be sustained only if it enjoys cross-community support in Northern Ireland. While the Good Friday agreement provides for cross-community support on certain key decisions within the devolved competence of the Assembly or Executive, the protocol as an excepted matter is outside that scope and therefore no such requirement arises.
We must not forget that it was the UK Government, along with the EU, who negotiated this. I would like the Minister to explain how democratic consent as prescribed in Article 18 will be protected. I beg to move.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I also speak in support of Amendment 25, to which I have added my name. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, has clearly set out the importance of Article 18 of the protocol in allowing the democratically elected Northern Ireland Assembly to give its consent on whether to continue with the protocol in a vote in 2024. I will not repeat the many powerful arguments that she has used, but it is deeply concerning that Clause 15(2) as drafted provides potentially sweeping powers for a Minister of the Crown to remove this right by regulations. It is worth repeating the view of the Constitution Committee, which set out in its report on the Bill that Clause 15
“undermines the rule of law for the UK Government to invite Parliament to pass legislation in breach of the UK’s international obligations. Enabling ministers to do this through secondary legislation, particularly via the negative resolution procedure, is even less constitutionally acceptable.”
To refer to a discussion on an earlier amendment, I understand the frustration of the constituent of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, with what sounds like procedural issues. However, my noble friend Lord Purvis gave a powerful explanation as to why what seem like procedural niceties really matter, because they make a difference in the end to people’s lives if we get them wrong. It is not true to say that we have ignored them; in fairness, in every single debate I have said that I understood the strength of feeling of the unionist community. I have said that in every single contribution that I have made on this Bill. I understand that it is something that people feel extremely strongly about.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
In fairness to my constituent, I quoted only a very short paragraph. Before that, he went on in quite a lot of detail about what has been discussed here. So, in fairness to my constituent, it was a much fuller letter that we received from him.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. However, probably lots of people out there would regard statutory instruments and secondary legislation, and such phrases, as sounding rather technical—but the point that my noble friend was making is that they are important. If we get the laws wrong, they will directly impact on the people of Northern Ireland, who have gone through a difficult situation since the passing of Brexit.
The effect of Amendment 25 would be to safeguard Article 18 of the protocol and allow the democratically elected Northern Ireland Assembly to have its say. I think the noble Lord, Lord Caine, is going to respond, as he is sitting in the middle of the three noble Lords. I would be very interested to hear, for the record, whether he considers that there are circumstances under which he could imagine using the powers granted under Clause 15(2) of this Bill to remove Article 18 of the protocol and remove the right of the Assembly to have that vote in 2024. If that possibility exists, can he imagine that it would ever actually be used?
On a second issue, in an article in June this year, Tony Connelly of RTÉ raised an interesting question about which version of the protocol would be voted on in 2024 by MLAs. Would it be the original EU version of the protocol, or the version as amended by this Bill, if it were to be passed and enacted? It is an interesting question, and I would like to know the Minister’s view on it. Tony Connelly says that those parties that want the protocol to stay
“will have a very strong case to say in 2024 they are being denied a democratic vote that has been mandated by international law.”
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
I shall just intervene briefly in this interesting debate on the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. Just to follow on on what the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, has said about which form of the protocol will be voted on, I do not mean this in a trite or trivial way, but I suspect that, if it were the original form of the protocol, it is unlikely that there would be a meeting of the Assembly to vote on it. That is just the reality. As the noble Lord, Lord Bew, said, it brings us back time and again to the fundamental reasons why this Bill is before your Lordships’ House.
I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, say that the protocol is not subject to cross-community consent because it is a reserved matter and does not fall within the purview of the devolved institution. There are a couple of answers to that; the first one is that the idea that we can dismiss the issue of unionist dissent from the protocol on that technical ground is complete political nonsense. It just will not work. We are in a dire situation politically in Northern Ireland, and to use a technical argument is not going to persuade anyone; it is not a good argument to use.
On the actual position, if we believe that the protocol is a reserved matter, then the decision is for this House and this Parliament. However, the Government, by agreement with the EU, decided that there should be some kind of consent mechanism and a vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Then they decided to change the rules of the Belfast agreement and the consent mechanisms within strand 1, the Assembly, having given the decision to that Assembly, by taking away the cross-community element of the vote and saying that it had to be by a majority vote. I have said this before: this is the only single major issue in Northern Ireland that can be decided by a majority vote. Everything else is subject to either cross-community agreement or susceptible to being turned into a cross-community vote by a petition of concern. Why did that happen? In order to prevent unionist dissent from derailing the protocol.
When the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland (Democratic Consent Process) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 were debated in Grand Committee on 1 December 2020—the statutory instrument brought in to implement Article 18—the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the late Lord Trimble were both present and indicated their strong concerns, as architects of the original Belfast agreement, about how this drove a coach and horses through the consent principle of the Belfast agreement. People in Northern Ireland are mystified, continually, by people who stand up and say, “We are protecting the Belfast agreement; this is all about protecting the Belfast agreement”, and then they want to change the rules of the Belfast agreement when it does not suit them. They cannot have it both ways.
The fact is that Article 18 of the protocol is a vote four years after the event, four years after Northern Ireland is brought under the auspices of the protocol, four years after there has been dynamic alignment with EU law and four years after gradual separation between regulations and laws in Great Britain and the rest of the United Kingdom, in Northern Ireland. We will have had four years during which trade continues to diversify and so on, where laws are being made with no say, and then the Northern Ireland Assembly is to be given a vote, but not on a cross-community basis. No one says, “Are unionists happy? Are nationalists happy? Is there an overall majority?”, which is what the cross-community voting mechanism is. No, it is to be a straight majority vote.
All this is obvious to unionists in Northern Ireland. This is why we have the problems we do. Anyone who tries to pretend, without addressing these matters, without fixing these problems, that we are going to get anywhere is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. We are not going to get devolution restored, because unionists—not just the DUP—will not accept it. I respect greatly what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has said on the issue of delegated legislation and Henry VIII clauses. I understand all that and the noble Lord, Lord Bew, made that point. He talks about this draconian power to rip up Acts of Parliament and all the rest of it, but the protocol itself allows, in 300 areas, for EU law to rip up statute. It also provides for the addition of annexes to new EU legislation within the scope of the protocol, in addition to the 300 areas where we dynamically align. That can rip up Acts of Parliament.
So, I accept the problems that have been highlighted by some about giving Ministers sweeping powers, but we have to fix the problems that are there. We have to do it, acknowledging that if we do not, there is real damage being done to the Belfast agreement, as amended by the St Andrews agreement. That should be the priority. Articles 1 and 2 of the protocol make it clear that the Belfast agreement, as amended, is the key overriding objective. If people believe in that, then they should be prepared to consider carefully what we are saying, and they should therefore accept the rules of consent within the Northern Ireland Assembly itself. I look to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, to uphold this. It is ironic, given the changes that were made by St Andrews, that somehow there is now a drawing away from that consent principle.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
Although the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has developed his argument with great eloquence, and at considerable length, he has not yet explained to my satisfaction why it was that his party did not object to the holding of a referendum that took Northern Ireland out of the European Union against its expressed wish as being a breach of the Good Friday agreement?
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
With respect, I will answer the noble Lord’s question first. We had a UK-wide referendum. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, as provided for under the Belfast agreement. The United Kingdom is the sovereign Government. Therefore, it is not that Northern Ireland is some kind of hybrid or special joint condominium with the Irish Republic, and it can go its own way if the rest of the United Kingdom is doing something else. It was a UK-wide referendum and, just as in Scotland, where people voted a different way, so in Northern Ireland—but we had to respect the outcome of the UK referendum.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, for giving way. Further to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, would the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, accept that around 56% of the people of Northern Ireland voted to remain within the EU, and we did not give our consent to Brexit. While it may have been a UK vote, and the noble Lord and I will remember well the debates in the other place on this specific matter in terms of the post-referendum Bill and the arrangements thereof, would he accept that the 56% who voted to remain did not give their consent to Brexit and to leaving the European Union?
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
The 44% who voted to come out was a much higher figure than people had expected—but I accept what the noble Baroness says. But we are part of the United Kingdom and, just as Scotland and London and other parts of England voted in a certain way, we had to respect the overall vote. And if every single person in Northern Ireland had voted to remain—never forget—there would still have been a majority for Brexit and Northern Ireland would still have left the European Union, because we are part of the United Kingdom. The Belfast agreement did not create a hybrid situation in Northern Ireland. The sovereign UK Government are the responsible Government. We are United Kingdom citizens. Special arrangements were made for governance, but not for sovereignty, and that needs always to be borne in mind by those who try to conflate the two things. I think I have said enough on the specific detail.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I am grateful. I understand his arguments. It is not a question with regards to the result of the referendum. My question is in the context of having scrutinised many trade agreements and treaties, and the deficiencies in the CRaG process. I agree with the noble Lord that there are challenges when it comes to agreements made by the Executive under their prerogative power to negotiate, and then what ability do we have, even quasi-representatives in an unelected Chamber such as this, to raise issues? I get that entirely. But, if the Government secure agreement as a result of these talks, has the noble Lord given any thought to the mechanism for seeking consent for what the Government bring forward?
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
Well, there are a lot of “ifs” there. If I understand the noble Lord, he is asking, “If there’s an agreement, what should the Government do in terms of getting an endorsement of it?” I presume they would come to both Houses of Parliament and consult with the parties in Northern Ireland. As we learned from the original Brexit negotiations, the Government would be very wise to consult with the parties in Northern Ireland before any final arrangements are entered into.
I have a lot of sympathy with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that there is a lot of secrecy around the negotiations. Nobody is quite sure what is going on—technical talks, negotiations or whatever. However, I remember living through one particular week when the UK Government went off to Brussels and then came back again because they had not consulted properly. I would not like to see that happen again, because the whole objective here is to ensure that we can get arrangements which allow the devolved Government to get up and running again, with the support of nationalists and of unionists. So, before we came to any formal vote, I suspect that there would need to be quite considerable discussions and consultations with the parties in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I would expect that, too, and I think it is regrettable that we have got to where we are. I was one of those people in the other place who very regularly got up and asked Ministers about Northern Ireland and what the plan was, because there were obviously going to be these issues. There were other solutions; we could have had a customs union or some kind of single market arrangement that would have maybe dealt with this in a slightly different way. I remember talking to one of the noble Lord’s colleagues who said, “Well, we don’t mind what it is as long as we’re all treated the same within the United Kingdom”. Ministers cannot be surprised that we are still having these discussions now.
I want to talk a little bit about this issue of cross-community consent; I am just reflecting on the speech made by my noble friend Lady Ritchie on Monday. It seems clear that the intention of Ministers is to protect the Article 2 rights of individuals, the Article 3 common travel area and the north-south co-operation in Article 11. We have debated the protection of the rights of individuals before, but what we really need is some sort of assurance from the Government that those intentions are reflected throughout the Bill in a consistent and watertight way. So can the Minister confirm that there is no prohibition on the overriding of Article 18 of the protocol, which deals with cross-community consent? We have rightly heard a great deal about this issue, and I would like the Minister to address it to make sure that I have understood it correctly.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful, as ever, to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, for moving Amendment 25. Much to my astonishment, the debate has veered away somewhat from the strict terms of her amendment. However, let me say at the outset, as I have said before, that I very much share the noble Baroness’s frustration at the lack of a sitting and functioning Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly. Of course, one of the motivations behind this legislation is to try to facilitate a situation in which those institutions might be restored. It is sensible that we always go back to why we are doing this and why we are legislating.
I can also sympathise with the intention behind the noble Baroness’s amendment, but the Government’s view is that it is unnecessary. To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and I think to some extent the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, the Government have absolutely no intention whatever to use the powers in Clause 15 to alter the operation of the democratic consent mechanism in Article 18.
I appreciate that there are different views on the mechanism itself; they were aired to some extent a few moments ago. They have been debated extensively in this House, and I seem to recall that they even managed to make their way into the debate on the Ministers, elections and petitions of concern Bill at the end of last year and the beginning of this one—so, if my noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn will forgive me, I do not really wish to reopen that whole debate again at this late hour of the evening.
To answer the further question from the noble Baroness, the vote in the Assembly will be on Articles 5 to 10 of the protocol.
Lord Caine (Con)
The vote will be on Articles 5 to 10, regardless of any changes in domestic law made by this Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, will recall that securing the consent mechanism was, in the view of the Government at the time, one of the key measures which paved the way for them to agree to the revised Northern Ireland protocol in the autumn of 2019. It follows therefore that it would make no sense for the Government subsequently to remove what was seen at the time as a key part of the protocol. It is perhaps because this point is so self-evident to the Government that we did not see the need to protect this element of the protocol under Clause 15(1). The clause is not intended to provide an exhaustive list of every single article of the protocol that we do not intend to alter and therefore we have not listed other articles which we have no intention to amend.
For the avoidance of doubt, I can confirm to the noble Baroness that the democratic consent process remains an integral part of the Northern Ireland protocol. The protocol should not, and indeed cannot, continue unless it retains the support of a majority of Members voting in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Again, I hear the points made by my noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn in that respect, but I am just setting out the position as it stands.
I hope that this reassures the noble Baronesses, Lady Chapman, Lady Suttie and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, that we have no intention of using the powers to alter in any way the mechanism in Article 18.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
The Minister gave a reply to the question about what the basis of the consent vote in 2024 would be, but I really did not understand what he said. Surely the vote in 2024 will take place on the Northern Ireland protocol and its arrangements for implementation as they stand at the time of the review, not as they are now and not as they would be if the Government unilaterally changed the protocol and destroyed it in the process—then there would not be a review at all. The answer is surely quite simple. It cannot be said with precision, because we do not know what the provisions of the protocol and those for its implementation might be at the time the vote takes place, but that is what it will be on.
Lord Caine (Con)
The noble Lord is right that it is probably not fruitful to speculate on what the circumstances might be in 2024. Our first objective is to have an Assembly in place that would be able to consider these matters and take the decision.
In conclusion, I hope I have provided some assurance to noble Lords about our intentions in respect of the powers in Clause 15, Article 18 of the protocol and the consent mechanism. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed explanation of the Government’s position. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, my noble friend Lady Chapman and the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Dodds, for their interventions. This has been a very useful debate underpinning the principle of democratic consent. Irrespective of our differing views on this, I think we all believe in the value of democracy and people making decisions.
I would hope that we could have those institutions up and running in the short term, so that the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland could be protected. I will further examine what Ministers have to say in relation to the protection of Article 18. If I have any further issues, I will write to the Minister, under separate cover, so to speak, and I reserve the right to further examine this on Report if required.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
“(3A) A Minister of the Crown may not exercise the power conferred by subsection (2) before full consultations have been conducted on any proposed changes with—(a) the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission,(b) the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, and(c) the Joint Committee of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission,and the Minister has published the outcome of such consultations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a Minister to consult with a number of human rights and equalities bodies before using the powers in subsection (2) of Clause 15 in relation to excluded provision.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I rise to move the amendment in the name of my noble friend Baroness Ludford, to which I have also added my name. The brevity of my contribution should not be seen as representing any lack of seriousness in the intent behind them. It really is to seek assurance from the Minister at the Dispatch Box that the regulation-making powers in Clause 15(2) would not be exercised unless there has been consultation with the human rights bodies outlined in Amendment 26, and similarly that regulations will not be put forward under other elements of the Bill without similar consultation of the human rights bodies. I need not make the case as to why that is so important. It is simply a case of seeking reassurance from the Minister that, at the very least, consultation with these bodies will have been carried out before the Government bring forward any orders. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed—as opposed to Twiddle—for being very brief. I think that this is probably the shortest debate by far that we have had throughout this Committee.
I will address the two amendments together, if that pleases the Committee. As the noble Lord set out, these amendments would require Ministers to consult both the Northern Ireland and the Irish human rights and equalities institutions before making regulations under the powers in the Bill. As I set out—I hope fairly clearly—on Monday evening when I was addressing the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, the UK remains fully committed to ensuring that rights and equality protections continue to be fully upheld in Northern Ireland, in line with the provisions of Article 2 of the protocol. I think that on Monday I referred to the fact that, given my own experience over many years in Northern Ireland, I completely recognise the importance of those human rights protections. I often cite them when I am defending and supporting the Belfast agreement, as one of the key pillars of that agreement. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that assurance.
This is why Article 2 is explicitly protected from being made an excluded provision in Clause 15. The institutions mentioned in Amendments 26 and 47 are, as I have just stressed, important and respected institutions, established by the Belfast agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998. They therefore deserve—at the risk of repeating myself—our full and strong support. They undertake important duties and any change to their remit should, of course, not occur arbitrarily.
I will try to assure the noble Lord: the Government do engage regularly with these commissions. I last met the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission on 8 August. It has powers to provide advice to the Government on issues arising from Article 2 of the protocol, as things stand. Officials have already had meetings with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland regarding a number of these powers. I believe that a further meeting is being scheduled very shortly.
More broadly, the Government have engaged extensively on the issues created by the protocol with stakeholder groups across business and civic society, in Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK and elsewhere, and we continue to do so. This amendment would compel the Government to do what in many cases they already are doing and intend to continue doing. However, the situation in Northern Ireland is pressing. Therefore, it is essential that in certain circumstances powers might need to be used quickly. In normal cases, the Government would of course engage with stakeholder groups in Northern Ireland, but there may be occasions when we have to move very swiftly.
In that context, the requirements set out in the two amendments to engage with the Equality Commission and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission before making any changes to how the Bill operates or using any of the powers in the Bill—even though most areas of the protocol do not touch on the commissions’ remit—would be disproportionately burdensome and risk delaying the implementation of solutions for people and businesses in Northern Ireland.
However, I cannot emphasise enough the extent to which the Government are committed to no diminution whatever in human rights protections in Northern Ireland, an integral part of the Belfast agreement. As such, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s commitment. I hope he sees very clearly that we do not doubt his commitment or his work in this area. The challenge we all have is that there may be a situation where he is no longer the Minister. We hope he will have as long a ministerial life as his noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon next to him, but that is not guaranteed in this world, so this is about having statutory protections, which we will reflect on. We are considering the question because it does not necessarily delay, nor is it burdensome, to consult human rights organisations before bringing forward amendments.
On the basis of the Minister’s commitment, we will reflect on this. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
“(3A) A Minister of the Crown may not exercise the power conferred by subsection (2) before full consultations have been conducted on any proposed changes with—(a) the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry,(b) the Confederation of British Industry Northern Ireland,(c) the Federation of Small Businesses Northern Ireland,(d) Trade NI, and (e) any other persons whom the Minister considers appropriate as representatives of business, trade and economic interests in Northern Ireland,and the Minister has published the outcome of such consultations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a Minister to consult with a number of trade and industry bodies in Northern Ireland before using the powers in subsection (2) of Clause 15 in relation to excluded provision.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, we will build up a fair canter with the next couple of groups because their principles are similar.
Part of the thrust of the argument is that we should be considering how we approach a new regime regarding Northern Ireland as we would for all other parts of the UK. The amendments in this group would do exactly that. They would adopt commitments provided by the Government in other legislation for the implementation of other agreements, including trade agreements, the operation of the single market and consideration of how that market will operate.
For example, Amendment 31 seeks that when the Government wish to operate the framework, they do so informed by the statutory bodies that Parliament has placed in legislation that would operate for all other parts of the UK single market. They should therefore, similarly, consult the Trade and Agriculture Commission, a statutory body tasked with looking at what Governments propose for the operation across the whole United Kingdom, and the Competition and Markets Authority, in relation to the operation of the UK internal market.
These have not been considered burdensome or lacking in timeliness, since these are all provisions in other pieces of legislation. If the thrust of the argument is that there should be consistency in operation for these, surely the Government would want to put in place the consultation of the statutory bodies to inform and advise, on the same statutory basis as in the other pieces of legislation. These amendments should not be too troublesome for the Minister to accept. I beg to move.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, I hope we are speeding up a little. I will speak very briefly to Amendments 27 and 28 in this group, in his name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.
In relation to consultation with various organisations —not statutory bodies—such as the chamber of commerce, the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses, Trade NI, and, as mentioned in Amendment 28, the UFU, Food NI and the Northern Ireland Food and Drink Association, I wonder why those ones were chosen. If you are a member of Hospitality Ulster, you might be feeling a bit left out. If we are putting this in statute, why are certain groups put into statute and others left out?
Also, picking up on concerns raised earlier—I listened very carefully—proposed new subsection (3A)(e) talks about
“any other persons whom the Minister considers appropriate as representatives of business, trade and economic interests”.
The Government could be consulting for a very long time. Is the noble Lord not concerned that that could give a very open-ended power to the Minister, and would maybe provide him with too much discretion? I am very concerned about anything given to Ministers that allows them an open-ended process. Surely that would be of concern. I agree with the necessity of consultation with bodies such as this, and statutory bodies and so on, but I do not think it is necessary to put it in statute.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for introducing these amendments and for the focus on food and agriculture for the first time in our discussions. I understand the reasons behind the amendment, but there is a context here that has a particular sensitivity for the Government, which is that the obvious thing about the protocol is that, under the Good Friday, agreement we already have food safety and animal health bodies. Those institutions are not mentioned in this amendment, but when the Good Friday agreement was functioning it was agreed very early on that they were in play.
We have working arrangements to deal with major animal health problems and so on, and the protocol implies a totally different set of arrangements from those that any casual reader of the Good Friday agreement would say we have made no use of. We already had north/south bodies in place to handle difficulties of animal health, food safety and so on, which will now be reappearing in Brussels.
The difficulty for the Government is that they are well aware that they have to find some way to redress that, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has therefore raised a serious area of concern that requires widespread consultation. However, we will not get any real progress here without returning to the Good Friday agreement and without getting to the idea that Europe extracts powers to deal with veterinary health and food matters and lays down the law.
We already have in place north/south bodies where these things are dealt with extremely well—and have been for a long time. There is a reason why there is a problem here for the Government but, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is quite right to raise this general issue of consultation. It is very pertinent, and I am indebted to him that, for the first time in these many days of debate, we are talking about food safety, animal health and what needs to be done. If we act under the principles of the Good Friday agreement, something that is currently very controversial—such as the veterinary clauses of the protocol—could be put into a calmer place acceptable to both communities.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Very briefly, I very much welcome these amendments for many of the reasons that have been said. We favour a veterinary agreement with the EU to assist us in resolving some of the issues brought about by the protocol.
I use this opportunity to say that I agree wholeheartedly with what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, but remind Ministers of the amendment on consultation and impact assessments that we tabled at the beginning of this process, which we will come back to and want to see addressed either at the end of this process or at the very beginning of Report, if the Government bring the Bill back. That has not gone away and, much as we have engaged with this Committee process, those asks that we had of the Government remain on the table.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am extremely grateful again to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, for proceeding at a canter. To some extent, as he said, we are, to borrow a line from “Wish You Were Here”, going over the same old ground—Pink Floyd, for the uninitiated.
I will address the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord together. Again, I will try to reassure noble Lords that the Government have engaged very broadly on the issues created by the protocol with groups across business and civic society in Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK and internationally. I remind the Committee of something that I think was raised on Monday: over the summer, in addition to routine engagement the Government held 100 bespoke sessions with more than 250 businesses, business representative organisations and regulators.
Within my department, Northern Ireland Office Ministers held discussions with a wide range of businesses and organisations, including a number of those not actually named in the amendments tabled by the noble Lord and his colleague, such as the Dairy Council, Hospitality Ulster, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn, the Northern Ireland Grain Trade Association, the Northern Ireland Meat Exporters Association and the Northern Ireland Poultry Federation, either individually or as part of the Northern Ireland Business Brexit Working Group. In fact, the noble Lord might or might not be aware that most Northern Ireland food and drink representative bodies—although not one of those listed in his amendment, Food NI—are members of the Northern Ireland Business Brexit Working Group, with which we engage regularly, as are the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium, the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the CBI in Northern Ireland.
Alongside this engagement, we have made visits to a number of individual businesses. I reminded the Committee on Monday about a farm I visited between Newry and Armagh during the summer, where senior representatives of the Ulster Farmers Union were indeed present, and where we discussed a number of issues relating to the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol in respect of the dairy sector. So the Government have already been conducting a detailed programme of engagement to inform the specific design of the regime in Northern Ireland that will be created by this Bill, and I give every assurance that we will continue to do so.
The noble Lord’s amendments would compel Ministers to engage in consultation with specific organisations as set out in the amendment, but as I said, there are many others that we are in discussions with that are not mentioned in those amendments. In many cases, the consultations that would be set out in statute would not necessarily be pertinent or proportionate to the regulations themselves and would lead only to further delays in implementing solutions. For example, I think the Committee would agree that the Northern Ireland Food and Drink Association might not necessarily need to be consulted on VAT applied to domestic energy saving materials.
However, the powers in the Bill might need to be used quickly, and while in normal cases the Government would seek to engage with stakeholder groups, there may be occasions on which the urgency of a situation would make that unnecessary and therefore it should not be compulsory. Given the extent of the consultation we are already carrying out with business organisations and others in Northern Ireland, this amendment would risk tying the Government’s hands behind their back.
Regarding the publication of consultations, it is vital that we be able to have free and frank discussions in confidence with as many groups and organisations as possible, in which they can freely express their views to government, sometimes in forthright terms. I am sure the noble Lord would not want them to be constrained in so doing, but the amendment might well inhibit that. Of course, the outcome of our engagement will be considered and reflected in the final regulations, which the House, as has been mentioned in earlier debates, will have an opportunity to consider and scrutinise under the normal procedures. In our view, we do not need a statutory obligation to do something we are already doing with a far larger number of organisations and bodies than the amendment would have us commit to. In that spirit, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
On the government impact assessment set out in Amendment 74, I understand completely and sympathise with the desire for an assessment of the arrangements under the new regime. I will try to reassure noble Lords that while the Bill does not at present have an impact assessment, the full details of any new regime will be set out in regulations alongside and under the Bill, including the economic impact where appropriate. We do not, however, believe it would be appropriate to mandate by statute that the Government must in all circumstances produce an economic impact assessment before the Bill can be brought into full force. Conducting an impact assessment, while important, is not and never has been a statutory bar to making legislation, and for that reason I invite the noble Lord not to move Amendment 74.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful for the Minister’s response and I am not entirely surprised by it. I mean no disrespect by that. There is a distinction between engagement—I welcome the engagement that is taking place—in how the Government are informed about the operation of the framework, and the regulations in the two parts: first, to change the exclusion areas, to alter them, to expand them and to diminish them; and, secondly, to bring forward regulations. When we in Parliament are then asked to approve them, our knowing that consultation has been carried out is an important factor when we are scrutinising them.
The second issue is consultation with the Trade and Agriculture Commission and the Competitions and Markets Authority. I will not labour the point, but it is certainly not tying hands behind Ministers’ backs to consult those organisations before bringing forward regulations, because that is a statutory duty in other legislative areas for the functioning of the UK single market. But I hear what the Minister has said, and I understand the engagement. It is reassuring that that engagement will carry on. I will, of course, reflect on the Minister’s comments in more detail, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
“(3A) A Minister of the Crown may not exercise the power conferred by subsection (2) before full consultations have been conducted on any proposed changes with the relevant Northern Ireland departments, including the Department for the Economy, and the Minister has published the outcome of such consultations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a Minister to consult with relevant Departments in the Northern Ireland Executive before using the powers in subsection (2) of Clause 15 in relation to excluded provision.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The amendments in this group are slightly different. It is striking that, of the information provided since the protocol was first agreed and then more recently, the most robust has been from the statistics authority of Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Department for the Economy. HMRC, BEIS and others have been catching up in trying to find information about the functioning of the internal market. It is interesting, after all these years, how little data has been captured about the internal market, presumably because we have never really needed to do it. That was exposed, to some extent, when we considered the now enacted United Kingdom Internal Market Bill.
The amendments in this group are similar to the extent of seeking the transparency that the devolved Administration have been formally consulted and asked for reports on the likely impact on the functioning economy of Northern Ireland. The reason we would put forward the argument that this is of value is that, if we are going to be—as the Government intend—operating in a dual regulatory regime, the necessity of having the Northern Ireland Executive and officials within the relevant departments in the Northern Ireland Executive having published information as to what the impact will be of how that will operate, will be very important.
If the Government are sincere that they want to have a sustainable solution to some of these challenges, we need better data. Therefore, the best organisations to provide that data would be the ones listed in these amendments, in partnership with the CMA and the Office for the Internal Market. If the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and others is that this is much more rationalised into the internal market processes, the regulatory-making power under this Bill should basically be brought into the operation of the UK Internal Market Act. At the very least, more transparency, openness and involvement of the relevant departments of the Northern Ireland Executive would, I hope, be constructive. These are probing amendments, again seeking reassurance from the Minister at the Dispatch Box. I hope that they are seen in a positive manner. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the continued absence of a formal budget for the coming year is a pressing problem. While there may be a draft budget, departments are unable to plan ahead, and this undermines both consumer and business confidence at the worst time. As-yet unspecified changes to the protocol are a risk to the Northern Ireland economy, which is one of the reasons why we, and many business organisations, would like to see a detailed impact assessment from the Government, alongside indicative regulations. Engaging with those departments in the weeks and months ahead is very important, as they know the Northern Ireland economy far better than any Minister in Whitehall. Can the Minister outline how frequently these discussions are taking place in Northern Ireland? Have the Government shared detailed proposals with their Northern Ireland counterparts? If they have, why should not Parliament see what those plans are as well?
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, once again I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, for speaking to Amendments 29 and 30, which I will address together. I will try to be very brief in this response, because the answers are actually very similar to the ones I gave in response to the last group. That is, the UK Government, since this Bill was introduced, have engaged extensively across Northern Ireland on the use of the powers in the Bill, including with the Northern Ireland Executive, with Ministers in the Executive when Ministers were in place, and with Northern Ireland departments. The expertise of officials in the Northern Ireland departments, to whom the noble Lord has just referred, is absolutely invaluable and crucial, and I take his point about budgets. Obviously, there are ongoing discussions about how that issue needs to be addressed in the absence of a functioning Executive and Assembly—but I cannot really go much beyond saying that this evening.
As of a minute past midnight on 29 October, we have no Ministers. The views of civil servants are obviously constrained by their positions, but the engagement with them is absolutely invaluable. Once again, the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, seek to place on a statutory footing things that we are already doing. He has my assurance that we will continue to engage as widely and comprehensively as possible, including with the bodies to which he refers in his amendments. On that basis, I do not think I need to say a great deal more. We are committed to continuing that dialogue with all the relevant departments and bodies, so I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a similar issue. I think we are approaching the same issue from the wrong angle. My point is that, if the Government are putting this forward as their framework, it is important that the framework and the regulations—which will not be just in one go; there may well be a constant churn—are informed in a transparent and public way, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said with regard to judging what impact there might be. In order for us to scrutinise them, we should have a view from the Northern Ireland statistical department of what the long-term impact will be. It is not a case of engaging, which is what government should do anyway—and I welcome the clarity with which the Minister is doing it.
No doubt we will return to these issues when it comes to further pressing on what should be in the Bill about the expectations of who is consulted, how, and how we know they have been consulted. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Young of Cookham) (Con)
If Amendment 33 is agreed, I cannot call Amendment 34 by reason of pre-emption.
Amendment 33
Lord Purvis of Tweed
Member’s explanatory statement
This is part of a series of amendments based on recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee which states that a number of subsections in the Bill “contain inappropriate delegations of power and should be removed from the Bill.”
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I have a 25-minute speech on VAT and tax, but I might just summarise it for the benefit of the Committee. Again, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has highlighted an inappropriately wide delegation of power. Here, it is on what would genuinely be an extremely controversial and sensitive issue of tax powers, excise and tax policy. The Government have said it is “not possible” to make such provisions in the Bill. I am just testing why it is not possible to state what a framework would be for provision of taxes, VAT and excise duties.
Everywhere else, what the framework would be is in the Bill—and for good reason. People need to know what the tax powers are and who holds them, and of course it is of controversy that the protocol has these linked elements. So I am simply seeking for the Government to fill in the gaps, state in clear terms why it is not possible and give a bit more information about what they consider to be their proposed framework when they move away from the protocol in these areas. This is the first attempt to get some more information from the Government—because the memorandum was not clear—in order for us to consider it, review it and perhaps return to this issue.
I would be happy for the Minister to write to me on my final point, rather than answer at this stage, because it is genuinely a probing question. Noble Lords may well recall that there had been successful attempts to amend the cross-border trade Act in Section 54, which is the prohibition on the collection of certain taxes or duties on behalf of country or territory without reciprocity. That includes in Section 54(2) that it shall be unlawful for HMRC to account for any duty or customs or VAT or excise duty collected by HMRC to the Government of the country outside the United Kingdom unless reciprocal.
The Government seem to be proposing a breach of Section 54, because the regime that they seem to be proposing is that we would be accounting to the European Union for taxes which we have set ourselves. I am happy to be contradicted about that and similarly happy if the Minister wishes to write on that point. I beg to move.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 35A in my name on VAT and excise. I do not wish to prolong the debate at this hour. Very briefly, noble Lords will remember back in March when the then Chancellor Rishi Sunak announced measures in the fiscal event—mini-budget, estimate, whatever it was—that there was a zero VAT cut for households installing energy-efficiency measures, which would apply throughout Great Britain, but not to installation in homes in Northern Ireland of materials such as solar panels, insulation or heat pumps.
Consumers in Northern Ireland could not benefit from that VAT cut because of the protocol. Something that was warmly welcomed across the rest of the United Kingdom provoked concern and outrage across the communities in Northern Ireland. Mr Sunak announced that there would be extra money provided by way of Barnett consequentials to make up for it, but, as people with experience of the operation of the Executive know, sometimes the direct tax cut is the most effective and efficient way of getting these things done.
I have tabled this amendment to explore and seek the Government’s reasoning on their approach to the VAT issue. They have not gone down the route that they have in relation to state aid in Clause 12 of excluding Article 10 and annexes 5 and 6 of the protocol. They have not decided to exclude the relevant article of the protocol which applies the VAT rules. Instead, they have adopted the approach of saying there are large areas where we simply disapply that article and we can make provision by regulations in relation to the VAT excise duties and other taxes.
It is more akin to the situation that we find ourselves in with the protocol itself in relation to customs: Northern Ireland is nominally within the UK customs regime, but all the rules of the EU apply. What is the impact of the Government taking this approach in relation to VAT? Why are they not taking the same kind of approach to VAT as they have to state aid? What are the implications? It says clearly in the subsections what steps can be taken in relation to differences in VAT and making sure that the situation that we saw in March may not arise in the future, but what are the implications of not taking out the relevant article in the protocol completely?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I was wondering pretty much the same thing. This is a slightly odd clause, because it says a lot but actually leaves the door open to not doing anything at all. It gives Ministers the right to change
“any other tax (including imposing or varying the incidence of any tax), which they consider appropriate”.
That is fine, but they might not consider anything appropriate and might not do anything.
Subsection (2) says:
“The regulations may, in particular, make any provision”
to bring closer together, or reduce differences between, various taxes in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. I am sure that that is how the Government want to signal their intention, but the Bill does not do that—it leaves it open to Ministers to do nothing at all, or even to create greater variance in the situation. So I was curious about why the Bill says that, rather than saying, “We will make the situation in Northern Ireland the same as it is in the rest of the UK, notwithstanding the various revenue-raising powers that there are in devolved Administrations.”
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords. Debating the nice light subject of taxation for our last group is exactly what the doctor ordered. But I am extremely grateful for the brevity shown, and I will seek the same in my response.
I will respond to Amendment 33, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed. Clause 17(1) is drafted to enable Ministers to make provision about VAT, excise duty and other taxes in connection with the Northern Ireland protocol when they consider it appropriate. The Bill maintains the current baseline of EU rules in this area. The clause is required to enable the Government to make changes that, for example, lessen or eliminate ensuing tax discrepancies between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, support frictionless trade on the island of Ireland and preserve the essential state function.
As EU tax rules are dynamic, it is impossible to specify every circumstance where the Government may need to take such steps, and it will also not be possible to anticipate the precise nature of those steps for all possible scenarios. However, we have already set out some examples, such as alcohol duty and the tax treatment of energy-saving materials, where Northern Ireland cannot benefit from the same policies as the rest of the UK, despite these policies posing no risk to north-south trade.
The noble Lord asked about Section 54 of the cross-border trade Act—that is my favourite subject. But, in all seriousness, I will write on the specific nature of the question that the noble Lord posed to ensure that he gets a complete answer. Of course, I will share that letter with noble Lords and make sure that it is in the Library.
I turn fleetingly to Amendments 34 and 35 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. We have covered the government position on this before, but I add that we feel that appropriate discretion is a necessity if the Government are able to facilitate consistent VAT, excise and other relevant tax policies between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. It would be inappropriate to leave the people of Northern Ireland unable to benefit from the support available to those elsewhere in the UK.
I turn briefly to Amendment 35A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, which would make Article 8 of, and Annexe 3 to, the Northern Ireland protocol excluded provision. I am sympathetic to the amendment’s intentions. It would disapply relevant EU VAT and excise rules in domestic law, allowing a new VAT and excise regime to be implemented in its place. However, the Government’s view is that a blanket removal of EU VAT and excise rules is not the intention in this area. Instead, the Bill maintains the current baseline of EU rules but introduces Clause 17, in conjunction with Clause 15, to grant Ministers the power to disapply or override any restrictive EU VAT and excise laws that apply in Northern Ireland. I briefly explained why we believe that this is necessary.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I know that it is late and we all want to go home, but the Minister does not have to respond only to the amendments tabled. We are in Committee, and I would appreciate it if he answered my question about the drafting. It leaves a lot of scope, which may not necessarily address the concerns of the noble Lords behind him.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I think that I have answered that question. I am sure that when the noble Baroness reviews the debate, she will find that I have sought to give a specific reason why the Government have a different approach in this respect. However, if she has further specific questions, I am of course happy to discuss them with her.
In conclusion, as I have said, I have justified Clause 17 to the Committee. In short, it provides Ministers with the ability to ensure that VAT, excise and other relevant policies are aligned across the whole of the UK, including in Northern Ireland. We believe that this clause is imperative in lessening—or indeed eliminating—the unacceptable tax discrepancies that exist between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and I recommend that it stand part of the Bill.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful for both the Minister’s response and the probing questions. In a way, it is a shame that this is the last group of amendments this evening, because we will need to return to this issue due to its significance.
The Minister said that it is the Government’s position that people in one part of the United Kingdom will still be using a foreign power’s tax regime. The Government propose that the difference is that, unlike at the moment, where that is directly enforced under the protocol, they are seeking powers under the Bill for us to bring forward orders to do it. But the net difference is zero. I fear that this will just build up more resentment and more concern, because there will be the expectation of the correspondent of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that we have power over this now. Instead, as the Minister said, the Government will still be applying EU VAT rules in Northern Ireland for—as some will see it—a very justified reason, because it prevents the need for hard checks on the border with the Republic of Ireland. We are almost back to square one as far as the consideration is concerned, and there is little elucidation for it.
The former Foreign Secretary, Liz Truss, said that the UK should never have to notify another power—that is, the European Commission—on any decision about setting tax. Yet the Minister has said that that is going to carry on, even after the “technical talks” and this legislation. We will be returning to this issue, because what the Minister has said worries me. I hope that at some stage, he might be able to provide the information the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, requested and clarify what the framework will be, because the democratic deficit could be compounded rather than resolved. In the meantime, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill
Monday 7th November 2022
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022-23 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 52-IV Forth marshalled list for Committee - (3 Nov 2022)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
Before the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, moves his amendment, I advise the Committee that I will not be able to call Amendments 37 or 38 should Amendment 36 be agreed to.
Amendment 36
Lord Purvis of Tweed
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the Minister’s power to engage in any conduct in relation to any matter dealt with in the Northern Ireland Protocol, not otherwise authorised by this Act, if the Minister considers it appropriate to do so.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I move Amendment 36. As with previous amendments of a similar character, I am grateful for the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge.
Clause 18 was neatly described by the former Treasury counsel Sir Jonathan Jones as the “do whatever you like” clause. It was unclear in Committee in the Commons what the Government’s intention behind the clause was. Michael Ellis, the then Paymaster-General, said that the Government needed Clause 18, which is a power to give legal effect to a Minister’s conduct in carrying out their duties. He said:
“It simply makes clear, as would normally be taken for granted, that Ministers will be acting lawfully when they go about their ministerial duties in support of this legislation.”—[Official Report, Commons, 20/7/22; col. 1004.]
It is a great relief that we need a Minister to state that. It was quite telling that he said that they needed this power to make their conduct lawful, which would normally be taken for granted.
However, the seriousness is that there has been little explanation on what that “conduct” would be. The Government’s delegated powers memorandum did not explain it. Perhaps that is because they consider this not to be delegated power. The Explanatory Memorandum did, however, give some examples, including issuing guidance. As Michael Ellis indicated, it would also be instructing civil servants. The concern is that we have many other examples where legislation frames the conduct of providing guidance. As the Hansard Society and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee have highlighted, this is one example of disguised legislation. Powers on providing guidance can, in effect, have legal effect. For example, my reading of this clause suggests that it is so broad that it would allow a Minister to issue guidance, which is non-statutory, but also issue instructions that that guidance needs to be followed—which, in effect, is statutory. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is not within the scope of this clause.
The Hansard Society has sought an exhaustive list of how conduct can be described. If we are to be avoiding hidden legislation, the Government need to be clear in what they seem to do. In the UK Internal Market Act, which has been referred to previously in Committee, I tried to find some equivalent—and there is some equivalent when it comes to the powers of Ministers to provide guidance. However, there are a number of subsections on that power which restrict the Minister’s ability to provide that. Crucially, there is a statutory duty for Ministers to consult with those who would be in receipt of the guidance on the operation of the Act.
Finally, the DPRRC said:
“Despite its being highly unusual and its breadth, the exercise of the power in clause 18 will have no parliamentary oversight since it is subject to no parliamentary procedure.”
Previously in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said that this is not what we do when it comes to breaking international law. This is not how we should be making laws—so broad, and with potentially few restrictions. The Minister simply says that this is about what they do already. If that is the case, why is it necessary? If it is necessary, what they intend to do with it should be spelled out exactly. I beg to move.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I just wonder what Clause 18 is supposed to mean. Does it really mean that the Minister of the Crown may do whatever he likes? Yes, it does; that was what we were discussing on Wednesday, when noble Lords and the Government listened to me. I had a dream over the weekend that the Minister today is going to get up and say, “Lord Judge, you were entirely right on Wednesday. We have changed our minds: we are going to put this Bill into proper shape”.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to ask my noble friend the Minister what discussions there have been with the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments as to the process that will be used if these regulations are brought forward.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 36 and 38 for the reasons that have been so eloquently set out already—I do not think that I need to repeat them. The idea that Parliament is passing a law to allow a Minister to do whatever he likes without coming back to Parliament seems to be quite breathtaking. That is nothing to do necessarily with Northern Ireland or Brexit; that is to do with our parliamentary democracy. On the question of whether Clause 18 should stand part of the Bill, I would certainly support its removal.
I confess that I find it difficult to accept that just changing “appropriate” to “necessary” will actually sort out the problem that is inherent in so many of the measures in this Bill, because a Minister could easily just say that they are doing it because they think it “necessary”. Who is going to be able to challenge that? The law would still be changed.
I support the idea put forward by the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Suttie, of at least having approval from the Northern Ireland Assembly. This would once again be an example of the British Government doing something with Northern Ireland, rather than to Northern Ireland—as the current wording would imply.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, who highlights quite clearly the central proposition in Amendment 38, tabled in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. It is about limiting the control of Ministers under the Bill by ensuring that the Northern Ireland Assembly is given necessary approval of the conduct in relation to the provisions within the Bill.
Amendment 38 seeks to amend Clause 18, “Other Ministerial powers”, to ensure a limitation of delegated powers to Ministers—the very issue that was discussed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—and to ensure that
“the exercise of the Minister’s power to engage in conduct in relation to any matter dealt with in the Northern Ireland Protocol that is not otherwise authorised by the Act to a motion approving the conduct in the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
It throws up the accountability issues relating to the Northern Ireland Assembly—I hope that all the institutions will be up and running eventually—and would ensure that devolved regions and nations have particular control in relation to this issue.
It is worth noting that there were two important developments in the long road of the protocol. Today, the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, and the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, met in the margins of the climate conference in Egypt and agreed to work together to end the turmoil in relation to the protocol. Also today, at the meeting of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in this building, Vice-President Šefčovič said that if this Bill were to become law, the UK Government would put Northern Ireland’s unique access to the EU market of 450 million customers at risk.
I again urge the Government to put this Bill into cold storage and ensure that there is renewed political vigour given to the negotiations. It is only through joint negotiations that all the issues around the protocol in relation to east-west issues and to trade between GB and Northern Ireland can be satisfactorily resolved to the benefit of all businesses and people in Northern Ireland.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, when the purpose and the intended effect of a clause are unclear, it sometimes helps to look at the Explanatory Notes to the Bill. These are produced, of course, by the Government, and are designed to explain. But if we look at the Explanatory Notes to Clause 18, we see that the confusion and uncertainty are even more manifest.
Look at paragraphs 96 to 98 of the Explanatory Notes. Paragraph 96 tells us that:
“Clause 18 clarifies the relationship between powers provided by this Bill and those arising otherwise, including by virtue of the Royal Prerogative.”
That is what Clause 18(2) says. Paragraph 97 deals specifically with Clause 18(1). It says:
“Subsection (1) provides that Ministers can engage in conduct (i.e.”—
and I emphasise that it is “i.e.” and not “e.g.”—
“sub-legislative activity, such as producing guidance) relevant to the Northern Ireland Protocol if they consider it appropriate in connection with one or more of the purposes of this Bill.”
If that is the intended purpose of Clause 18(1), why not say so? Why not limit the scope of Clause 18(1) specifically to say that Ministers can produce guidance? We could then have a debate about whether it is properly drafted, whether it is too broad or whether there should be some controls. I am afraid that what we find in Clause 18(1) bears no relationship whatever to what the Explanatory Notes tell us that Clause 18(1) is designed to achieve. My conclusion from that is that there must be real doubt here; that Ministers know what Clause 18(1) is designed to achieve and are reluctant to be specific because they do not want proper controls on the scope of their powers.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
To follow the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I wonder whether one route might be for the Minister to give us a glimpse behind the veil. What were the instructions given to parliamentary counsel? In other words, what were they asked to achieve by means of Clause 18(2)?
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I will speak in favour of Amendment 38, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, to which I have added my name.
My noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed has already spelled out in great detail the potentially huge increase in power that Clause 18 could grant to a Minister of the Crown, and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has further explained the total lack of clarity as regards this clause.
I was reflecting on the many debates we had on this Bill last week and on the general and frankly astonishing lack of clarity from the Government as to why such sweeping powers should ever be deemed necessary—the Rumsfeld “unknown unknowns” clauses, as my noble friend has coined them. Later this week, I believe we will be hearing a Statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on progress—or, indeed, lack of progress—in bringing back the Northern Ireland Assembly and a functioning Executive, and whether there will be elections imminently in Northern Ireland to overcome this impasse.
The Government and other noble Lords have stated that one of the Bill’s main purposes was to deal with the understandable concerns of the unionist community, particularly the DUP, about the impact of the Northern Ireland protocol. One can hope that the talks taking place in Brussels and at the climate summit in Egypt will lead to genuine negotiations and a potential framework for agreement. It has also been stated that one of the Bill’s purposes was to facilitate the DUP’s return to the Northern Ireland Executive, yet it remains far from clear that passing this legislation in and of itself would achieve this. It is therefore increasingly hard to understand why we are pushing ahead with this very bad Bill, which sets so many dangerous precedents, if it does not, in itself, achieve even one of its so-called “main objectives”—namely, a much-needed return to a functioning Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive.
When the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, replies to this group of amendments, I would be very grateful if he confirmed that re-establishing the Northern Ireland Executive remains one of the Bill’s primary purposes. If it is, does he not agree that other much more productive approaches, such as genuine negotiations and a change of tone, could be taken that would achieve exactly the same goal, but more effectively?
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, here we are again. I could not disagree with anything that has been said by anyone who has spoken. I would like the Minister, for whom we all have real affection and high regard—
Lord Cormack (Con)
Of course, everything is discerning and discriminating.
I would like the Minister to give us two reasons, or even one, why it is sensible to carry on with this Bill. We have heard today from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, that sensible talks seem to be taking place on the fringes of the great COP meeting in Egypt and there are other signs of talking going on, so what is the point—I have used this expression before, and I make no apology for using it again—in Parliament putting government and negotiators into a straitjacket? It is just nonsensical. We all hope the negotiations will result in certain changes to the protocol, but why drive this Bill through at this very time?
The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, talked about the DUP. I have always felt that it is bad to pay danegeld. That, really, is what is happening here, and it is mixed up with treaty obligations—I underline the word “obligations”—and with opportunities which many people in Northern Ireland wish to take advantage of, suitably amended.
We are on our fourth day of debate on this very bad and, in my view, wholly unnecessary Bill. Let us pause it. Let us watch the negotiations with—I hope—acclamation and welcome their results. Let us not waste parliamentary time on such a badly drafted Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, reminded us, even the explanatory clauses do not explain it; they obfuscate and make it worse. Let us get on with some proper business and leave this rubbish in the heap where it should be.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I have reached the same conclusion as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, but via a slightly different route. I heard the noble Baroness and the noble Lord refer to talks proceeding amicably and constructively. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, has regularly assured us from his own involvement in the talks that they are proceeding satisfactorily and are in no way being derailed by this Bill.
I am miles away from the action, of course—like the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, I would be very grateful if the Government could find the time to give us some reports on the talks from time to time—but I get a rather different impression of the view in Brussels. My impression is that there is not a great deal going on in these talks, and that the officials involved do not have the kind of instructions which give them discretion to do any negotiating. My impression is that British Ministers are not particularly hands-on, that they are not very closely involved in the talks and that, in fact, no real political input and impetus has been given as yet.
On the EU side, I think there is a natural tendency to wait and see whether the arrival of a new Government and a new Prime Minister in Britain will bring about any changes in the British position. The Commission has succeeded in persuading the member states that the CJEU cases against us can be left in limbo for the moment; a number of member states would have preferred to proceed to having these cases heard, but they stay in limbo and there seems to be a sort of consensus on that. But there is absolutely no pressure that I can detect among member states for any softening of Šefčovič’s mandate or any change in the instructions he is getting, perhaps partly because they are waiting to see whether there is some change in the instructions our people have. I detect no sign of anybody believing that Šefčovič’s instructions will change while the threat of this Bill hangs over the negotiations.
In my view—I repeat that I am miles away from the action, so I may be quite wrong—the only real debate among member states is whether contingency planning should be started on their side and whether it is this Bill reaching the statute book or actual use of the powers it contains that should trigger resort to action. The action would of course be the end of the talks and the necessary review of the terms of the trade and co-operation agreement. I think everybody believes that in Brussels. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, reminded us on our last day of Committee, we committed ourselves in the TCA to carrying out our obligations as in the withdrawal agreement, which include the protocol. So if we were to use the powers in this Bill or, as some say—I am among them—put this Bill on the statute book, we would be in breach of not just the withdrawal agreement but the TCA.
So I think the debate is about contingency planning for that eventuality, rather than for any change or softening of the EU position in the talks. Therefore, it seems to me, we should recognise that what we are doing here, if we were to pass this Bill, is setting ourselves up for a rather serious trade war with the EU and for the return of all the problems in Northern Ireland that will result from Northern Ireland no longer being a member of the single market. We will go back to a different form of frontier problem, from which the protocol was designed to have us escape.
So I reach exactly the same conclusion as did the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, but by a slightly different route. I do not think that the talks are going particularly well, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, will act on the promise that he made on our last day in Committee to see if he could ensure that we receive progress reports on the talks. Though I am miles away from the action, it seems to me that, if we proceed with this Bill, we are heading straight into a thunderstorm that will sink the ship.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, could he go one step further and ask my noble friend the Minister, in responding to this debate, to say whether he agrees with the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, which I do, that we would be in breach not only of the withdrawal agreement but of the trade and co-operation agreement? It would be very good to get that on the record at this stage. Will he just go so far as to press the Minister, in summing up, to say whether he agrees with his analysis?
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, Amendment 38, among others, refers to the role of the Northern Ireland Assembly in approving the conduct of Ministers. I suppose that a parallel would be a legislative consent Motion; it is the same kind of principle. It is good to hear that negotiations are taking place, but the people who are most directly affected not just by this legislation but by the protocol itself are excluded from this process. Noble Lords should bear in mind that, if a trader brings a vehicle into Northern Ireland from Great Britain, the first person whom that trader will deal with will be an employee of a Northern Ireland government department, responsible to a Northern Ireland Executive Minister.
The people who are the most directly affected and who have a direct responsibility for the implementation of any of these processes—that is, the politicians in Northern Ireland—are spectators in a matter that most directly affects them. Of course, it is a national issue and an international issue; but when you drill down, as Amendment 38 is attempting to do, the people with their hands on the problem on the day, every day, are out of the frame altogether.
Now I do not care what the issue is, but have we learned nothing in this place over the last 30 or 40 years? If you exclude people from something that directly affects them—and we had the Anglo-Irish process in the mid-1980s, when we followed the same principle that you negotiate over somebody’s head and shove a piece of paper in front of them and say, “There you are: implement it”—it will not work.
Amendment 38 is just one example. Will the Minister ask his colleagues to engage the politicians in Stormont directly in this process? That could be part of a solution. When we were part of the EU, it was not unusual for Ministers from Westminster to include devolved Ministers with them in their delegations. That was quite a normal process. Can we not adapt that principle? One Minister said a week or two ago—he meant well, I have no doubt—“Leave it to us. We’ve got your back here. We’ll look after it for you.” I have to say, with the greatest respect, that our backs are so full of dagger holes that we know all about that. We will believe only what we see and hear ourselves. Bring our politicians into the picture; bring them to the table with you so they are not your enemy.
I accept, of course, that we are dealing with an international issue, and foreign affairs and related matters are not devolved—I get that. But have we not enough flexibility to bring people along as part of our delegation so that they can see persons and papers? We do not have to break any rules. What is so secret?
Before he left office, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who is in his place, a Question about all the committees that have been set up under the agreement and who populated them. I think he left office before he was able to reply to that Question, but who are they? I do not know who they are. Where are they? How many of these committees do we have? All I can tell you is that nobody of political significance in Belfast is engaged. It will not work—fix it. Let us make these discussions meaningful. Let us get the people who have to deliver what is agreed, at the table. We would never have got the Good Friday agreement had we not done that by bringing everybody in.
I have listened at some length to the arguments about the legality of the legislation and its role. I am not a lawyer, but I respectfully invite colleagues to review the evidence submitted to the Sub-Committee on the Protocol in Ireland/Northern Ireland by Professor Boyle and another colleague from the University of Cambridge on what they consider to be the legal position of this legislation. They came to the joint conclusion that the Article 16 process would have to be involved in order to make it legal. I do not know whether that is right or wrong, but I refer Members to that piece of evidence. The transcript is available, it was a public investigation by our committee, and I commend it to colleagues. I ask them to look at it and see what merit there is for us.
There is a solution here; we can find a way through this. However, I can tell colleagues from years of experience—other people in this Chamber can do the same—that, with the process that we have chosen to take, we are going about things the wrong way. I understand where the Government are coming from with the legislation, and I do not wish to see the UK Government’s negotiating position weakened, but I want success. We are facing the worst crisis economically in many decades. Northern Ireland’s community is facing increased costs, in part as a result of the protocol, obviously we have the lowest levels of income, and we also have a different energy system to the rest of the United Kingdom.
Basically, our political class is out to lunch. We are not contributing anything to the solutions, because of the stand-off at Stormont. I do not want to see Sinn Féin’s argument that Northern Ireland is a failed political entity justified, and that is the risk we are taking. My appeal to the Minister concerning any—indeed, all—of these amendments involving support and approval from the Northern Ireland Assembly is that one of the ways to get the Assembly going again is to engage the people who have to operate the outcome of the negotiations, so that they are part of the solution and have ownership of it.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
Does the noble Lord accept that in Northern Ireland, when we have a democratic vacuum, the men of violence fill the gap? Is he aware that only last week, because there was a call from Dublin for joint authority in Northern Ireland—government by both Dublin and London—a bomb was planned to be planted in a government building in the Republic of Ireland, which was called off, hours before it was due to explode, only when the Government here announced that there would be no joint authority?
Lord Empey (UUP)
The noble Lord is correct. I agree that history tells us that a vacuum will be filled, and it will not be filled by people who are committed to the democratic process. That is well established. There is no legitimacy for joint authority. The manifesto of the Government was clear in 2019 that it was explicitly excluded, although it was interesting that at this weekend’s Sinn Féin conference, its plan B was specifically aimed at some form of jointery. That is why I say we can see where the road is leading us.
I come back to the Minister and ask him to prevail on his colleagues to open the door to the people of Northern Ireland and the elected Members, so that they can participate in the process of negotiations; they will not be sitting in the front row, but they can be in the room, they can be advising Ministers, they can be contributing and they can feed that back to their supporters. It will have a calming effect if they can see that, and if the people who have to implement the thing on the ground are part of the solution. Surely that makes common sense. What is the point of having devolution if the people who have responsibility for delivering parts of this are not even at the table?
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, we have ranged once again, in a debate on one of the amendments, far and wide across the whole gamut of the protocol Bill and the protocol itself. In that context, I want to follow up on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who talked about the state of the negotiations, the technical talks, the discussions, the conversations or whatever they may be. As he rightly said, we are not au fait with the detail, and those of us whom the noble Lord, Lord Empey, referenced who deal with politics in Northern Ireland and represent people in Northern Ireland are not privy to the details either.
I think that it is correct, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr said, that there appears to be no difference in the negotiating mandate of Commissioner Vice-President Šefčovič so far as the EU side of the negotiations is concerned. Indeed, that has been confirmed to me and, I am sure, to other noble Lords informally by people who are closer to the talks than many of us are. Of course, the Government’s position has been set out in the Command Paper, published in July 2021, and in the Bill, but so long as the negotiating mandate of the European Union negotiator is not changed, there can be little prospect for any positive outcome from the discussions, certainly not in the short term.
We can all agree that we need to solve this problem, and there are only two ways that it can be solved. It is either by negotiation or by action on the part of His Majesty’s Government. The danger of saying, “We’re not going to get anywhere in the discussions and we should pull or pause the Bill” is in what happens in Northern Ireland. What happens to the Belfast agreement as amended by the St Andrews agreement? What happens to the institutions? I have heard very little reference thus far from noble Lords who do not have a direct connection with Northern Ireland about the implications on the political and peace process in Northern Ireland.
The longer we do not have any outcome from negotiations, and if nothing is happening on the Government’s side on legislation, then the institutions will not be reformed, because there is not the basis for power sharing, when you have trashed one of the main strands of the agreement—strand 3, the east-west dimension—and when you have undermined the Northern Ireland Assembly through the removal of the cross-community consent principle. We have to address these matters.
While people may focus on what the outcome may be in terms of the withdrawal agreement and the trade and co-operation agreement—I entirely understand that—we also have to examine the implications on the Belfast agreement, on the St Andrews agreement, and on the peace and political process in Northern Ireland, which is in a very fragile state. The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, highlighted a recent example of where these things can go.
I urge your Lordships to examine and bear in mind the implications, if we do not get a negotiated outcome which is satisfactory. I share the analysis of noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that it does not look as if that is going to happen—certainly any time soon—and if we at the same time do not proceed with the Bill, where on earth does that leave the political process in Northern Ireland? It leaves it in a continuing state of limbo, which we have all agreed can be filled only by dangerous people—men of violence. We need to address these matters urgently.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
May I clarify something? My position is that there will be no progress with these talks until there is the involvement of high-level politicians from this country. I remember in the 1990s the attempt to move Congress from its support of the wrong side—in the British Government’s view—in Northern Ireland. I was ambassador and made a certain amount of progress, but the real progress was made only when Prime Minister Major and the then Minister of State, now the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, took an active involvement in helping me to see the people one had to convince on the Hill. We need the involvement of senior British Ministers. I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that we need the involvement of people from Northern Ireland. This must not be an agreement, if one is achieved, that is imposed on Northern Ireland. It has to be one that is owned by Northern Ireland.
However, my view is that there is no chance of persuading the Council of the European Union that it should modify Mr Šefčovič’s mandate while technical talks are going nowhere and there are no signs of any movement, or even active involvement, by the highest levels of the British political establishment. I do not mean that I think the talks are bound to fail; I mean that, at present, they are not succeeding.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I maintained a Trappist silence throughout all the earlier debates on this Bill. I may be prominent among those wishing I had maintained it when I sit down in a moment or two because I recognise that I speak from a position of having less knowledge of the political and economic background to this debate than perhaps anybody else here—certainly less than anyone who has spoken.
What has driven me to my feet is what seems a striking absence of any reference to Article 16; again, we heard it in earlier debates but not today. To my mind—I speak in this respect simply as a lawyer—it is custom-built to meet any legitimate needs, which there are, to adapt processes in the Province today. What is required of the protocol by way of rewriting treaties is in doubt, but the protocol does not pre-empt the Belfast agreement obligations and commitments on all sides. On the contrary, Belfast is the primary one of these two treaties, which are enforceable under international law.
Those who know much more about this than I do emphasise—rightly, to my mind—the third strand of Belfast, which concerns east-west trade within the UK internal market. Far from the protocol pre-empting what we as the UK are entitled to insist on under the Belfast agreement, surely it accommodates the crucial argument—let the politicians in Northern Ireland make, refine, emphasise and urge this—that the regulatory controls that the EU currently exercises under the protocol, as well as the intensity of their policing, are in fact quite incompatible with its obligation to observe the Belfast agreement. You have only to look at the Belfast agreement to see that we, the UK, are duty bound to fight against the long-term alienation—I forget the precise language—of any community. We did it for the nationalists in respect of language in Northern Ireland. Now we owe the unionists some obligation to try to reinforce the critical importance of the east-west trade link here.
I therefore have no brief for this Bill. The unionists say, “You need this to get back into the Assembly”. That is nonsense. They open their mouths far too wide but their legitimate interests should be—indeed, must be—protected. Do it under Article 16, which meets any imperative need of the day, and let the people of Northern Ireland specify precisely what is required by way of adapting the processes under the protocol. If there needs to be any adaptation of the language, let them deal with that too. As the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said in an earlier debate, do not be too theological about the language—just get the agreement to do what is necessary.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, this has been unusual in the debates that we have had so far in that far more has been said that I can agree with than that I disagree with. I even found myself agreeing with two-thirds of what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, which is unusual. He is undoubtedly right that the negotiations cannot really be going as well as we would all like to hope, and as so many commentators and Ministers imply they are, as long as the EU has not been prepared to change its negotiating mandate. It will not allow a single jot or tittle of the protocol to be changed under its existing mandate, even though the protocol itself envisages the possibility of it being changed in part or in whole. That surely has to change. Maybe it has de facto; maybe the EU is agreeing to talk beyond its mandate. Let us hope that that is the case.
The disappointing aspect of the debates so far is that I have been waiting throughout for any coherent response from noble Lords, in their very powerful speeches about the illegality of what we are doing, to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, in particular as to what happens when there is a conflict between two international obligations, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, implied that there is between the obligations that we have under the Belfast agreement and those that we have under the protocol. I have not heard any direct response to that question: what do you do when you have conflicting international legal obligations?
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord but the Committee has heard repeated explanations of what the answer is. The answer is that the protocol contains Article 16, which allows for a process to commence by which disputes can be resolved with an arbitration process. That is the answer. There is no conflict because the protocol provides a mechanism for addressing conflicts.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for sidestepping the question by saying that he does not need to answer it because there is an article in the protocol that means you do not have to answer on what happens when there is a conflict between two international obligations. Clearly, however, the Government and many noble Lords from the Province who have spoken think that there is a conflict and it cannot be solved just by invoking Article 16. If it can, fine; that is wonderful.
The other related question that we have not had a response to is the point made by the Lord Chancellor in the other place that Article 1 of the protocol specifically says that in the event of a conflict between the Belfast agreement and the protocol, the Belfast agreement takes precedence. I have not heard any response to that, nor to the point, which I might be alone in making, that the whole protocol is intrinsically temporary. We know that because the EU told us that it could not enter into a permanent relationship with us because we were then a member state and it could not, under Article 50, enter into a permanent relationship with a member state; it could be only temporary and transitional. That is why the protocol itself contains provision for it to be superseded, but I have heard no response to that point from anyone.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
I heard the responses given to my noble friend so far, which he seems reluctant to accept. If he does not agree that the Article 16 process would be a way of resolving some of these conflicts that have arisen and caused problems, in what way does he feel that the passage of the Bill would itself resolve those conflicts, or indeed support the Good Friday agreement?
Lord Lilley (Con)
I certainly do not say absolutely that Article 16 is not the way to proceed, but I have spoken to lawyers much respected by people in this House—unfortunately I do not have their permission to give their names—who told me that we should not go down the Article 16 route because it would be a nightmare.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I will put the two in touch discreetly and thereby not betray confidences.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord and I am grateful for his patience, but it really is not good enough, when this Committee is debating these matters, for him to say that there are problems in using Article 16 but not tell us what they are.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I am saying that there may well be problems. Indeed, I asked the noble Lord the other day, down the corridor, whether he was of the opinion that Article 16 could be used to solve all the problems. If it can be, fine; I am not ruling that out. However, if it cannot be, then the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, is there on the table, and the issue raised by the Lord Chancellor is there on the table. Whatever about that, the protocol is intrinsically temporary. The whole basis of the negotiations that we entered into on the withdrawal agreement was that a permanent agreement could not be entered into in the withdrawal Act with the United Kingdom covering trade or other matters; that could happen only after we had left. Therefore, anything in the withdrawal agreement was intrinsically transitional and temporary.
Again, I have not heard a response on that today. I wait to be interrupted with a response to the point. Usually, it comes from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who wrote Article 50, but he has forgotten what the alternative is.
These are important issues. We need to know why we were told one thing, that this was temporary, and now are told another thing, that it is permanent. Until we get an answer to those questions, I do not know that our debate can proceed as productively as it ought to. There are other more general points which I would like to make but I will save them for another batch of amendments.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this has indeed been a very wide-ranging debate, but I will comment specifically on the amendments themselves.
The DPRRC refers to the power contained in Clause 18 as “strange” and notes that
“Despite its being highly unusual”
there will be “no parliamentary oversight” whatever. This was the subject of some debate in another place, with much head-scratching as to what the Government were trying to achieve. Indeed, we cannot know that, because they have not offered a clear justification. A former head of the government legal service, Sir Jonathan Jones KC, described this as a “do whatever you like” power, but why is it needed in the first place? We have no definition of “conduct”. Can the Minister have a go at giving us a definition today? If that is not possible, can we have a detailed explanation ahead of Report?
In the Commons, the Minister tried to insist that concerned MPs had misconstrued the intent and that Clause 18 simply makes clear that Ministers will be acting lawfully when they go about their ministerial duties in support of this legislation. I cannot remember any other legislation where the Government have felt it necessary to clarify that Ministers are acting lawfully. Until recently, we took it for granted that this was always the case. Therefore, is this power an admission that the Government’s approach to the protocol is incompatible with international law and, as a result, in conflict with the Ministerial Code’s requirements to comply with the law?
There were a number of very interesting contributions in this debate. I highlight that of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, which was very constructive, about bringing into the process which is being embarked on by the UK Government respected people from Northern Ireland. I am interested to hear the Minister’s reaction to the proposals made by the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, gave a rather chilling example of the stakes we are dealing with and how important it is that we take every opportunity we possibly can to resolve the current position. This has been an interesting debate, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on the amendments and the wider context. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, the noble Lord, Lord Caine, and I always look down the list to see when the first group in Committee will be. We know that the clock will strike an hour because of the context that will be set in relation not just to the amendments in front of us but opinions on the particular Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I will focus on the specific amendments. Where I can add a degree of Ahmad colour, I will seek to do this in the best way possible.
As I and my colleagues have said, to pick up on a key point on the ultimate nature of the Bill, the reasoning behind the Government’s approach is that the Bill is consistent with our obligations in international law and supports our prior obligations to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, as has been said in various parts of today’s debate—and very eloquently by my noble friend Lord Lilley.
I will begin with Amendment 36, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on the issue of the powers. In the Government’s view, Clause 18 is not an extraordinary power. It simply makes clear, as would normally be the case, that Ministers are acting lawfully in this case. This point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and others and I will attempt to put some colour on this—I do not know whether it will be to noble Lords’ satisfaction. Clause 18 is included because the Government recognise that the Bill provides, in a way that is not routinely done for other legislation, for new domestic obligations to replace prior domestic obligations that stem from our international obligations. Those international obligations are currently implemented automatically by Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. That conduit pipe currently constrains—and in the Government’s view could cause confusion in the future—how Ministers can act in support of the Bill. The Government put forward that Clause 18 is to provide clarity on that point.
I note the DPRRC’s view on the issue of delegated powers, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, highlighted again in his contribution. However, it is the Government’s view that the power being proposed here is within the normal scope of executive action. To provide a bit more detail, this would include, for example, direct notifications from Ministers to the EU. While I am sure—I am going to hazard a guess as I look around your Lordships’ House—that I may not have satisfied every question on that, I hope that that has provided a degree more detail.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am very grateful to the Minister. Can I press him for a moment on what I understand to be his explanation for Clause 18, which is that otherwise there may be some concern that the exercise of powers is not consistent with Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018? I think that is what the Minister said.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I would put it slightly differently. That is the section I referred to, but it is to provide clarification in that respect. The noble Lord will interpret that in the way that he has, but I have sought to provide clarity on why the Government’s position is that this should be included.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Could I complete my point? I am very grateful to the Minister but I am puzzled by that explanation, because the Bill already deals specifically with this subject in Clause 2(3). I remind the Minister that it states:
“In section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 … after subsection (3) insert … This section is subject to”
this Bill. Therefore, with great respect, I do not understand why one needs Clause 18 to address exactly the same point.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I suppose that, with any Bill, the challenge for the Government is often to provide added clarification. That is exactly what we are doing, perhaps to emphasise the point that the noble Lord himself has highlighted from other elements of the Bill. I am sure that the noble Lord will come back on these issues, but if I can provide further detail on the specific actions that this would thereby permit, I will. As I said, it is a point of clarification, and I will write to the noble Lord on this point.
The best way I can sum up Amendment 37 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, is that it is a well-trodden theme in the context of the Bill. The positions and different perspectives on this issue are noted. All I add is that the Government’s intention is to ensure that the powers—the ability for a Minister of the Crown to issue guidance to industry or provide direction to officials in relation to the regime put in place under the protocol—reflect their ability to carry out their responsibilities. In this case I can see no reason why Ministers should be able to issue “appropriate” direction in relation to trade with the EU via the short straits but only “necessary” directions over the Irish Sea.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
The Minister just indicated that discussions have taken place with the devolved Administrations. Maybe he can give us a little more colour about the type of discussions that have taken place. In that regard, I very much take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that there is a need for the Northern Ireland parties to be involved in the negotiations.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I know that these discussions have certainly taken place at an official level. My understanding is that the Foreign Secretary has also written to the devolved Administrations on the issue of seeking consent, but if there is more detail I will update the noble Baroness.
The noble Baroness also rightly mentioned the importance of understanding the issues on the ground. As I have indicated, I believe passionately that, irrespective of where you are coming from on the Bill—whether you are from Northern Ireland itself or wherever you are sitting in this Chamber—our ultimate objective in the discussions we are having is to ensure that the protocol, and indeed any other arrangements put in place after the negotiations and debates taking place, work in the interests of all communities in Northern Ireland. That is the premise of the Government’s approach.
The amendment the noble Baroness has tabled would require an approval Motion to be passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly before a Minister may act in accordance with Clause 18
“in relation to any matter … in the Northern Ireland Protocol (where that conduct is not otherwise authorised by this Act)”.
However, in the Government’s view, the amendment is unworkable in practice, because it would require the Northern Ireland Assembly to pass a vote every time any number of actions were taken in connection with the Bill. That could be as innocuous as providing instruction to civil servants or guidance to industry. Such a situation would clearly be prohibitive to the implementation of swift solutions to the problems caused by the protocol, and therefore would not work. Nor would it be appropriate or in line with the devolution settlement for actions—
Lord Cormack (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt but I am most grateful to my noble friend. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, made a very powerful and constructive speech. I listened to what my noble friend said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, but would it not be possible for informal invitations to be issued to Northern Ireland politicians to attend talks, particularly if the talks themselves are informal?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I will certainly take back his comments and constructive suggestions and will, of course, advise the House if there is more scope in our current discussions with the European Commission.
I listened very carefully to all contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, raised the issue from where he was seeing it. As noble Lords know, when I have come to the House, I have reported. I was certainly involved in one discussion last week and, as I said, it was constructive and positive in both tone and substance. I am sure that all noble Lords who have served in government will appreciate that there are limits to what detail I can share.
Subsequent discussions have taken place, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, alluded. I do not share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that they are not going anywhere. If they were not going anywhere, we would not be meeting and talking. I also challenge the premise that they have not engaged the highest level of the British Government. Last time I checked, the Foreign Secretary was among those counted in the highest levels of the British Government. I therefore say to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that that is definitely not the case. The lead person dealing with Commissioner Šefčovič is my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, who is a senior member of the British Government.
Returning to the amendment, for the reasons I have given, we cannot support it. However, I also point out that the Bill is needed because the Good Friday agreement institutions, including the Assembly, are not operating as they should be. I know that the noble Baroness will return to this issue. I welcome her valuable insights in this area, but I hope that, given my response, particularly on the important issues raised by her and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, she sees that we will certainly seek to further enhance our engagement with parties in Northern Ireland.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, focused on Clause 18, which simply provides the power for a Minister to engage in normal non-legislative contact where they consider it appropriate in connection with one or more of the purposes of the Bill. The clause also clarifies the relationship between powers to make secondary legislation under the Bill and those arising by virtue of the royal prerogative. It will ensure that actions not requiring legislation, such as issuing guidance for industry or providing direction to officials, can be taken in a timely manner by a Minister of the Crown. Clause 18 simply makes clear, as would normally be taken for granted—we just had a brief discussion with the noble Lord on the Government’s position on this—that Ministers will be acting lawfully when they go about their ministerial duties in support of this legislation. The Government’s view therefore remains that it should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response and to those who have taken part. I felt that I was agreeing 100% with the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, but then I started to have doubts when the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, said he agreed with two-thirds of it. I will come back on that in just a second.
In all seriousness, I am concerned about what the Minister said. If this power, which is not framed and not specific, is guidance for industry then that is now in direct contradiction with the requirement on Ministers to provide guidance on the operation of the internal market, under the internal market Act, for Northern Ireland. Section 48, which I understand is being repealed by this Bill, as we have discussed, has a requirement on Ministers to consult before guidance is published. Under Section 12 of the internal market Act it is a legal duty for Ministers to consult Northern Ireland departments before guidance is issued. Draft guidance must be issued first. To some extent, that is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, made about inclusiveness before measures.
If Clause 18 can be used by Ministers—guidance for industry, as the Minister said twice—that is far weaker than the legal requirements, and I do not understand the interaction between the two. That is a significant problem. I would be grateful if the Minister could write to explain how guidance for industry will be operated under other parts of the legislation whereas they can simply decide to do it under Clause 18 because there are no restrictions, requirements or oversight of that whatever—there is no requirement for anything in draft.
That is important, given the subtext of this serious debate and the fact that—as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, indicated—Vice-President Šefčovič is in London at the moment. The Minister did not state whether any Ministers are meeting the vice-president on his visit. I am happy to be intervened on if wishes to clarify whether, during the vice-president’s visit to London, any senior Ministers are meeting him.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
This was the subject of conversation, but the noble Lord will be aware that my right honourable friend is currently in Sharm el-Sheikh on government business with the COP. We certainly sought to see whether they could meet on this particular occasion, but I will update the noble Lord as and when it happens.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister.
When the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, says that he is miles away from the situation, I have known him long enough to suspect that there is a wee bit of code there. He is probably actually pretty close to knowing what is going on, and I suspect that he is right. I worry, because the Government are not engaging widely, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said, or consulting. We have not had sight of what is on the table; we know what the EU has put on the table but not what the UK Government have put on the table. My fear is that, if the Government told us what was on the table, many people would be disappointed that they are only technical talks. Some people want them to be negotiations.
That comes on to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. I respect and understand his disagreement with the Government’s position—the Government want to mend it, not end it, and, as I understand it, the noble Lord thinks there is a more substantial issue with that. Ministers have said they want to fix it, not nix it. If you want to mend it, not end it, there are mechanisms, but there are also mechanisms if you want to end it. As Article 13 of the protocol states, it lasts as long as it lasts:
“Any subsequent agreement between the Union and the United Kingdom shall indicate the parts of this Protocol which it supersedes”—
so, if there is another treaty, this ends. There is nothing special about that; that is every treaty. A treaty lasts for as long as it lasts, and if there is a subsequent treaty then there is a subsequent treaty. So the noble Lord’s beef is not with us; it is presumably with the Government in order to open up the element of the withdrawal agreement and the associated TCA that he thinks are in contradiction.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Would the noble Lord deal with the Article 50 point? If it is intrinsically temporary and transitional, can it last for ever?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
That is the point. We have now legislated for it, and the element we have legislated for includes Article 13.8, which is the process by which it would be superseded. I do not think there is any doubt about it; the noble Lord may have doubt in his mind about it, but in the other agreements there are mechanisms if we wish to open them.
The difficulty with this process taking such a long time is that if we were in grave and imminent peril—the Government have invoked the defence of necessity—then we would have anticipated some urgent, high-level talks to have resolved this by now. Regrettably, we are back to a situation where the stakes are getting higher because expectations are higher, but the reality, perhaps, is that some of these talks are technical.
With the greatest respect for the Minister, who I know tried to offer clarification, I am worried about what this power could be used for, and we will need to return to this. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment limits a Minister’s ability to use a delegated power when they consider it “appropriate” to cases where it is “necessary”.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I will allow a couple of seconds for people who have obviously got it off their chest during the first group to leave, in the hope that we do not go through the whole thing again.
Clause 19 is very short, at only a couple of paragraphs, but it is quite interesting, as it pleasingly addresses the situation we may find ourselves in where the Government have been successful in reaching an agreement with the European Union. Many of us have said, time and again, throughout this Committee, that we hope to see that. We have been challenging Ministers, as we have seen in the previous group, to show visible political leadership. The visibility has been lacking. I take on board what the Minister said about his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary playing an active role, but visibility and political momentum have been lacking. I like to think that, had one of my right honourable friends been leading these events, we would have seen a far more outward-facing presence, if I can put it that way, through this process—but never mind.
Clause 19 looks at the eventuality of there being an agreement. The amendment I have tabled is one that will be familiar by now to noble Lords who have been taking part in this process from the first day of our considerations. The first line of the clause, as it stands, says that:
“A Minister of the Crown may, by regulations, make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate”.
I have asked that “appropriate” be changed to “necessary”, and I will explain why, in this particular instance, that is sensible.
This clause gives Ministers the power to implement an agreement that they hope to reach with the EU. Obviously—and we accept this—Ministers will need some flexibility in that event, and things may need to be done as a consequence of having an agreement. But I would have thought that an agreement, by its nature, would be clear and specific, and that things would be agreed that are not currently in place that would need to happen. In that instance, surely the things that need to be done by Ministers will, by virtue of the fact that they have just been agreed to with our negotiating partners, meet the test and be necessary.
It troubles me that the Government feel they should have “appropriate” there instead. That seems to give them much greater scope than is ever going to be needed in the event that this clause is used—and we hope that it will be. I would like to know from the Minister what the Government’s thinking is there, beyond thinking that “necessary” is too tight and just wanting to allow themselves a bit more room—of course they do; who would not? But this clause deals with the fact that there may be an agreement, and I do not think it is justified for the power to be as widely drawn as it is.
While I am on my feet, I note that I support the stand part notice from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in this case as well. The DPRRC believes that the powers in this clause are just too widely drawn, though there is obviously merit in discussing what powers are needed in the event of an agreement and what the role of Parliament should be in that situation. We think that a deal can be struck—we have said that many times—and also believe that Parliament should have the opportunity to debate any agreement, as other Parliaments will. I just note that the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 was passed in a day and the TCA was ratified without direct parliamentary process. We accept that Ministers need the ability to act in the event of an agreement and we appreciate the Government demonstrating their anticipation of such an agreement in this clause, which is notable, but surely a Bill to enact an agreement would be better. That is what we have been asking for.
This is a discussion we have had with the Government on many occasions and on other agreements, when we have talked about the unsatisfactory process we still have in this country for parliamentary involvement in agreements. We do not think we have got it right yet; that is understandable, and it is perhaps going to take some time to get to that point. We have not had to engage in this for many years, but I do not think that many people in Parliament are satisfied with the way this works at the moment, and it would be helpful if the Minister could acknowledge that.
Without being too cheeky about it, we want to help the Government, given just how unsuccessful they have been so far in settling these issues. We do not see why they would be so resistant to involvement from people who are being very positive and cheering them on in their endeavours. We really do want to see a resolution to this. With that, I beg to move the amendment in my name and express my support for the stand part notice tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
We support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness. In supporting it, I want to make two points. First, this clause effectively turns the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act principles on their head. We have well-established mechanisms, which are set down in statute, on how we approve new international agreements. If this is a mechanism to replace the Northern Ireland protocol, an internationally made agreement, with a new agreement, then why is the CRaG process, which allows parliamentary scrutiny, debate and, unlike this, an ability to have enhanced approvals or indeed vetoing by Parliament, not going to be the route for it? I do not understand why.
Secondly, it also sets on its head every commitment that has been provided for every trade agreement: namely, that if a trade agreement requires any primary legislation to bring it into effect in domestic law, primary legislation is brought forward—this is not done by regulation. But, again, this is being set on its head. The Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill is coming up, which is primary legislation—not regulation —implemented with agreement. The two Bills contradict each other really quite glaringly.
I think that this is significant because of an interaction I had with the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, on one of the previous days in Committee. I asked him whether he had given consideration—if there is, as a result of these talks, an agreement with the EU—as to how that should be put in force. The Government are saying “by regulations”, which are unamendable and could even be under a negative process; they could use Clause 19 to do this. If the noble Lord’s concern—as well as that of the noble Lord, Lord Empey—was about the need for consent, this is not the means by which that would be secured. Yet this is the means by which the Government could enforce it. There is a very jarring comparison between what consent of any new agreement would be and how the Government are seeking powers under Clause 19 to enable them to put this into force. Clause 19 should not be the mechanism by which we have sustainable support for any agreement. An order-making power for a Minister is simply not the route—and that is in addition to the fact that they are turning on their heads long-standing practices by which we put international agreements into domestic legislation. For this reason, I do not think that Clause 19 should stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I speak briefly to support Clause 19 not standing part of the Bill. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, have very eloquently explained some of the problems with this clause. Equally, I have a concern about just changing the word “appropriate” to “necessary”, because we had a relevant agreement with the EU—the withdrawal agreement, part of which is the Northern Ireland protocol—and we have passed extensive legislation for that agreement. Yet government Ministers consider both this Bill and this clause “necessary”, even though it may break international law and may tear up the agreement that we have enshrined into our law. So were this clause to stay—and, indeed, were this Bill to become an Act—there would simply be the possibility that a Minister would no longer need to come to Parliament, Parliament would have no say and our whole parliamentary democracy would be turned on its head, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, described. I would like to hear from my noble friend the Minister how this is consistent with our normal constitutional safeguards in our democracy.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this brief debate. I turn first to Amendment 39. I welcome the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman; I was scribbling down some of them, including the phrase, “Cheerleader for the Government”—we look forward to that. I recognise that these are serious times in terms of our negotiations. Of course, it is right that we are being challenged, but contributions have also been made which are helpful in ultimately strengthening the role we want to see for all discussions: a successful conclusion in the interests of all communities in Northern Ireland.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Does Clause 19 not replace CRaG in respect of amendments to the protocol?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I have already said that the Bill does nothing to affect the procedures applying under the CRaG Act 2010. I have been clear on that and it is specifically in front of me as I speak.
Lord Pannick (CB)
If that is the case, would the Minister be sympathetic to an amendment on Report that puts that in the Bill?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I think my priority is to complete Committee. Of course, I look forward to Report and the amendments proposed and that is when we will have further discussions on this matter—
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, can he tell me whether there are any other circumstances in which the Government have promoted a clause containing terms such as these that he now urges upon us?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will excuse me if I say that I do not have an instant response to that, but I will certainly talk to my officials and, if there are details to provide, I shall of course provide them to the noble Lord.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
There is nothing in Clause 19 on consent. If there is an agreement, what is the Government’s position on securing consent for it?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My understanding is that we would certainly abide by our previous commitments in that respect. In the interests of clarity, I will confirm that in writing to the noble Lord.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not think we are very happy about this. The Minister says that he wants to address stability in Northern Ireland, yet this whole process goes over the heads of people in Northern Ireland. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and others just how unsuccessful they expect that to be. There are so many issues here, I just do not understand why Clause 19 is required when there are processes available to the Government to do this. We shall come back to this, but the only thing about saying that we shall come back to it on Report is that we do not know whether we will actually get to Report, given the amendments that we discussed before we started our formal consideration of the Bill. We still have not heard anything from the Government on that. Obviously, we shall leave it for today but the discussion we have had leaves a few more questions than answers. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Suttie
“but this section does not have effect unless it has previously been approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent the Bill’s proposed departure from the terms of the Northern Ireland Protocol, or from any related provision of the EU withdrawal agreement, in respect of the previously agreed role of the European Court (CJEU) unless Clause 20 had first been approved by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 40 in my name is co-signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. Like so many of the earlier and similar amendments, it aims to ensure that the democratically elected Northern Ireland Assembly would have the final say on whether Clause 20 is to be implemented. In many ways, this is a probing amendment following what I felt was a very constructive and useful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, who I am very glad to see back in his place after an absence. In doing this, it is incredibly important that we make sure that there is greater involvement of the Northern Ireland political parties at every stage. Perception is all in politics and, whether or not the Minister says that meetings are taking place, the representatives here from Northern Ireland do not feel that they are taking place. Therefore, they are obviously not working as they should be.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who is not in his place, spelled out so clearly on an earlier group of amendments, Clause 20 would mean that domestic courts and tribunals cannot refer any matter to the European Court of Justice in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol. Last week, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, also spelled out very clearly the potential impact of this clause on the single electricity market on the island of Ireland. My honourable friend Stephen Farry MP, when speaking in the House of Commons about a very similar amendment, made the point that if the ultimate jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice is removed, Northern Ireland’s ability to access the single market for goods will be jeopardised or destroyed. A level playing field overseen by the European Court is surely in the interests of many Northern Ireland businesses and can protect access to the market in years to come. It will also protect such businesses against situations that may arise in future if any EU member state were to attempt to refuse goods coming from Northern Ireland.
Politically, it is worth stressing once again that the majority of businesses in Northern Ireland have adopted our somewhat pragmatic approach to the protocol and that the jurisdiction of the European Court has not previously been seen as a major area of concern. It is therefore hard not to draw the conclusion that Clause 20 has more to do with Conservative Party divisions and the ERG than it has to do with genuine political and business concerns in Northern Ireland. For those businesses that primarily deal with north-south trade or with the EU, any reduction of the jurisdiction of the ECJ would potentially have a profound impact on them. It is for that reason that it is very important that the Northern Ireland Assembly should be able to have its say on these matters. I beg to move.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak in favour of Amendment 40 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and will refer to Amendments 42 and 43A in my name.
In many ways, Amendment 40 seeks to protect the role of the European Court of Justice and to ensure adherence to the accountability mechanisms of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Adherence to the provisions in the GFA—the Good Friday agreement—are of vital importance, and any change in the protocol with respect to Clause 20 can go nowhere unless approved by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
While this is a probing amendment, like the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, I go back to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, about the role of Assembly Members in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Absolutely no account, recognition or acknowledgement has been taken of the role of locally elected Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly in relation to this Bill. He is absolutely right when he says that, if they have buy-in and ownership, there is greater likelihood that the UK Government and the EU will achieve a degree of resolution on many of these vexatious issues.
Many elements of the protocol are already working well for business in Northern Ireland; for example, in relation to dairy, beef and agri-food industries. But it is important to note, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and other noble Lords have said—and I think the point has been made by my noble friend Lord Murphy—that negotiations succeed in Northern Ireland only when the parties are sitting around the table with the UK and the EU. So I ask the Government, in their discussions with the European Union, to try where possible to exercise a degree of flexibility that would facilitate such discussions taking place in a more all-encompassing manner.
I move on to Amendment 42, which seeks to ensure that, when the UK-EU joint committee has discussed regulation of goods in connection with the protocol, there is a full report to Parliament detailing those discussions within 21 days of the meeting. In the previous discussion on the first group of amendments, when queries were put by noble Lords about the nature and content of the negotiations with the European Union, I am afraid we did not get very much back about the actual content or level of solutions. Therefore, we are left with a query in our minds about what progress is actually being made in those technical discussions; hence the need for renewed vigour in continuous, senior political engagement at a UK/EU level.
Amendment 42 rightly emphasise the role of the Assembly and the north-south institutions of the Good Friday agreement. That is further emphasised in Amendment 43A, which requires adherence by a UK Minister in the UK-EU joint committee meetings
“to respect, reflect and support proposals made by the Strand 2”
GFA implementation bodies. That goes back to the fact that many of the implementation bodies are inextricably linked to membership of the European Union—I am thinking of InterTradeIreland and Tourism Ireland. It is important that Ministers support proposals on the regulation of goods made by the strand 2 bodies in the joint committee meetings.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, I hope to be able to be present for the unveiling of the portrait of the late John Hume. It is a pity that our recently departed colleague Lord Trimble is not able to be there for that extraordinary occasion.
It seems to me that what the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said was wholly in tune with what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said earlier in our debates: how important it is to involve the politicians in Northern Ireland. It is also important to do something else, which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, in his speech just half an hour ago. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, is in the Chamber at the moment, because the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, talked about the crucial importance of involvement at the highest possible level. We would never have had any agreement without John Major and Albert Reynolds, built upon by Sir Tony Blair, the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and others. It is very important indeed.
No one appreciates more than I do, I hope, the tremendous tasks facing our new Prime Minister, and I wish him every possible success. However, as soon as it is possible, he should involve himself. He should go over to Belfast and meet the Northern Ireland politicians, the Taoiseach and others, because there has to be involvement at the highest level. The success of such talks would be increased if this wretched Bill were at the very least paused.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I want to make a brief comment on Amendment 40, which is about approval by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly. In support of this amendment, it has been stated that adherence to the spirit and intention of the Belfast agreement is vital. But if we are to be faithful to that agreement as amended by the St Andrews agreement, and to its spirit and intention, then the amendment is defective in that it does not include cross-community consent. Is this a resolution by cross-community consent?
The point that I have made—and as other noble Lords who are aware of the details of the Belfast agreement will know—is that every major decision in the Northern Ireland Assembly is made on a cross-community consent basis. That means a majority of nationalists, a majority of designated unionists and a majority overall. Anything that is not specifically a cross-community vote is capable of being turned into one by a petition of concern. If you are using the argument that you are defending the Belfast agreement, as amended, then why is the cross-community element of resolutions in the Northern Ireland Assembly left out? Why is that the case? Why is it not required to have the support of unionists and nationalists? That is the basis on which the Belfast agreement was written.
My second point is about the involvement of Northern Ireland parties. I have a lot of sympathy there, but it is worth bearing in mind that in the run-up, between 2018 and 2020, when we had all the discussions about the backstop and negotiations overall, the Irish Government made it clear on a number of occasions to us that they did not wish to have any engagement directly with political parties in Northern Ireland on the issue of Brexit. They did not see a role. Nor did Michel Barnier see any role for the political parties in Northern Ireland; I put that point to him directly in his office in Brussels.
Lest we move to the position that the British Government have prevented this or not done enough, I say that the Irish Government and the Brussels Commission were very clear: “This is a matter on which the EU is represented by Monsieur Barnier. He speaks for the EU.” Leo Varadkar was very clear when we met him in Belfast and urged him to encourage a more imaginative approach that would involve the Northern Ireland political parties and the Irish Government talking directly to political parties about Brexit—and the UK Government, of course. That was rejected: “No, Michel Barnier speaks for the EU. It is between Her Majesty’s Government”, as it then was, “and the EU. There is no role for anyone else.” That was spelled out explicitly.
While I have a lot of sympathy with the proposition, this is not as straightforward as it would appear. I think some of the problems we have seen might well have been made easier to resolve had there been more flexibility on the part of the EU and the Irish Government, but it needs to be put on record that it was and, as far as I understand it, remains, the position both of the Dublin Government and Brussels. It would be very interesting to see whether Leo Varadkar maintains that position when he takes over as Taoiseach in a few weeks’ time. It would be worth exploring that with the Irish Government, because the portrayal that this has been a one-sided exclusion is not accurate.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I did not intend to come in at this stage—there are further amendments later that I am interested in making a contribution to—but I agree with an awful lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has said. Over the last year or two, I have been complaining that the real difficulty in this negotiation, if that is the right word to use for it—and I do not think that it is, by the way—lies in the way the protocol was born. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the protocol, or of the Bill—and I think there is an awful lot wrong with it—I am not at all convinced it is doing what it set out to do: in fact, it has failed to do that, because the DUP has not moved considerably because of the nature of the Bill. One reason is that the negotiations have been almost exclusively between the European Union on one hand and the British Government on the other, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said. That is a fundamental problem.
I understand why the Irish Government feel that way. They are part of the European Union; the European Union negotiates on their behalf. I thought it would be a good idea if that were reversed: the Irish Government could have negotiated on behalf of the European Union because, as we have heard a number of times this evening, the issues we are dealing with reflect two international agreements. The first and overriding one is the Good Friday agreement. That is an international agreement lodged at the United Nations and it overrides everything, so far as we can see, with regard to the future of Northern Ireland. How on earth can officials from the European Union understand the issues facing Northern Ireland in the way that the Irish Government could?
That reflects too, of course, on how you involve the Northern Ireland parties. If anybody thinks that this whole issue is going to be resolved in Brussels, that is for the birds. The issue is to be resolved in Belfast: that is where the impasse is. The impasse is: why have we not got the institutions of the Good Friday agreement up and running? It is simple. It is because people have not talked to each other. There have not been proper negotiations.
I spent five years of my life negotiating in Northern Ireland so I know how intense those negotiations have to be. There were negotiations involving the European Union at some stage, but nothing like the negotiations between, on the one hand, the two Governments—the British Government and the Irish Government—and, critically, the Northern Ireland political parties on the other. In the end, they will have to decide this.
One of the great tragedies of all this—it was not the fault of the DUP; it was the fault of Sinn Féin, in this case—is that the Assembly and the Executive were brought down over the then Irish language Bill. The result was that there was no proper Executive comprised of the parties in Northern Ireland, who could have discussed all the issues we have been discussing for the past three weeks. Had there been a proper Executive and Assembly up and running, we would not—I hope—be here in the way we are. I have a lot of sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said.
I still hope that, over the next few months, the Irish Government can discuss meaningfully with the British Government. I particularly hope that there are proper, meaningful negotiations involving the political parties in Northern Ireland. By that, I mean negotiations; I do not mean going to Belfast for a couple of hours, meeting the political leaders, and then coming back again. That is not going to work. You have to get people around a table. You have to involve all the political parties in Northern Ireland. You have to do the things that we have done over the past 10 or 20 years to achieve a real, lasting solution to this issue. What we are doing now is a sham. It will not solve anything at all. The only way we can do it is through negotiations that involve the Governments and the political parties in Northern Ireland.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I want briefly to follow what the noble Lords, Lord Murphy and Lord Dodds, have said. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, may be right about the European Union not wishing to negotiate with regional politicians. It has a long-standing position on that; the EU-Canada trade agreement got bogged down because of the Wallonians, I think, who blocked it for quite some time. But never mind what the European Union or Dublin thinks. This is what matters: what our own Government decide on who is going to speak for the United Kingdom at these talks. If our Government decide to involve people and politicians in Northern Ireland, that is our business. It is not the European Union’s business. At the end of the day we know what its stance is, but that is neither here nor there if our Government decide that they are going to create their own negotiations. Who they take advice from and consult in the United Kingdom is entirely up to them, so I do not see that as an obstacle.
I gently remind the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, that the first decision in our amendment to the Belfast agreement at St Andrews was to remove the necessity for cross-community consent for the election of the First Minister. Had that remained as it was, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson would be First Minister, not Michelle O’Neill.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I shall make a short comment on Amendment 40 proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. It says that
“this section does not have effect unless it has previously been approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
Surely that is not an honourable reflection of the Belfast agreement, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, told us, overrides all the international agreements. The spirit, and a fundamental pillar, of the Belfast agreement is cross-community support. If what the noble Baronesses are saying is that the amendment actually means “by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly with cross-community support”, I challenge them to put that in and make that clear. However, I know from the previous contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, that she does not mean that. She means a simple majority and going back to majority rule, which has disappeared in Northern Ireland over the past 50 years—much at the behest of her former colleagues.
I therefore challenge the noble Baronesses to state clearly: do they desire recognition and an honourable reflection of the fundamental pillar of the Belfast agreement? When they speak about
“a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly”,
are they clearly stating that that is with cross-community support? If they are not, then they are not upholding the Belfast agreement and all the pretension in this Committee is only empty rhetoric.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to the suggestion that Clause 20 should not stand part. During these Committee debates, we have addressed a number of extraordinary provisions in the Bill that give exceptional powers to Ministers, but Clause 20 really does take the biscuit, if that is a parliamentary expression. Let me emphasise what it provides. It provides that the role of the Court of Justice in Luxembourg is excluded, which we will all have a view about, but it goes on to say that Ministers can, by regulations, recreate the role of the European Court of Justice. Is it not quite extraordinary that a Minister should be able, by regulations, to confer a power on an external body to sit as the final judicial body determining issues that are relevant for the purposes of English law? Whether you agree with the role of the Court of Justice or disapprove of it, it cannot be constitutional for a Minister of the Crown to have an exceptional power to decide who and what is the final court of appeal for this country.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, and add that it seems quite astonishingly narrow-minded and short-sighted to want to be rid of the European court in these circumstances. We heard at length last week about the effect on electricity, but there is a wider effect.
May I just put in a word of defence of the European court? I happened to visit it on numerous occasions. It has made some extraordinarily sensible decisions that have affected this country and particularly women, which is one of the reasons I support it. It is quite extraordinary that a Conservative Government, who I always thought had a broad view, should be quite unbelievably narrow-minded, and that some quite erroneous view of sovereignty should be taking over from the crucial role that the ECJ has to play in the work we are considering.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
I echo, from a non-legal point of view, the points made by the previous two speakers but, when looking at the European Court of Justice and its role under the protocol, I imagine that even the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, would not contradict the point that I am about to make, which is that the properly constituted British Government, supported by the properly constituted British Parliament, entered into a treaty that gave a role to the European Court of Justice. That is a simple fact. It is there, written. It is another simple fact that there is no provision in the protocol to remove that role of the European Court of Justice—none.
What we are talking about is a breach of our international commitments. I am sure one of the noble Lords on the Front Bench will again hotly deny that this is the case because, like the Red Queen in Alice, their only argument is, “It is so because I say it is so”. Fortunately, that is not a terribly convincing argument in this place, where occasionally—not all the time—reason has a way of prevailing. I should like to suggest that we recognise this reality, which is that the Government’s attempt to remove the European Court of Justice unilaterally from two international treaties, which they entered with the consent, support and approval of Parliament, is a breach of our international commitments.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we had a brief debate on matters relating to the European court last week, which largely focused on the earlier parts of the Bill. It is helpful to have this opportunity to deal with some of these issues in more detail.
The agreement reached with the EU on the status and role of the CJEU in relation to the protocol and other parts of the withdrawal agreement was carefully crafted and informed part of the oven-ready deal the Conservative Party was proud to call its own. There is some logic in what Clause 20 seeks to achieve. If the protocol no longer functions as intended, the legal processes cannot either, but that is only if one accepts that it is acceptable to tear up a binding international agreement in the first place.
The power for Ministers to introduce some form of referral process is interesting and a little surprising. It seems to contradict the earlier power in subsection (2). From a practical point of view, would not any referral scheme work only if the EU and European court agreed to engage in the process? Would this point not need to be negotiated?
There has been a wide-ranging debate on these issues, but it seems that there are some very practical consequences of trying to put into place a new referral process while at the same time needing to negotiate with the organisation one has just torn up a formal agreement with. How would that work in practice?
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their participation in this debate. I will first address Amendment 40 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. I am delighted to see her in her place and will do my utmost to address her points, as I turn to the first group.
The amendment would require a positive resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly before the provisions of Clause 20 can be brought into force. I point out, and it is a matter that the whole Committee is seized of, that we need to see the restoration of the institutions as quickly as possible. It is because of the breakdown of those institutions that the Government consider that the Bill is needed.
Clause 20 engages a complex combination of the transferred, devolved and reserved matters relating to foreign affairs and the court systems of the United Kingdom’s three jurisdictions. It would not be appropriate for the Northern Ireland Assembly to constrain the UK Parliament’s power to legislate, even if that legislation relates to a reserved matter.
Clause 20 is a key part of the Bill. It addresses how we treat CJEU case law, principles, and references, including in relation to those parts of the protocol that we are excluding in domestic law. I will come back to this point, but to reiterate matters taken at earlier stages before your Lordships, this is not a ripping up or tearing up of the protocol, but a recognition that parts of the protocol are not working and parts are. We seek to retain those parts that are working and dispense with those that are not.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he not agree that it would be much better to undertake such discussions through negotiations themselves to correct those parts of the protocol that may be causing concern at this moment in time?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I stress, not for the first time from the Dispatch Box by myself or my noble friends on the Front Bench, that the Government’s preference remains for a negotiated solution.
The Chamber and the other place have heard from representatives of the unionist community that the presence of the European Court of Justice in the protocol is at the heart of the democratic deficit issue. Absent the provisions of Clause 20, we could end up in an incoherent position whereby substantive provisions of the protocol are disapplied but new CJEU case law associated with those provisions continues to apply. For that reason, and the others I have outlined, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. I emphasise that bringing back the democratic institutions in Northern Ireland is the Government’s priority.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, my noble friend Lord Cormack and others raised the matter of engagement with Northern Ireland politicians. I look to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, as well, on this matter, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, touched upon it too in his submission to your Lordships at this stage. This is an important point. The Government have committed to ensuring that representatives of the Northern Ireland Executive are invited to be part of the United Kingdom delegation in meetings of the specialised and joint committees discussing Northern Ireland matters, which are also attended by the Irish Government. Also, when the Northern Ireland Executive was functioning, the then Foreign Secretary regularly met the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, along with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to discuss the protocol.
However, to reiterate the principal point, the point which brings this Bill before your Lordships’ House, the institutions are not functioning, and precisely because of the protocol. We will continue to engage, but the protocol has made things that bit more difficult.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The Advocate-General will have had the opportunity to reflect on a previous day in Committee, when concerns about the single electricity market were raised. A key component is EU law, which is not in question. How does the Advocate-General anticipate that the joint regulatory system operating under our approach and that of the EU can operate if EU law cannot be interpreted?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, interpretation of foreign law is a matter with which all three jurisdictions in the United Kingdom are familiar. With the noble Lord’s leave, because my remit does not extend to the operation of the single electricity market, which, as he said, was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in an earlier group, I will defer to my noble friends on the Front Bench and will write to the noble Lord on that point. I am grateful to him for his forbearance.
I cannot properly address the possibly important proposition raised by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, in his submission to your Lordships, anent having the Government of Ireland lead the European Union in terms of negotiations. That matter will have been heard by others in the Government and given appropriate significance. It is a novel proposition expressed with the noble Lord’s customary force. I am sure that the Government will look at it.
The noble Lords, Lord Dodds of Duncairn and Lord Empey, gave us the historical background and again laid emphasis which was valuable to us all regarding the importance of the cross-community aspect of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. As I have said, briefly, the CJEU’s position has been identified as a major obstacle.
Your Lordships’ Committee heard something about the value to be given to polling; I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, raised that as an earlier stage, contrasting polls with actual democratic exercises. However, I can say to the Committee that polling carried out by Queen’s University in Belfast has indicated that with people who have concerns about the operation of the protocol, the CJEU and its presence and status was identified as a significant problem.
Lord Pannick (CB)
If the role of the court of justice is, as the Minister puts it, a major obstacle because of democratic deficit, as he describes it, can he please explain to the Committee why Clause 20(3) would give an express power to Ministers to make regulations which would provide for a role for the court of justice? Surely that is inconsistent with what he just said.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the point. The Government have always anticipated that the United Kingdom courts will be the final arbiter. The clause to which the noble Lord just referred your Lordships provides for the creation of a reference mechanism, but United Kingdom law would ultimately prevail.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, addressed us on Amendments 42 and 43A. I argue that those proposed new clauses are in some respects unnecessary and in some aspects of their drafting inappropriate. Article 14(b) of the protocol already requires the specialised committee to
“examine proposals concerning the implementation and application of this Protocol from the North-South Ministerial Council and North-South Implementation bodies set up under the 1998 Agreement”.
That is an appropriate and valuable role. We submit that, by contrast, the noble Baroness’s amendments would create a statutory obligation for the United Kingdom to support
“proposals relating to the regulation of goods made by the North/South Ministerial Council and other North-South implementation bodies”.
That would cede control over the United Kingdom Government’s stance in the joint committee to a council in which the Irish Government sit. We consider that that would be inappropriate. The Government already ensure that representatives from the Northern Ireland Executive, as I said, are invited to meetings of the joint committee which discusses specific Northern Ireland matters, and which is attended also by the Government of Ireland. Therefore, we submit that there is already ample opportunity for representations to be made at the joint committee from both north and south.
We submit that the aspects of new clauses obliging the Government to lay reports before Parliament are also unnecessary. The Government have committed already to lay Written Ministerial Statements in Parliament before and after each meeting of the joint committee, and already do so. We also provide explanatory memoranda on matters to be discussed at joint committee meetings.
There is a more fundamental objection yet. The Bill is designed to restore the balance across all three strands of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The analogy with the milking stool has already been made: the three legs are of equal importance. To further empower the north-south dimension to the comparative detriment of the east-west dimension, as the amendment would do, will, we submit, exacerbate the problems facing Northern Ireland and undermine that delicate balance of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. In that spirit, I urge the noble Baroness to not move her amendments.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Can I just ask the noble and learned Lord as a lawyer what he was meaning when he gave an explanation on Clause 20(3)? I may be very stupid, but I could not understand a word of it.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
The noble and learned Baroness doubtless speaks rhetorically. I have the utmost respect for her intellect, as does the whole House. My position, which I sought to express, was that the clause will provide a mechanism by which a reference could be laid before the Court of Justice of the European Union, but that ultimately British law, in whatever of the three jurisdictions it is operating, will prevail over that. It is a reference procedure.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I am following up what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, just said. The implication of what my noble and learned friend said from the Dispatch Box is that there is nowhere at all for the European Court of Justice. Is it really a total sticking point in the negotiations? Can he tell me whether this is negotiable? If it is not, we are doubly wasting our time.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
With the utmost respect to my noble friend’s question, I do not feel I can go further from the Dispatch Box on what has taken place or what I consider likely to take place in negotiations from this point.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
Before I do, I say that, in response to an earlier point on which I undertook to write, I am notified from the Box that the matter of the single electricity market and the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction is covered in a letter being sent to the noble Lord today.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
That gives me an opportunity to thank the Minister for his efficiency. I look forward to reading the instant letter that is on its way.
I have a point on Article 2 and the rights associated with it. I seek some reference from the Dispatch Box, because the concern that exists, as I understand it—and I am not a lawyer; that is my declared interest—is that the directives providing the rights under Article 2 are interpretive. Therefore, if there are changes to those founding rights—or updates, interpretations or case law—there needs to be a mechanism by which we will adopt that, otherwise those rights under Article 2 are not being upheld, as I understand it. But if under the Bill the court is prohibited from having that role, what will be the mechanism while we interpret those European directives, which are protected under Article 2?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, the courts of the United Kingdom are fully competent to interpret and apply the law. The Government’s intention is that the laws of the United Kingdom should prevail and that the Court of Justice of the European Union should not henceforth have a role, unless a reference is made to it.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
In relation to the European Court of Justice and access for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland to the EU single market, how will that be facilitated if there is no ECJ? It has legislative control there.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I think this perhaps overlaps with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, raised, but I reiterate our commitment to Article 2. That will be covered in a letter we are presently framing to the noble Baroness. At an earlier stage, she raised the point and gave the Government until the commencement of Report to furnish her with an answer. That answer is now being drafted.
There is a Clause 20 stand part notice. I will summarise what I have said. This clause allows for the proper functioning of domestic court proceedings following the removal of the domestic effect of CJEU jurisdiction under Clause 13. Domestic courts will no longer be bound by CJEU principles or decisions when considering matters relating to the protocol. I emphasise that restoration of these democratic institutions is what we seek to accomplish. Subsection (3) provides a further power to make new provision in connection with this. Regulations made under this power could set out how the UK courts are to regard CJEU jurisprudence or provide a procedure to refer questions of interpretation of EU law to the CJEU if a domestic court considers it necessary to conclude proceedings. The clause is important to ensure that the Government can provide legal and judicial certainty for domestic courts considering proceedings relating to the protocol without being subject to CJEU jurisdiction, in line with the general principles of the Bill. For those reasons, I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister—not least because, as a fellow Scot, he pronounces my name correctly. The constant repetition of “Baroness Sooty” at the beginning was very pointed. Unfortunately, the rest of his reply was somewhat disappointing. However, I am very pleased that he now has on record that the pronunciation is Suttie, not Sooty.
This was a very interesting debate. It split into two distinct sections. There was a powerful debate about the negotiations taking place in Northern Ireland. The noble Lords, Lord Murphy and Lord Cormack, expressed the frustration that many of us feel, that this has to be done at the highest possible level. When the Prime Minister returns, I agree that he must go to Northern Ireland. I am sure that we will return to these matters on the Statement that we expect later this week, perhaps tomorrow or on Wednesday, where we can look at these issues in more detail. The points are very relevant, and there were some extremely good speeches.
The second major concern is around Clause 20. I listened carefully to what the Minister said, but it seems very unclear to me how the clause will protect Northern Ireland businesses, especially those that work north-south, and the single market in the future. I did not feel that we got an adequate reply to that.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and his DUP colleagues raised the important point about consent. That is part of the wider principle of how we make sure that Northern Ireland politicians feel that they are involved and included in this process.
This was a probing amendment. The wording is not necessarily right. However, we should look at this again on Report, perhaps in a broader amendment on the general principle of consent. We would want to look at exactly how that was worded. None the less, on the basis that we may return to it on Report, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Doocey
“UK-EU Veterinary Agreement: report to Parliament
Within three months of the day on which this Act is passed a Minister of the Crown must lay before each House of Parliament a report on the progress of negotiations with the European Union regarding the Northern Ireland Protocol which may result in a UK-EU Veterinary Agreement.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a Minister of the Crown to report to Parliament on the progress of any negotiations with the European Union that may result in a UK-EU Veterinary Agreement.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, this amendment seeks to make two important changes to the Bill: it removes the unworkable and discredited notion of dual regulation, and it mandates the Government to negotiate a veterinary agreement with the EU and to report back.
The protocol has facilitated the uninterrupted movement of livestock and livestock products, including milk, across the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. By removing parts of the protocol without a veterinary agreement in place, dairy farmers will bear the brunt of the Government’s dogma.
We are not talking about insignificant trade: farmers in Northern Ireland produce around 2.5 billion litres of milk every year. Of that, around 800 million litres, with a value of £600 million, need to move across the border into the Republic of Ireland for processing. This arrangement is not just economically beneficial but built on necessity, because there is insufficient capacity in Northern Ireland to process all the milk produced there, putting at risk the viability of a £1.5 billion industry and the livelihoods of tens of thousands who depend on it.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for introducing the amendment; much that she said is extremely pertinent.
It is useful at this point to remind the Committee of quite why we are in this predicament over veterinary matters. From one point of view, you can acknowledge it as a simple function of our departure from the European Union. However, the protocol, in both the May and Johnson versions, contains a way of handling veterinary matters, which is essentially to say, “We will not accept UK veterinary testing. Pirbright is gone and you are out of the system. The only form of veterinary testing we will be able to accept is that within the European Union itself”—presumably, in the case of Ireland, in Dublin. In the EU documents of the time, there are rather interesting green pictures with little arrows showing power departing from the island of Ireland to the EU, which has now taken control of this area.
There is an obvious basic problem with that. The Good Friday agreement, whose importance has been increasingly acknowledged and accepted, was not accepted as the prior agreement when we began this debate, but I notice with pleasure that it is increasingly accepted as the key agreement; that has some significance, as it was not when we opened these discussions. The Good Friday agreement established food safety and animal health boards. For the life of me, I have never known why, in the negotiation, it was quite so necessary to have the approach of extraction of powers from the island of Ireland to the EU that the protocol, lodged by the May Government and signed by the Johnson Government, contains.
That is another example of why what the Good Friday agreement suggests, and obvious pathways that follow from everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said, should be followed, rather than a strict obsessive acceptance of the fact that, “We signed it in this protocol and therefore it can’t be changed”. A negotiation is going on and it is bound to touch on these matters. In this case, as in so many others—including, I dare say, the issue we have been discussing for the last half hour—the canopy for the settlement is acceptance of the Good Friday agreement and the way in which it approached this problem. Then you get into the possibility of consensus and agreement.
It is not all the UK Government’s fault that they find themselves, to put it mildly, on the back foot. It is arguable that they have not behaved particularly effectively in sorting this problem out, but it is not all their fault. The root of the matter is the failure of the EU to understand—and how could it?—the north-south dimension of the Good Friday agreement. That failure is radically revealed in Michel Barnier’s memoir in these documents. The explanation has been given in various books and articles by the officials involved on the Irish side in Dublin in the negotiation on the 2017 agreement, which then set the template for the two later agreements. The explanation is that the Irish Government appropriated a particular version of the Good Friday agreement—their version—and sold it to the EU, and it was accepted in Europe and by us. We cannot revisit any of these issues in any simple sense but it remains an intellectual reality that is the clue to understanding how we can redress these processes.
All these problems that seem so insoluble—I absolutely respect the spirit in which the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, moved the amendment—are much more easily resolved if we follow what the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, said, accept the prior importance of the Good Friday agreement and realise that the institutions and the concepts to be found there are the institutions and concepts that provide the basis for a benign compromise that both the UK and the EU can live with.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for her amendment because it goes to the heart of the protocol and the protocol Bill issues in relation to the need for an SPS veterinary agreement. The dairy and farming industries on the island of Ireland require an SPS agreement. I have written to the noble Lord, Lord Caine, today, following last week’s debate on this issue following further discussions with elements of the dairy industry. The bottom line is that unless there is an SPS agreement, that could very much interfere with our dairy industry and totally undermine it.
I shall give a short explanation from the letter. Those in the dairy industry acknowledge the issues that the Northern Ireland retail sector is dealing with regarding the protocol and support for a dual regulatory regime, but such a regime would not work for the dairy industry because we are looking at the very survival of Northern Ireland dairy farmers. Approximately 30% of all Northern Ireland milk is processed in the Republic of Ireland because there is not the capacity to do so in Northern Ireland. It may be worth visiting some of the processing factories in Northern Ireland that are part of a greater co-operative group to see what they do and what they are trying to tell us.
If you create a hard border for milk, which the dual regulatory scheme outlined in the Bill will, there will be enormous environmental issues. Northern Ireland does not have the capacity to dump 30% of its milk, and milk has special regulations for its disposal. You could then move to the culling of perfectly healthy animals which, in a cost of living crisis, is inconceivable. Finally, this would lead to devastating consequences for the economy of Northern Ireland, as the agri-food industry is its bedrock.
So I say to the Minister that those in the dairy industry have looked at the impact of a 30% reduction in sales to an average Northern Ireland farmer. When you consider their average interest on loans and their loan repayments, this would result in an annual negative cash flow. In other words, their costs would be greater than their income.
In summation, it is vitally important that the negotiations achieve an SPS veterinary agreement. From what I have read in the non-papers from the EU of October last year, it is very prepared to enter into such an agreement as part of the negotiations. However, the dual regulatory regime will not work for the agri-food sector. Maybe a bespoke arrangement is required for the retail sector where some of the problems lie.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for her amendment because it roots our discussions in the real world of farmers and manufacturers and focuses our minds on jobs and prosperity. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, as usual, got it completely right and explained the impact on the dairy industry very powerfully. I will not repeat some of what she has already said, although I was intending to.
We ought to be working towards an SPS agreement. We on these Benches have thought that we should be working towards that sort of agreement for the whole of the UK and we have held that position for over a year because of the very clear benefits it would bring to food and drink manufacturers. I think the food and drink industry is still our biggest manufacturing sector in England, so there would certainly be significant benefits to the whole of the UK of this approach.
One benefit would surely be to assist—not to resolve completely—in overcoming some of the issues experienced by producers, hauliers and those wishing to trade east-west. We are reminded quite rightly by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, that we need to be concerned about this. It would be hugely beneficial to our industries in Northern Ireland and beyond. We understand that not every problem will be solved this way and we know that some SPS checks were there prior to the protocol, for other reasons. That seemed to work fairly well for quite a long time, so that may still be necessary. It will be interesting to see what the Minister thinks about that.
At this stage, we think we need this to help with the costs and administrative burdens faced by producers, distributors and retailers. A couple of examples have been referred to. I will briefly refer to the Swiss deal. They have an agreement where regulations are aligned, eliminating virtually all documentary, identity and physical checks. New Zealand, as we have heard, has an equivalence model that has made processes simpler and reduced checks. We probably would not want to replicate either of those models directly. Obviously there are differences, such as the volumes coming from New Zealand and the fact that many of the loads going east-west in our situation are mixed, that make neither model directly replicable. We think we probably need a bespoke agreement and the door to that seems to be open with the EU, so it is curious that the UK Government seem quite so reluctant to explore that option.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. In particular I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for tabling her amendment. I was saying to my noble friend Lord Caine that I think we are getting into some of the reasons. Irrespective of people’s views on the Bill itself, the fact is that businesses are facing problems and challenges that need resolution. I will come on to the specific point that the noble Baroness tabled so ably.
Amendment 43B, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, asks the Government to update Parliament on the progress of negotiations on the veterinary agreements between the UK and the EU. Let me say right from the outset that we have always been very serious about our negotiations on the protocol, and we remain so. Our preference remains to resolve the issues with the protocol through negotiations, and the Bill provides a power to implement any agreement which follows those negotiations—indeed, we had quite an extensive discussion on that particular point. I assure the noble Baroness that the Government have engaged quite extensively with the EU on reducing the burden of SPS checks and controls under the protocol, which she also highlighted.
Where we are right now—I am seeking to provide detail while also acknowledging what the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, said—is that, currently to date, the EU has proposed that any veterinary agreement should be based on dynamic alignment; the Government believe that this would compromise UK sovereignty over our own laws, including our ability to strike trade deals. However, on the specific points that the noble Baroness raised, we remain open to broader negotiated solutions, and we hope that the talks taking place currently can secure a bespoke biosecurity assurance—I welcome the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, in this respect—which maintains our high standards for animal, plant and public health. I know that resonates with all noble Lords.
I will also provide some detail on where we are on both the Swiss and the New Zealand agreements. Of course, the EU has a precedent for making such agreements with other countries—as all noble Lords acknowledged, and I am grateful for that—either through stand-alone agreements, such as the EU-NZ veterinary agreement, or as part of wider agreements with trading partners such as Canada and Switzerland. The UK proposed an SPS model predicated on equivalence and similar to the EU-New Zealand model in the TCA negotiations last year and, indeed, in earlier negotiations and discussions with the EU on the Northern Ireland protocol. However, the EU rejected the possibility of an agreement based on equivalence. The Swiss-EU SPS arrangement is the model that the EU has put forward repeatedly to agree with the UK and is based on dynamic alignment. There is a difference here, but at the same time I appreciate both the tone and substance of this debate, and I want to assure noble Lords that we remain open to these specific points because they address the practical problems being experienced.
Let me say a brief word on the issue of statutory reporting, although I think I have already covered this point previously. As with any negotiations, this is a matter of the foreign affairs prerogative. As I said previously—and I have sought to provide a bit more detail on some of the context in my response—I will certainly seek to update noble Lords, and I appreciate the insights that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, has brought to this debate.
Turning now to the other contributions, including those from the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Chapman, I will discuss Amendments 58, 60 and 63 together. These amendments would also place a number of requirements on the Government relating to various specific sectors within Northern Ireland, notably the publication of draft regulations and a sector-specific impact assessment, as well as to engage in consultations with representatives from those sectors. Let me say immediately that I entirely sympathise with the desire to ensure that we are properly considering the impact of legislation on all businesses within Northern Ireland. It is for this reason that we have engaged extensively with stakeholder groups across business and civic society in Northern Ireland, in the rest of the UK and internationally—I know that my noble friend Lord Caine will speak to this in subsequent groups; indeed, he covered this in our previous debates in Committee.
In addition to routine engagement, during the summer the Government held over 100 bespoke sessions with over 250 businesses, business representative organisations and regulators to inform the details of how the dual regulatory and trade boundary models should work in practice. In this respect, I can share with all noble Lords—and, in particular, with the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey—that we gained a lot of practical information from that, and we are reflecting on the wealth of feedback received as we continue to develop the details of the underlying regime. The regulations themselves will be the product of this very engagement with business to ensure that the implementation of the new regime is as smooth and operable as possible. Your Lordships’ House will have the opportunity—
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Although what the Minister has just said is very welcome, ordinarily there would be engagement so that the Minister could make well-informed suggestions. Then, of course, a period of consultation on whatever ideas the Government intended on implementing would follow. Is the Minister saying that that process would be followed in this case?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I know that the noble Baroness, and other noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, among them—have pressed me on the issue of the detail of the draft regulations. That is, again, very much the process we have adopted to make sure that we are speaking to industry and businesses and reflecting those in the draft regulations that will be published. The regulations will be reflective, as I said earlier, of the wealth of the feedback we have received. The scrutiny of the regulations will be done in the usual fashion and, of course, the Government will provide all the usual accompanying material under parliamentary procedures. The full details of the new regime will be set out in and alongside the regulations made under the Bill, including any economic impacts where appropriate. This will allow Parliament to be informed in its scrutiny of the new regime when it has been put in place.
On the issue of a statutory duty to publish such material, as suggested in the amendments, the Government’s view is that it would not be appropriate to place a statutory duty on the Government. The legislation is needed to tackle the urgent problem we have sought to identify with the workings of the protocol in Northern Ireland. While we do not anticipate any issues with providing information before regulations are brought forward, we do not want to tie our hands unnecessarily in this respect.
Finally, I say to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate that I welcome these specifics, and I hope noble Lords will appreciate that I have sought answers and am listening during the course of Committee, as are my colleagues. I am seeking to provide a bit more detail on what we have but, while asking the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, I do value the insight and the practical and constructive nature of the amendments that have been tabled.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the way he has accepted what I have said. It is very important that there is an agreement—it is absolutely critical. I do not for one moment underestimate how difficult it is for a negotiation at this level, but I urge the Government to move heaven and earth to make sure that at the end of the negotiations there is a veterinary agreement. We simply cannot allow the livelihoods of tens of thousands of people to be put at risk; it is just not an option. But for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the ability for regulations under the Bill to make changes that could normally only be made by an Act of Parliament (including modifying this Bill).
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 44, in the name of my noble friend Lady Chapman of Darlington, concerns Henry VIII powers and general rules regarding regulations. This amendment removes the ability for regulations under the Bill to make changes that could normally be made only by an Act of Parliament, including modifying this Bill. I also support the clause stand part notice in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, which seeks to oppose the inclusion of Clause 22, which sets out the general scope and nature of the powers contained in this Bill.
Clause 22(1) has the effect of making every regulation-making power in the Bill what the DPRRC has referred to as
“a super Henry VIII power.”
Ministers would be able to make any provision that would normally be made by an Act of Parliament, as well as modifying the Bill once enacted. The DPRRC’s report included a helpful comparison with the powers afforded by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. It felt those powers were too broad, yet Section 8 of that Act was subject to a sunset clause and a number of clear and important restrictions.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I keep hearing the words “democratic accountability” and then I look at the Bill and I cannot find any. We have listened as Clauses 4 to 21 have been debated in this Chamber. If we add those clauses together, we have a lamentable lack of democratic accountability. I expect it will be said, “Ah well, as always, the House of Commons can reject any regulations” and so on; and, “We have a long history of how there are 16 different ways in which the regulation-making powers can be exercised.” To that, I will say: but they have not exercised that power since 1979. This is not democratic accountability; this is quite extraordinary legislation, passing huge amounts of power into the hands of the Executive. Others have spoken. Clause 18 creates tertiary power—guidance—which is not quite a regulation of the sort we are talking about but can create matters that require compelling attention from those who have to abide by the guidance.
Let me just look at Clause 22(1), because it makes what has gone so far rather trivial. It states:
“Regulations under this Act may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament (including provision modifying this Act).”
I then add the words “and any regulations made under it”, because that follows. What it means is that the Bill, having been successfully enacted, could be dismantled by the Government two weeks later. It could be dismantled by a Government three years from now or by a Government 10 years from now. It could restore the very thing that the Bill says it is trying to get rid of—all in the hands of a Minister making regulations under the Act. That is not Henry VIII. I have lost count; I have tried to add it up in different ways. Is it Henry VIII plus Henry VIII for Clauses 4 and 5? That comes to about Clause 79. It cannot be. Is it Henry LXIV, because it is Henry VIII squared? This is an extraordinary power when the Bill is already riddled with Henry VIII powers. I am not jesting about this. The Bill provides for its restoration at any time that the Government of the day choose, or any part of it, or some of it along with other legislation. That is not how we should legislate. Should we not be ashamed of ourselves?
Parliament gave Henry VIII the power to bastardise his first and second children, to say that he was the Pope in England and that he was God’s messenger on earth, to decide the succession, and to say that the monasteries should all come down—the widest act of criminal damage this country has ever seen. Then he produced a Bill giving him the power, by proclamations, to create new laws. I shall not read it all out. What did the successor to that Parliament do? It said no. There was a battle, but in the end that power had this proviso to it put in by the Commons:
“nor that, by any proclamation … any acts, common laws (standing at this present time in strength and force) nor yet any lawful or laudable customs of this realm … shall be infringed, broken or subverted, and specially all those acts standing this hour in force which have been made in the King’s Highness’s time”.
He was not allowed to modify an Act of Parliament by proclamation.
We do not have proclamations anymore; we have statutory instruments. We have regulation-making powers that amount to a modern form of proclamation. We must not agree to clauses of this kind in any Bill. Those that we have agreed to—shame on us. We must not agree to this one. We must insist on the determination and, in its case, the courage shown by the 1539 Parliament not to give the King the powers he wanted. We must not give the Government the power they want in this clause.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, as we go through this Committee, we are discussing clauses that confound constitutional principle in ever more astonishing ways. I entirely agree with what was just said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. It is quite extraordinary that we should be asked to approve a clause that would confer power on a Minister to make by regulations
“any provision … including provision modifying this Act”.
The Committee has heard a number of powerful speeches over its four days explaining why it is wasting parliamentary time in analysing the Bill when it is a sideshow to the need to resolve the dispute with the EU. Whatever view you take about that issue, what is a manifest waste of time is for this Committee, and for Parliament on Report, at Third Reading and in the House of Commons on ping-pong if it comes to that, to debate, amend and approve legislation after lengthy debate, only for Ministers to have the power to say, “I don’t care about that. Parliament might have agreed it, but I’m going to set it aside. I’m going to substitute something else.” What is the point of parliamentary debate if that is what a Minister can do?
Indeed, such is the breadth of this provision that a Minister would have a power to substitute in the Bill something that he or she approves of that has been specifically rejected by Parliament. Parliament might have passed an amendment against the views of the Government, yet, under this clause, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said, two weeks or three years later the Minister can say, “That may be what Parliament has done, but I’m going to insert something different”. As the noble and learned Lord said, we really have to take a stand. This cannot be right in principle and it cannot be acceptable to Parliament.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I want to add to the two speeches that have just been given, with every word of which I agree. The Minister may say that we are being hypocritical, as was said earlier, because there have been earlier Bills where we have allowed Henry VIII clauses; but I have been in this House since 2006 and in my time I have never seen a Bill anything like this one, with enhanced Henry VIII powers—or Henry LXIV powers. To my knowledge, in my time we have never had a Bill that has gone so far beyond what one might almost call the “normal” Henry VIII clauses. I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said. It really is time that the Government stand back and ask, “Is this actually reasonable? What is it that we are trying to do?” It is utterly unacceptable.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is very hard to follow those three eminent contributions. The egregious nature of this clause and its subsections goes beyond parliamentary affrontery because they impinge on the devolved Administrations as well. Not content with abusing this Parliament, Clause 22(6) will abuse the other Parliaments in the UK as well by creating new powers for Ministers of the Crown over those of devolved authorities. As the delegated powers memorandum blithely puts it:
“Where a matter would normally fall within the legislative competence of the devolved administrations and the passage of devolved primary legislation would not be appropriate”,
as the Minister of the Crown would say, “or timely”, on a timetable that the Minister of the Crown would set,
“it may be appropriate to create a new devolved delegated power by exercise of this power.”
It is a Trojan horse for abusing not only Parliament but Parliaments.
I have not been a Member of your Lordships’ House for as long as the noble and learned Baroness but I have been here nine years and I was a member of a devolved authority. This is not how we should be making legislation at all. This is the clause about which Sir Robert Neill said at Committee stage in the Commons,
“this is Henry VIII, the six wives, Cardinal Wolsey and Thomas Cromwell all thrown in together”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/22; col. 370.]
The serious issue is that I do not know what limits the Government expect there will be on these powers. Could there be new criminal penalties? If not, they should not be within this. How about new tax powers? If that is not the intent, it should not be made possible by this Bill. Could it affect any part of the withdrawal agreement on other rights and freedoms? If that is not the Government’s intent, they should say so, but there are no such restrictions.
This is a Trojan horse, and in looking at some of the clauses a side of me wonders whether I should oppose it. It is so broad that we could rejoin many of the EU institutions we have left—just from this wee clause in this wee Bill. That might suit our Benches, so perhaps we had better not complain too much. Through Clause 22(6) and other sweeping regulation-making powers, we could rejoin the customs union and many of the institutions. If that is not the Government’s intention, the Minister should say so at the Dispatch Box. If he does not, we could use it for that purpose.
More seriously, and I will close on this, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has been consistent since the outset in using a phrase that has struck me: this is not what we do when it comes to international law. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, hoped over the weekend that this was all a dream and that he would arrive here on Monday to find that, like Bobby Ewing in “Dallas”, these three days in Committee never really happened. I arrived back in the country this morning from speaking at a parliamentary gathering in Buenos Aires—a network of parliamentarians supporting the International Criminal Court—in the presence of the president of the ICC. I have to say to the Minister that there have been very few times that I have been embarrassed to say that I am a British parliamentarian, but the knowledge of parliamentarians from across the world about what we are doing with this legislation shocked me. They know what we are doing. There are international gatherings about how Parliaments can support the international rules-based system, the ICC and international standards in law. This is not what we do. But it is even worse than that because our Government tell other countries what they should not do, but we are doing it at home. This is an opportunity to stop it. I hope that, even at this stage, the Government will listen to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and just stop it.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I wish to add for a moment or two to what has been some pretty powerful gunfire from those who are eminently qualified in making the serious submissions they have made.
My attention has been caught by Clause 22(6), which seeks to interfere, one might say, with devolved authorities. Looking at my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, it occurred to me that, were he part of a devolved authority in Northern Ireland and there was the exercise of a power under subsection (6), he would take pretty short shrift with it, I am sure.
To introduce perhaps a rather vulgar political point, we in Scotland are concerned constantly with the movement towards independence. Part of that movement is, often by fiction, offered to the potential electors in a referendum on the basis that Westminster wants to interfere with Scotland. It seems to me that subsection (6) might provide rather more substantial evidence of an intention of that kind.
I know that there are honourable men sitting on the Government Front Bench, but do they really believe in their hearts that it is right to urge upon this Committee the contents of this particular subsection? Surely they must realise that it is inimical to every principle upon which Parliament is founded and this House operates. If I may be forgiven for my impropriety, it is time for the Front Bench to fess up.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I take the point that he made about Clause 22(6). As a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly for many years, I know how much Members of the Assembly value their right to make laws in the areas that are devolved to it. However, I must say gently to your Lordships that, in recent times, there have been a number of examples of this House and the other place interfering in the devolved settlement in Northern Ireland. Although some of us have pointed that out, it has been with your Lordships’ positive assent and approval that the overriding of the devolved settlement in Northern Ireland has taken place in a number of areas. I would like to see a consistent approach to the devolved settlement in Northern Ireland, not this pick-and-choose approach where something being okay appears to depend on the issue of the day but, if you do not like what the Assembly has done, you can interfere—as seems to have happened on a number of recent occasions in this Parliament.
I want to highlight Clause 22(3). On the face of it, it appears—I am open to correction by those who are much more learned and have more legal expertise in these matters than me—to put some kind of restriction on the wide Henry VIII powers that are given under this particular clause. The one thing that it is apparently not possible for regulations under the Bill to do is
“create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland which feature at the border … physical infrastructure (including border posts), or … checks and controls, which did not exist before exit day.”
Having listened to the debate, I think that may well be able to be swept aside at any point. However, why is emphasis put on the one thing that is mentioned? I look to the Government Front Bench as to why it is mentioned, given that it really has no effect. Of course, we do not want any extra infrastructure at the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic and it has never been the desire or wish of anyone in the Northern Ireland political parties, or the Irish Government, the British Government or the EU, to have such infrastructure. But it would be quite helpful and an acknowledgement of unionist concerns if there were a similar provision which acknowledged—under strand 2, the north-south approach in the Belfast agreement and the importance of that relationship, but also strand 3, the east-west dimension—that regulations may not create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I am following the noble Lord closely on this point. Does he realise that today Maroš Šefčovič talked about the need for fewer border checks and, in fact, that they could be invisible on the Irish Sea border. Does the noble Lord agree that if they can be invisible on the Irish Sea border, they can be invisible at the frontier, where of course checks should happen between one country and another independent country?
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
Of course. It appears that things may have moved on, because once all these ideas were dismissed as completely fanciful. Indeed, “unicorns” were brought into play and all sorts of dismissive language was used. I am glad that now there is at least an acknowledgement that some of these checks can be done in the way that the noble Baroness has described Maroš Šefčovič as talking about.
The important point here is that we have been told throughout the Brexit process that there cannot be a single check or single piece of infrastructure on the Irish border because otherwise that will lead to violence—it will be attacked and that will undermine the Belfast agreement—without anyone, hardly, making the obvious point that, if that is unacceptable north-south, then it is doubly unacceptable between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. What does that say to the unionist population?
One of the reasons we have the alienation of people in Northern Ireland is the one-sided approach and interpretation of the Belfast agreement. I would just like an explanation. Whatever its actual import or ability to be enforced, or the fact that it can be superseded by a ministerial direction, why do the Government highlight that issue and not the fact that the reason why we have such a problem in Northern Ireland with the political institutions is that we have this similar kind of infrastructure and checks between one part of the United Kingdom and the other?
On the point that has been raised very powerfully by noble Lords on the legal issue, I fully understand why they take the position they do and, as has been said, it has been raised in relation to other Bills and Acts. I would love to see the same outrage and anger expressed more widely; it may well have been during the passage of the then Bill, before my time in your Lordships’ House.
You can imagine therefore that if there is such outrage about powers being given by Parliament to the Executive and UK Ministers, how citizens of Northern Ireland—British citizens, fully part of the United Kingdom—feel about powers being not just taken from Parliament and given to Ministers but given to foreign officials of the European Commission to propose law. They are totally unaccountable to anyone in the United Kingdom. They do not have to answer to anyone or answer any questions. There is no parliamentary process whatever within the United Kingdom that can even challenge the directives and regulations that cover 300 areas of law affecting the economy of Northern Ireland. Therefore, while accepting entirely the points made about delegated legislation and Henry VIII powers, I would like to see reflected some of the same concerns about how we in Northern Ireland feel about the way that laws are now made by a foreign polity in its own interest. It is not in our interest; it is made in its own interest.
The Bill is part of an effort to try to remedy that problem. People have said we will have negotiations. But given that we have already had communicated to us that the EU is not open at this stage to changing the mandate of its main negotiator, certainly, how else are we going to get to a situation where that outrageous situation in Northern Ireland is remedied?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank—I think—all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. There were some highlights. I have to go home and explain to Lady Ahmad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, dreamt about me over the weekend. That is a moment to ponder and reflect on, as any good Minister would, from the Dispatch Box.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I have the opportunity to travel, although I was asked today as I came into your Lordships’ House, “Tariq, why aren’t you in Sharm el-Sheikh?”. I said three words—“Northern Ireland protocol”—which put that colleague in their place. I heard what the noble Lord said about international law and the rule of law. Notwithstanding the challenges, it is right that we have this level of scrutiny. I listened very carefully to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and I agree with her. We are all talking about time in Parliament, et cetera. The other day, I was informed that I am now second only to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in term of my time on the Front Bench. Let us watch that space as well. With the nature of reshuffles, you never know what will happen when.
In all seriousness, we have a lot of respect internationally. That is why, in successive elections in the ICC, three major positions have been held by the UK. Again, in the ILC, a successful campaign was run. I feel very strongly that, irrespective of the nature of the discussions we are having, the United Kingdom has a very strong reputation internationally and I, for one, am very proud to be not just a British parliamentarian but a British Minister representing these interests abroad.
I come to the specifics now, the nitty-gritty of the amendments themselves. I first say again that on the issue of the Henry VIII clause—specifically on this clause, but more generally across the Bill—of course the Government are listening very carefully to the contributions being made. We have had legislation in the past where we have equally had this level of scrutiny. It is a reflection of our democracy that it allows us to have these challenges to the Government.
I turn to Amendment 44. The Bill provides specific powers to make new law in certain areas, as noble Lords have pointed out, including where we are disapplying the EU regime in domestic law and where such laws are required to make our new regime work. To give effect to the new regime set out in the Bill, amendments to domestic legislation may be required, including Acts of Parliament where appropriate.
Moreover, certain sectors in Great Britain are currently also regulated by retained EU regulations which have protected status under Section 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and cannot be modified except by an Act of Parliament or certain specified subordinate legislation. An example is retained EU regulation 2016/425, which currently regulates personal protective equipment in Great Britain. It may be appropriate to amend such legislation for the purposes of the dual regulatory regime to ensure that the UK regime applies appropriately also to all of the UK and appropriately to Northern Ireland.
We recognise, of course—and I have heard it again today—the seriousness of amending legislation, and also proposing new legislation. The noble and learned Baroness pointed to legislation already passed, where Henry VIII clauses have been included. I will not challenge the fact we have had quite challenging discussions in this respect as well, but Parliament has already considered and put on the statute book these particular issues of amending legislation. While it might be somewhat of a small recognition of the powers, these particular powers to amend Acts of Parliament will be subject to the affirmative procedure, allowing Parliament to scrutinise and review any changes to existing legislation, even where these changes are consequential, or technical. I recognise, of course, the depth of the challenge that has been put to the Government and, in all respects, respect the seriousness of the contributions that have been made.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The example he cited with regard to the operability of the red lanes is covered earlier in the Bill, so the regulation powers were debated. So I do not understand why they are needed in such a broad manner under this clause, which does not even have any of the restrictions of the previous ones. If they need powers for the operation of any of the new red lanes, they are there in Clauses 4, 5 and 6. We have debated these; they exist.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I was merely emphasising. I did refer to earlier clauses as well when I was giving one specific example in this particular group. But I hear what the noble Lord says, and, of course, I recognise that there are issues, particularly in this clause, about the powers that are being proposed. In coming on to that particular point, in relation to the concerns raised by the breadth of powers, each individual power that is being proposed in the Bill is being constrained by its purpose. None of them is a “do anything” power, and Clause 22(1) does not make them so: it merely ensures they can fully fulfil their purposes.
Lord Judge (CB)
The clause says that regulations under this Act may make
“any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament (including provisions modifying this Act.)”
The words are completely expressed.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
As I said, we are seeking to put a power in the Bill, and I will provide clarification on that. Each individual power that we are seeking to take in this respect is being constrained by its purpose—but, if I may, on that point, I will write to the noble Lord once I have talked to officials specifically about this aspect of the debate.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Perhaps I could invite the noble Lord, when he writes to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, to explain why it is appropriate for Ministers to have the power to make regulations to modify this very Act. Can he specifically address how Clause 22(1) fits with the clause mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, Clause 22(3), which contains the express exception:
“Regulations … may not create or facilitate border arrangements”?
Yet, as I understand this Bill, Ministers under Clause 22(1) could simply disapply Clause 22(3). It would be completely otiose. What is the point of having a restriction in the Bill that a Minister, by regulation, could simply disapply?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I shall of course cover the specific point the noble Lord has highlighted, as well. I appreciate that it is for the Government to make the case on the specific provision contained in the Bill to ensure that we can, as far as possible, satisfy the issues and the questions being raised.
Clause 22 sets out the general scope and nature of the powers contained in the Bill. This will ensure the powers have the appropriate scope to implement the aims of the Bill. The clause sets out that regulations made under the defined purpose of the powers in this Bill can make any provision—this was a point noble Lords made—for that purpose that could be made by an Act of Parliament. This includes amending the Bill, as the noble Lord has just pointed out, or making retrospective provision.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said, the clause confirms that regulations under this Bill may not create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland that feature, at the border, either physical infrastructure or checks and controls that did not exist before exit day.
Subsection (6) provides that a Minister can facilitate other powers under this Bill to be exercisable exclusively, concurrently or jointly with devolved Administrations. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, raised a specific point just now, which does require clarification on two elements within the clause. I will make sure that they are covered.
A concern was raised about the ability of the Government to work with the devolved Administrations. As I said on an earlier group, the former Foreign Secretary wrote to the devolved Administrations and we are engaging with them on the implementation and provisions of this Bill. It is the Government’s view that these new powers are necessary to make the regime work smoothly and to provide certainty to businesses.
While recommending in Committee that this clause stand part of the Bill, I recognise that, while we share moments of humour in Committee, it is right that these detailed concerns were tabled in the way they were. This allows the Government—
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
I am very grateful to the Minister before he sits down. He sort of glossed over Clause 22(3) by, in effect, reading out what it says. But I respectfully seek an explanation of why that subsection has been inserted when there is no similar provision on checks and infrastructure between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
On that point and the earlier issue of why this is specific, we want to avoid a border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in any shape or form. That is the specific nature of this and we have all desired that in our discussions, but I take on board and understand the noble Lord’s point. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, also pointed to this and how the operability of the border is causing challenges. This is inherent in the protocol, which provides this de facto border between two different parts of the same sovereign nation. That is the problem that we are wrestling with and seeking to resolve—so I acknowledge the noble Lord’s point.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
Before the Minister is allowed to resume his seat, I understand and accept that the Secretary of State may be engaging with the devolved authorities. On that basis, may we take it that their responses to that engagement will be publicly available?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I will not go into the speculative nature of what each devolved Administration will say, but we have great resilience and passion within our devolved Administrations and I am sure that, as discussions and negotiations progress, both the Government and your Lordships’ House will be very clear about what the Administrations think.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The constitutional point is clearly the huge point here; mine is a minor addition. Would the noble Lord look at Clause 22(2)(a) and (b) and put himself in the position of an EU negotiator? Would he willingly come to an agreement with the British if they had just given their Ministers the power, without any parliamentary oversight, to make any provision they wish, notwithstanding that it is not compatible with the protocol or any other part of the EU withdrawal agreement?
As the negotiator contemplates trying to find practical solutions to make the protocol less burdensome, the negotiator is confronted on the other side of the table by a Government who are taking to themselves the right to change anything in the withdrawal agreement without consulting Parliament. I think as a minimum—and I put this very mildly—that does not improve the chances of the negotiations succeeding, which is why I think so many in Brussels believe that if we proceed with this Bill, the talks, the negotiations and the consultations will not succeed.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
That was almost a rhetorical question being posed to me. What I can say in response is that the engagement we are having with the European Union is—as I have said before, and I would be very up front and honest if this was not the case—being done constructively. The EU understands and appreciates the basis of why we are seeking to do this. It also understands that this Bill is being scrutinised, as is happening this evening, and that we are continuing to work in terms of constructive engagement.
As I have said before, with the Commissioner visiting the UK, the engagement between my right honourable friend and Commissioner Šefčovič is in a good place in terms of the level of engagement, in both tone and substance. I cannot go further than that. The noble Lord is very experienced in all things diplomatic and, indeed, is a veteran of the EU Commission. I am not going to speculate on what an EU Commissioner or an EU negotiator will say because I have never been one.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The Minister is being patient with us and I know everybody is hungry. As the Minister has generously said he is going to write to Members taking part in the Committee, will he add something for my benefit, which is giving examples of other legislation that we have passed in which any and all parts of it can be amended by regulation immediately on commencement?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
This is turning into a very long letter. I think I am going to get something from the Box which says, “Minister, do not commit to writing anything ever again.” But I know what the noble Lord has asked of me.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has been put in an impossible situation. I thank all noble Lord who have spoken in this debate. It is a hard act to follow. We have had the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, talking about extraordinary legislation and quoting from the Proclamation by the Crown Act 1539, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, talking about wasting the Committee’s time and then using that very legal words “otiose” when comparing Clause 22(1) and Clause 22(3). We have had the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, talking about never seeing so many Henry VIII powers in her time in Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked a number of questions, including one we have heard just now, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, very relevantly asked about the reason that there is an exception in Clause 22(3) about border infrastructure on the north-south border, so I look forward to seeing this letter as well. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hoey
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment prevents a Minister of the Crown making provision by regulation which has the effect of repealing, subordinating or otherwise interfering with the United Kingdom’s foundational constitutional statutory framework.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in moving this amendment I will also, in some detail—I apologise, but I have not spoken very much in Committee—make a constitutional plea to the Government on behalf of British citizens in Northern Ireland.
This amendment is very simple. It seeks to remedy an important gap at the heart of the Bill. I believe the Bill is good. It creates the framework for a fair and balanced solution and, if the powers it confers are used appropriately, will restore Northern Ireland’s place within the union. Clause 1(c) is clear that one of the Bill’s primary purposes is to remedy the present subjugation of the Union with Ireland Act 1800 and the Act of Union (Ireland) 1800, which together are known as the Acts of Union.
The Prime Minister before the previous Prime Minister, speaking in the House of Commons, claimed that the withdrawal Act was not intended to affect the Acts of Union, yet a few months later senior counsel, on behalf of the then Government, went to court in our protocol case in Belfast and argued exactly the opposite. As the late Lord Trimble simply put it:
“The Act of Union is the union.”
That is undeniably true. In Halsbury’s Laws, the Acts of Union are described as
“the statutory warrant for the continued incorporation of Northern Ireland with the United Kingdom”.
The High Court and Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland have been clear—we should not really need a court to tell us this—that the Acts of Union remain in force and together have the status of constitutional statutes.
There has been some commentary suggesting that the Acts of Union were somehow repealed or overridden by the Government of Ireland Act 1920 or later statutory provisions, but that is simply not so. The 1920 Act simply made provision for separate devolved arrangements in two parts of Ireland, each of which remained fully part of the United Kingdom and subject to the United Kingdom Parliament. There was and is nothing in the Acts of Union to prevent the creation of subordinate legislatures, provided that the King in Parliament remains sovereign.
Section 1(2) of the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act 1922 provided that the southern parliament be dissolved, and the Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act 1922 provided that the 1920 Act no longer had effect beyond Northern Ireland. This has the effect of a non-textual amendment to Section 75 of the 1920 Act, maintaining the untrammelled authority of Parliament over Northern Ireland. In consequence, southern Ireland no longer remained within the UK but Northern Ireland did, and therefore remained firmly under the constitutional protections of the Acts of Union. These legislative events in 1922 at most altered the territorial extent of the Acts of Union but did not alter the fundamental constitutional foundation of the union itself.
Here is the simple question I pose to noble Lords. Article 3 of the Acts of Union creates our Parliament, and Article 6 prescribes the economic constitutional framework—essentially, the UK internal market. Could a majority in Parliament constitutionally abolish Parliament, and thus our democratic constitutional system itself, and in its place usher in new authoritarian arrangements? If noble Lords think not, because Parliament is a constitutional fundamental, then that constitutional fundamental is derived from Article 3 of the Acts of Union. If Article 3 of the Acts of Union is a constitutional fundamental, as a matter of simple logic there is no reason to give some lesser status to Article 6. Why should one receive greater constitutional deference or protection than the other?
In our largely unwritten constitution, something may be unconstitutional—that is, offensive to or subversive of our constitutional order—without being necessarily unlawful. Our constitution, however, is entrusted primarily to us and our colleagues in another place. We are here as guardians of the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom as much as we must be guardians of the rule of law. But if a law, even one made by Parliament, is unconstitutional, it is our duty to stand against that in discharge of our functions in this House. In my view and that of many others, Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which brings the protocol into domestic law, is unconstitutional, given that its effect is the subjugation of the Acts of Union and thus the fundamental constitutional basis of the union itself.
While this Bill may well conflict with international obligations under the protocol—although I think that Article 16 of the protocol itself makes any such claim doubtful—any such obligations must yield for two reasons. The first is the doctrine of necessity, which has been set out by the Government and dealt with expertly by many Members of this House, including the noble Lord, Lord Bew. I need not repeat those contributions but, in so far as I have heard them relate to international law, I support them.
The second, which I think needs to be gone into a little more fully, is that the protocol subjugates the fundamental constitutional foundation of the United Kingdom. The Government have an overriding constitutional obligation to remedy that and, if that requires acting against a previous treaty, so be it. The Bill as it stands would remedy the present breach of the Acts of Union if Clause 4 were brought into force via commencement order. However, there still seems to be a hole. Although the Bill, in line with its intent in Clause 1, would remedy the present breach of the Acts of Union by removing the most offensive elements of Article 5 of the protocol from having effect in domestic law, it does not prevent a Minister of a Crown using the Henry VIII powers that we have heard so much about to replace the current arrangements with new arrangements that would again breach the Acts of Union. The superficially attractive answer to that point is to say that Parliament could legislate again to subjugate the Acts of Union if it so wished. As a matter of parliamentary sovereignty, it could—notwithstanding the validity of my point around how it is constitutionally improper.
The distinction here is that Parliament, with all the checks and balances, could do it or try to do it. As it stands, Clause 22 permits—or, to put it another way, does not prevent—a Minister of the Crown by regulation to alter the foundational constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom. If it were to stand, it would mean that a Minister of the Crown, in exercising powers as specified in Clause 22, could again subjugate the Acts of Union and thus act in a manner contrary to what is, superficially at least, a fundamental aim of the Bill, which is to restore the Acts of Union.
It is notable that Clause 22 prevents a Minister of the Crown doing anything by regulation that would create a north/south border. This inherent imbalance, which my amendment seeks to remedy, once again eliminates the entirely one-sided nature of the so-called “peace process” in Northern Ireland. A Minister of the Crown, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, earlier, is prohibited in exercise of these powers from doing anything to facilitate or create a land border where it should be, but there is no such constraint on creating a border in our own country and subjugating the Acts of Union. That simply is an absurdity. I know that the Minister could not really give a reason why this had not gone in but I trust—being very naive, perhaps—that it was simply an oversight on the part of the drafters.
There is no reason why the Government could not adopt this amendment. In answer to a question posed in the House of Commons by Sir Jeffrey Donaldson MP, the then Secretary of State—the previous Secretary of State, not the current Secretary of State; it gets a bit confusing—gave an assurance that the exercise of powers under the Bill would have to be in a manner compatible with the Acts of Union. He made that assurance in the House. If that assurance, given to Parliament, is to be worth while, why would the Government not give effect to it by way of a straightforward clause in this Bill?
I therefore ask again for clarity from the Government. I know the Minister may well need to go back and discuss whether they will perhaps be able to adopt this amendment, so I do not expect an answer right now, but I do pose a question—and, if possible, I would like a response in the wind-up—about the commitment made by Brandon Lewis MP. Is the Minister willing to reaffirm to this House that any new arrangements to be made by regulation will have to be compatible with the Acts of Union?
This is fundamental. If the Government cannot do so, they will be saying to pro-union people, who the Conservative Government continue to urge to trust them, that the promises made to them about the restoration of the Acts of Union are in fact hollow and that once again they may well be being tricked. There seems to be little point in remedying the Acts of Union breach via the commencement of the relevant provision in this Bill and then replacing that which has been removed with another breach of the Acts of Union. It brings us back to the same place, because no self-respecting unionist will support arrangements which occasion a breach of the Acts of Union.
The fundamental issue for unionists—the clue is in the name—is that the Acts of Union must be restored, and the Acts of Union require equal footing in matters of trade. Let us be clear: the restoration means an end of EU law applying in Northern Ireland. If it continues to apply in Northern Ireland but not in the rest of the United Kingdom then the Acts of Union are breached. A breach of the Acts of Union is also a breach of the principle of consent because it fundamentally alters the constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the union.
That brings me to another pertinent point. Last week, after a lot of procrastination, the Northern Ireland Office ruled out lawmaking powers over Northern Ireland for Dublin. It did so correctly, on the basis that this would breach the principle of consent. Can the Government therefore explain how they reconcile the plainly correct position that lawmaking powers being handed to Dublin would breach the principle of consent with their continued entirely illogical claim that handing lawmaking and judicial powers to Brussels does not? What, tell me, is the difference between Brussels exercising lawmaking powers over Northern Ireland and Dublin doing the same? In truth, I do not think that there is any coherent answer to that.
This amendment would offer protection to the fundamental constitutional basis of the United Kingdom. We do not want any more trickery, clever footwork or compromising that ends up with Northern Ireland’s constitutional position not absolutely restored—not just in the present but protected in the future—to being an integral part of the United Kingdom. Amending Clause 22 would provide some measure of constitutional safeguard, which I am afraid is necessary. A little under two months ago, the Government again went before the court in Northern Ireland and argued that the territorial extent of the United Kingdom should be interpreted as meaning only Great Britain, with Northern Ireland instead treated as part of the EU’s territory. That was the Government’s case. Noble Lords can see why so many pro-union citizens in Northern Ireland have voted in huge numbers to give the DUP the mandate to take nothing on trust. I am really sad to say that this Government are increasingly losing the trust of those who cherish the union.
Over the years, unionists and loyalists in Northern Ireland have been betrayed by Conservative and Labour Governments, again and again. They had courage in times of war, fighting for the UK, and through 40 years of terrible terrorism, and their loyalty has been rewarded by being treated like second-class citizens, with constant appeasement to the Irish Government and those who are dedicated to destroying the union and the very birthright of unionists to live as equal citizens under the protection of His Majesty’s Government. They were betrayed during the home rule crisis, betrayed after the First World War and betrayed in 1985, and, sadly, many in Northern Ireland now feel that, even in the 1998 agreement, the unionist community was deceived. That is partly why many of us are determined to get rid of those injustices and ensure that what was promised by the sovereign Government of this country to its British citizens in Northern Ireland is upheld.
Of course, the final betrayal was the Northern Ireland protocol. It was said that no British Prime Minister could allow a border in the Irish Sea—and yet we saw what happened. When such a border was put there, subjugating Northern Ireland and its citizens, it was an historic wrong. There is no justifying or explaining it. It plunged a knife into the back of British citizens in Northern Ireland, the part of the United Kingdom which I call my home. The historical record will show those who stood up for our country, the United Kingdom, and those who stood with the EU and a foreign Irish Government.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for this amendment. She knows from many discussions and from what I have said in this House that, despite the distinguished legal heft behind her argument on the Acts of Union, I do not accept it. By the way, I do not accept the argument that the protocol subjugates the Acts of Union, but I do not want to repeat things that I and others have said during this debate.
However, the noble Baroness’s speech is very important for a particular reason. I look over at the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and remember that we were all in exactly the same place in April 1998—in favour of the agreement. All of us were determined to get that agreement going. The speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, reflected a significant degree of disillusionment, largely provoked by events since the protocol.
The issue that the noble Baroness homed in on was the Acts of Union. The White Paper which preceded the Bill does not reference the issues around the Acts of Union, whereas the Bill does. It is more briefly than the noble Baroness would like, but it none the less references upholding the Acts of Union. That reflects the deterioration that has occurred in public opinion in Northern Ireland, even since the publication of the White Paper. The Government decided—I understand for tactical reasons—to include a reference to the Acts of Union in the Bill.
We have listened tonight to quite a lot of esteemed legal opinion, but the truth is that this is a political problem. It has to be faced up to. The truth is that we are in a very difficult moment when it comes to the possibility of making the Good Friday agreement’s institutions operate as we head toward its 25th anniversary. The strong conviction that I have—I think the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, also feels this—is that there is no other show in town, and so that is what we should be working to do.
One of the reasons why I am a little uncomfortable about the eloquent discourses on Henry VIII powers—I have been in this House long enough to have heard many such—is the point forcefully made by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, tonight. The House gets very excited about Henry VIII powers when it suspects that the uses will not be loved by the House but, when it is a Henry VIII power which is pretty unpopular with large sections of opinion in Northern Ireland, the House has no qualms. We have seen it most recently on the abortion issue. What matters is not Henry VIII powers but the purposes to which they are put, and in this case the purposes to which these powers would be put would be essentially dealing not with a sea of anonymity but with EU interventions of one sort or another in the laws of the United Kingdom.
The way in which the House approaches this really makes me uncomfortable, because it is an attitude of mind that does not reflect the political nature of the problem. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, as a very esteemed legal mind in this House, actually faced up to what the Good Friday agreement, an international agreement, says quite clearly at Article 1(5). He used the expression: “You cannot live with long-term alienation.” The British Government—the sovereign Government—have a responsibility to address the long-term alienation of a community, as they did only recently on the Irish language. There is no question about that. “Alienation” is a perfectly fair translation, but that piece of legislation actually says that the British Government as the sovereign Government have to deal on the basis of equality of esteem with the long-term aspirations of both communities. There is no question but that the protocol as it now stands is seen by the unionist community as a whole as flouting its long-term aspirations.
I suppose that just after Brexit came into our lives—unhappily, for many—former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, who was present in 1998, came to this House and addressed the House of Lords Select Committee. He said, “You can talk all you like about Europe but there is the little matter of the Good Friday agreement, held as an international agreement in the United Nations.” The House has tended to forget that. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to the fundamental legal thrusts at the beginning of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, the fact that many people in Northern Ireland will see her case as, if anything, too soft and too moderate is a sign of how we are losing control of public opinion in Northern Ireland and our ability to intervene in that public opinion. That is extremely worrying.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, who was in his place earlier this evening, is quite right: we cannot afford to give the impression that Northern Ireland is an ungovernable entity. There must be a return to power sharing. I will be clear about this: it will not occur on any other basis than a renewed form of historic compromise. We should take the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, as a warning about how public mood is evolving away from compromise, and all the lectures on Henry VIII powers in the world are not anything like as significant as that fact for the political history of this country.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I have three amendments in this group but, before referring to them, I say that obviously this set of amendments really deals with the restrictions on the use of ministerial powers. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Bew, referred to the kernel of the issue, which is about the politics of Northern Ireland. I think that is what the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, also said. Obviously, as a democratic Irish nationalist I come from a very different position, and I make no bones about it. In the fullness of time, subject to agreement and to consent, I would like to see the island of Ireland politically united, but that is united according to the principle of consent and united by agreement. The land is already united, but I mean the uniting of people on the island.
In this discourse, we must not forget that we have to move towards compromise and achieve it. I go back to the point made by my noble friend Lord Murphy: the most important thing is that there is an urgent need for the parties in Northern Ireland to be directly involved in the negotiations with the UK, the Irish Government and the EU. Unless that happens, we will go down the road of technical negotiations and discussions ad infinitum but they will not solve the political issues that exist, and those political issues urgently require to be resolved if we are to have the restoration of political institutions.
In that context, I pose this question: do all parties and all peoples want those political institutions restored? For my part, I would like them restored because they are based on the principle of consent and it is all about power sharing and co-operation. Because of the nature of the divided society in Northern Ireland, it cannot go any other way and the only solution is via the Good Friday agreement. I hope we will get back to that, and the best way to do it is through negotiations between not only the UK and the EU but the parties in Northern Ireland that are most directly affected, representing all the people, and of course the Irish Government, who could take on the role of the EU or work in partnership with the EU as a member state.
Amendment 46 seeks to circumscribe and limit the regulations to ensure adherence to Northern Ireland Assembly approval for a legislative consent Motion. The regulations are referred to only in the Bill; they are not specified and will be subject to secondary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, referred to Henry VIII powers. If this were just about Henry VIII powers then it might be quite simple, but it comes back to the overarching umbrella of the political situation and the need for a political solution. Here, there is a total disregard for the democratic consent of the Assembly and the importance of what it is there to do as an organ of the Good Friday agreement. It is important that that is built into this legislation, although obviously I would prefer that the legislation was not there and that it was replaced totally by negotiations.
Amendment 54 seeks the agreement of the First and Deputy First Ministers acting jointly on behalf of the Executive or Assembly. In that, I am building in joint accountability. There is a case for reverting to the appointment of the Ministers jointly as joint First Ministers. In fact the noble Lord, Lord Empey, referred to the earlier situation where, at St Andrews, that principle was undermined. Appointing Ministers and calling them joint First Ministers would emphasise power sharing, co-operation and jointery. It would recognise the principle of consent as prescribed by the Good Friday agreement, and it would get away from the idea of one side saying, “Make me First Minister”, and the other side saying, “No, make me First Minister”. We have to ensure that equality and parity of esteem are recognised in the Bill if the Bill is to go ahead.
Amendment 55 proposes a new clause requiring the Minister yet again to obtain the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly to exercise the power to make regulations conferred by the Bill. It would also require a Minister to obtain the consent of the Assembly for the continued application of the regulations beyond the relevant period. It would therefore require the consent and the accountability of the Assembly. There should be no imposition of these unspecified regulations without the agreement of the Assembly. The fundamental point is that the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives in the Assembly are key and fundamental to the whole process, and should be directly involved in the negotiations in deciding the way forward.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. I have just a couple of small points before dealing with some of the wider issues raised by the amendments tabled in this group.
First, on the negotiations, I do not disagree with the involvement of Northern Ireland parties, as I said previously. It was suggested earlier—I think by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, who I regret is not in his place at the moment—that it did not matter what the EU thought as long as the British Government involved the Northern Ireland parties, but we are not talking about consultations; we are talking about negotiations. I think the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, put his finger on it: it is about getting people around the table. If you are going to negotiate, you need the EU and the Irish Government to be on board. The fact is that, regrettably, they have not changed their position from their previous utterances, where they said that this is entirely a matter for the EU, not for regional parties or any individual member state Government; they have said it is for the European Commission, negotiating under the mandate given to it by the Council of Ministers.
My second point is on the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, raised about the joint First Minister nomination, which was also raised on the previous set of amendments. It should be remembered that the Saint Andrews agreement took place towards the end of the 2000s, in an effort to restore devolution after years in which it had been brought down—again, by Sinn Féin, given the fact that it was out murdering people in the streets, and had not decommissioned its weapons, despite promises that it would do so. There was the famous quote by the late Lord Trimble, who said, “We have jumped, now it is your turn.” Of course, Sinn Féin never did reciprocate. As a result, we had the Northern Bank robbery, and the institutions were down for three or four years. They were eventually restored as the result of Saint Andrews, and that was a cross-community agreement which made the arrangements in relation to the nomination of First and Deputy First Minister. That was the result of a cross-community agreement, so the idea that that is contrary to the principle is simply wrong.
I fully endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said about her amendment. It is an important amendment which deals with an issue that has caused considerable concern and anxiety in Northern Ireland, which is the fact that thus far the courts have ruled that Northern Ireland’s constitutional position, Article 6 of the Act of Union, has been subjugated by the Northern Ireland protocol. That is a legal ruling. If we are paying such close scrutiny to the legal technicalities, the legal position set out in the Bill and all its intricacies—which is perfectly proper—we cannot then simply dismiss the ruling of the courts in relation to the Act of Union as neither here nor there. This is an important matter for unionists. It is the foundational constitutional document of Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom, so this is no small matter. It is something that is being challenged by unionist political leaders right across the board, and it is therefore important that it is addressed.
That is why the Belfast agreement, as amended by St Andrews, is in some considerable difficulty, because the protocol has this effect on our constitutional position. The fact is that we have another series of amendments, tabled in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Suttie, about “consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly”, which does not include the cross-community element—the cross-community vote. Again, this says to unionists that, while some are prepared to defend and speak up for the Belfast agreement, and say that this is all about protecting it, when it suits them they just change it. The Belfast agreement provides for votes like this on a cross-community basis, yet time and time again we see things being tabled in this House which undermine the agreement. We are told that we should respect the agreement and its spirit, yet here we have amendments that go against what is in the Belfast agreement—never mind the issues about the east-west relationship and strand three of the agreement, which are trashed by the protocol, and the removal of the democratic consent mechanism for the protocol itself, which means that the Assembly had absolutely no say at all before the protocol was introduced. So we are in a very difficult situation.
There is no doubt that unionists have lost a large degree of confidence in the institutions of the Belfast agreement. On what was agreed in 1998, many of us opposed those elements which released unrepentant murderers back on to the streets of Northern Ireland after serving only two years for some of the most heinous crimes imaginable of murder and depravity—people from both sides of the community were allowed to walk free from jail. The Royal Ulster Constabulary was consigned to history, and there were all sorts of issues about Sinn Féin being admitted into government while the Provisional IRA was still murdering people in the streets, as I said, and were still fully armed. Those of us who opposed these things were told, “You’ve got to accept all these things in the name of peace.” Many people did accept them; there was a referendum, it was passed, and the institutions were set up. But unionists had to accept into government people who parties here in Westminster—and, ironically, the parties Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil in the Irish Republic—would not accept into coalition with them. Northern Ireland is lectured all the time about democracy and accepting Sinn Féin into government—and we have accepted Sinn Féin into government, as per the votes of the people who gave them votes and demanded a coalition arrangement. However, the same people who lecture unionists refuse to have anything to do with them in terms of a coalition in the Irish Republic—and I imagine that neither the Labour Party nor the Conservative Party would admit them into a Government here.
We are seeing that the basis of the settlement in 1998 is now continually undermined. The principle of consent has been breached as a result of this protocol. We now have increasing clamour, including recently from the Irish Taoiseach, about changing the rules of the Belfast agreement and how the Assembly should operate. Indeed, I understand that the Taoiseach went so far as to say that it was a matter for the Irish Government, the British Government and the parties. I am sorry, but strand one is a matter for Northern Ireland parties and the UK Government; it is not a matter for the Irish Government. They are entitled to be involved in strand two and strand three issues, but not the internal government of Northern Ireland. This is causing real concern among unionists. We are in a dangerous situation, and not just because of the protocol but because we are seeing that the Belfast agreement is now going to be completely undermined if some people get their way. Majority rule, which, as we have heard, has not happened and has not been the case in Northern Ireland since the early 1970s, is something which has been railed against for over 100 years. However, as a result of boundary changes and the rest, as soon we have a non-unionist majority in the Assembly—it is not a nationalist majority; unionists are still the biggest designation—and because that now does not suit Sinn Féin, the SDLP or even the Alliance Party, some say, “Let’s change the rules.” If unionists had been suggesting such a thing in the late 1990s, during the 2000s or up until 2019, we would have been howled down as being in breach of the very fundamental principles of the Belfast agreement.
The more talk there is of that; the more talk there is about joint authority in the event of no devolution—something that, again, is entirely contrary to the Belfast agreement—the more talk there is about the protocol being rigorously implemented or not changing the protocol in the way it needs to be changed to get unionist consent; the more we are in danger of seeing the restoration of the Assembly and the institutions of the Belfast agreement receding further and further into the distance. That is the reality. We do not want that to happen. We need to get a grip. The more delay there is, either in negotiations or in the UK Government taking the action needed to restore unionist faith in the political process in Northern Ireland, the longer the institutions will be down. This Government cannot have a situation in which Northern Ireland is left in limbo, where no decisions are taken by anybody, where there are no Ministers and where civil servants do not even have the powers they had the last time. We need Northern Ireland to be governed. The UK Government, who have sovereign responsibility under the Belfast agreement and their constitutional responsibilities, need to take responsibility and act for the good government of Northern Ireland.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I shall add a few remarks. The constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom is a very important issue for many people in Northern Ireland, and certainly for the unionist population. There is no doubt whatever that the protocol is undermining and has undermined Northern Ireland’s position. I believe it is a vehicle to continue to undermine the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. The protocol has brought a profound constitutional change to the very heart of the United Kingdom, because the courts have now ruled that the meaning of the Act of Union, the foundation of the union, has been changed by the protocol, courtesy of it being given direct effect in UK law through the withdrawal agreement Act, with the effect that this subjugates the meaning of Article VI of the Act of Union to the protocol.
I was asked this afternoon how many years I had been in public life in Northern Ireland. It is hard to believe, but in May next year, it will be 50 years: 37 years in the council, 25 years in the other House as a Member of Parliament, 16 years in the Northern Ireland Assembly—and so it goes on. And then in this place here. Now, over the years, I have seen and witnessed, sadly, Northern Ireland’s position being pushed on to the ledge of the union, as it were—pushed to the side. Our position in the United Kingdom has been undermined.
I have to say to your Lordships’ House that the unionist people are very suspicious of both Front Benches, and indeed other parties in this House. When it comes to defending positions, Dublin will defend the nationalist and republican position, but who will defend the unionist position? You would expect the United Kingdom Government to do that, but it is sad to say that successive Governments have not been very good at it. As my noble friend Lord Dodds mentioned a moment ago, certainly strands 2 and 3 give Dublin the right to have a say. But when it comes to strand 1—last week we had the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in conference with the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic to talk about whether there should be a poll in Northern Ireland and an election for the Northern Ireland Assembly. Those are the internal affairs of Northern Ireland, yet the basis of the Belfast agreement was that Dublin has no right to a say on such matters. That once again makes people suspicious.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
For the avoidance of doubt, and for the information of the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, when I say “consent and agreement” I mean consent, and it must be the consent of all the people—unionists and nationalists.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
I thank the noble Baroness. That then begs the question: why is it not in her amendment? Why is it simply the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which in fact removes it from cross-community consent? That is not what they are talking about here. If it had been, it would be in this. I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, saying that this would be looked at on a later date. I trust that this will be taken on board. We will not move forward unless there is cross-community consent, and there is no cross-community consent and no unionist consent for this protocol, which they believe is a vehicle for taking Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, this is an extraordinary clause. The speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, introducing this group, proved the point. She argued that Ministers could, under this clause, act in a way that is incompatible with the Act of Union. My interpretation of this clause is similar to that described by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in the discussion of the previous group, in that it gives Ministers the ability to do pretty much anything. There is no restriction on powers. Maybe the Minister had been briefed that there was. Clearly, in this clause at least, that is not the case. That is the point that many noble Lords have been trying to get across to Ministers, and it is the underlying reason for much of the unhappiness with this Bill.
It is probably a bit tedious for the noble Lord, Lord Bew, to listen to us wittering on about this again and again. I completely understand that, as it does seem rather separate from what is happening on the ground and the political issues that he quite rightly says the Bill is really all about. I totally agree with him on that. Nevertheless, the method that the Government are choosing to deal with these political issues is one which gives them these quite unprecedented powers. We have come across this sort of thing many times, but we have never seen it quite as blunt as this. That is why they are getting a sort of two-pronged dissatisfaction with this approach.
The amendment in my name refers specifically to subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b). This is the bit where Clause 22 makes it clear that Ministers would be breaking international obligations and gives them permission to do so. Obviously, if the Bill became law, Ministers would not be breaking domestic law because it would be domestic law, but they would be breaching their international obligations. Ministers’ answers on this issue have been far from convincing. How is passing the Bill responsible if we do not know what the Government are going to do? We do not know that because they are giving themselves such wide powers. If the powers were in some way restricted to issues relating to the problems that the Bill tries to solve, perhaps the Government would be on a firmer footing. However, we are at such a precarious point; for example, there may be elections and there may not be.
I am trying not to have a dog in this race but, from the discussion we have just heard, it is absolutely clear that the problems being described are real and need to be dealt with. They need a Government who are properly engaged and will deal with them seriously. A clause such as this one says the opposite to all communities. Who knows where this will go? There is obviously no trust in the Government on this issue. We have heard it; it is very clear. Even the people who broadly support the Government’s approach do not trust them to do this correctly and do right by them. That is a big problem. It is a problem here in getting support for this clause, but it sure as heck is also a problem on the ground in Northern Ireland.
The Government have got themselves into a real mess on this issue. The powers in the Bill are not constrained to a particular purpose. I just do not know how the Government will deal with this. We have been told that we will get a letter, as if this is a discussion that the Government could not have foreseen, anticipated and had proper answers for. While we are doing our job of going through this Bill, the Government do not have an answer on what was foreshadowed well by noble Lords’ contributions at Second Reading but have to go away and write us a letter. It is not good enough. We need to know the Government’s response to that issue, and particularly on this clause, before we can properly proceed.
I completely agree with everyone who said that we must have the restoration of the political institutions. Some people seem to think that the Bill will help but we disagree. We think that it is bad politics and will lead to more disappointment, probably disappointing the very people who have come here tonight to support the Government in this endeavour. This clause is a problem; the Minister has learned that very well, I think. I am afraid that listening to tonight’s exchanges has made me more convinced than I was before that we on these Benches cannot support this clause unless something shifts dramatically before we reach Report. I just do not know where we go with this Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in this debate. I rather hesitate to say this in front of the noble Lord, Lord Bew, who was taught at Cambridge by the great Tudor historian Sir Geoffrey Elton, but as we go through these debates, I feel I am becoming increasingly isolated in being a Member of your Lordships’ House who might still have a sneaking admiration for the reign of Henry VIII. Indeed, I confess that I have a portrait of Thomas Cromwell in my office. However, I will go no further because I do not want to provoke a debate with noble Lords about the 1533 Act of Restraint in Appeals and its preamble. I will therefore fast-forward, if I may, to 1800 and the Acts of Union, referred to in the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.
Let me say at the outset that I entirely sympathise with the noble Baroness’s position and amendment. Clause 1, as she pointed out, explains that the Acts of Union are not to be affected by provision of the protocol that does not have effect in the United Kingdom. I agree with her and noble Lords who have pointed out the fundamental importance of the Acts of Union as the bedrock of Northern Ireland’s constitutional position in the United Kingdom.
However, I am sorry to point out to the noble Baroness that her amendment has the potential to risk the exercise of the powers under the Bill. For example, the red lane in our new model will continue to apply EU rules to goods moving through Northern Ireland into the European Union and single market. This is crucial to ensuring that there is no hard border on the island of Ireland and to upholding the overall objectives of the Act of Union regarding the free flow of trade in the United Kingdom. The restrictions imposed by her amendment could risk the implementation of this revised operation of the protocol, which is designed to uphold our commitments to the union.
I know the noble Baroness is very supportive of the Bill, but this amendment could undermine the certainty that it seeks to provide. She and my noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn made a very large number of points around subjugation and so on. I hope she will appreciate that I cannot go into great detail at the Dispatch Box because, as she knows since she is a party to it, this amendment treads very much the same territory as is the subject of a live case in the Supreme Court, which I think is expected to be heard very shortly.
I reiterate my and this Conservative and Unionist Government’s—a label I proudly wear in your Lordships’ House—strong support for the union and Northern Ireland’s integral position within it. I have no hesitation in reiterating what we said at the end of last week about joint authority; it is simply incompatible with the provisions of the Belfast agreement and we will not countenance it. I assure the noble Baroness that we are determined to resolve the issues to which she alluded in her amendment this evening and, on that basis, urge her to withdraw it.
I turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. It has been said many times and in much detail, but I feel I have a duty to remind the House again that it is because of the operation of the protocol that the Northern Ireland Assembly has not been sitting since February, and the Bill aims specifically to restore political stability in Northern Ireland and facilitate the reconstituting of a fully functioning Executive and Assembly in line with the Belfast agreement. In the absence of functioning institutions, creating a legal requirement—as the amendment from the noble Baroness would do—that consent from the Assembly be granted before regulations can be made under the Bill risks in these circumstances setting a test that simply cannot be met, because there is no functioning Assembly.
This amendment would also be constitutionally problematic, effectively limiting the UK Government’s ability to exercise their powers in excepted and reserved areas of policy such as international affairs and trade, respectively. Given that it would also apply to the commencement power, it would make the coming into force of legislation of this Parliament subject to a veto by the Northern Ireland Assembly. That would affect this Parliament’s right to legislate for Northern Ireland, something the Belfast agreement makes very clear is unaffected; as such, the Government cannot accept it. For that reason, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her Amendments 46 and 55.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, and particularly for his reassertion of the United Kingdom Government’s commitment to the union and to Northern Ireland’s integral place within the union. I do not accept his reason for not accepting this amendment. I will look at what he said and I hope he will reflect between now and Report.
I thank noble Lords who spoke. The noble Lords, Lord Bew and Lord Dodds, both gave a very serious warning about the situation in Northern Ireland. The comment of the noble Lord, Lord Bew, that this is no small matter is something we should all reflect on. I am actually very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, did not speak. I will take that as a sign, and hope that the Lib Dems will support this when it comes to Report. But I do not assume the same about the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who also did not speak on this amendment.
Seriously, this is an important issue and it is not going to go away. I hope that, at this stage, we have given everyone a bit of thinking to do before Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Duty to seek an agreement on outstanding issues with the Northern Ireland Protocol
(1) Before a Minister of the Crown may exercise any of the powers in sections 1 to 20, His Majesty's Government must—(a) seek an agreement with the European Union regarding outstanding issues with the Northern Ireland Protocol, or(b) pursue and exhaust all legal options under the EU withdrawal agreement.(2) Within the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, and every month thereafter until—(a) an agreement is reached, or(b) a Minister of the Crown is of the opinion that an agreement cannot be reached,a Minister of the Crown must lay before each House of Parliament a statement outlining what progress has been made in negotiations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make it a statutory requirement for the Government to seek a negotiated outcome with the EU, and to exhaust legal routes under the EU withdrawal agreement before availing itself of the powers in this Bill. The amendment would also require Ministers to provide regular updates to Parliament regarding the ongoing UK-EU negotiations.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 56 deals with the
“Duty to seek an agreement on outstanding issues with the Northern Ireland Protocol”.
This amendment would make it a statutory requirement for the Government to seek a negotiated outcome with the EU and to exhaust legal routes under the EU withdrawal agreement before availing themselves of the powers in this Bill. The amendment would also require Ministers to provide regular updates to Parliament regarding the ongoing UK-EU negotiations.
In this amendment, we seek to bring together two issues in a single text: the negotiated settlement and the regular updates. This would ensure that the extraordinary measures in this Bill could not be used until all legal routes are exhausted. We know that the Government will say this amendment is unnecessary, yet the very existence of this Bill highlights the lack of good faith displayed by Ministers. We have been asked to trust in the new negotiations, but we have not yet had an update from the Foreign Secretary—although we are told we may get one later this week, and I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that. Colleagues such as the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Kerr, often remind us of the Commission’s duties to the European Parliament, so why, after all this time, does the Conservative Party continue to sideline what they call the mother of Parliaments—this House? If the Government really are acting in good faith, they should take no issue with this amendment. It is a restatement of their own policy, coupled with a request for further information. I beg to move Amendment 56.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment. I have spoken on a number of previous occasions about the fact that we are fumbling around in the dark. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, made a noble attempt at an earlier stage in today’s debate to say something about what was going on but I am sorry to say that, if I was being impolite, I would say that what he said was the square root of nothing. Are we going to get something more than that? We ought to. That has been the practice of previous British Governments in negotiation as a third party when we were outside the European Union and in many other negotiations. I think it is pretty shocking that we are not getting that.
It also underlines a point which all our debates illustrate: that the Government have put the cart before the horse. Surely the right sequence would have been for the Government to enter into a serious process of negotiation from last February onwards; but they did nothing—absolutely nothing. We now know that nothing happened after February. As that process went along, they should have reported it to Parliament. At some stage or another, it would have been perfectly reasonable for the Government to say that we cannot go on like this for ever and, if we cannot get a negotiated agreement to sort out the implementation of the protocol in order to cure it of some of the imperfections which none of us contests, then we may have to go down a unilateral course.
If the Government had done that, I suspect that we would have had an agreement by now—but the lady who was Foreign Secretary at the time and who had her eye on higher things, which, alas, turned out to be a flash in the pan, went down another course, which was to put the cart before the horses. And that is where we are: with the cart firmly before the horses. Here we are, spending hours and hours discussing what we are going to do if this process of negotiation, which the Government say is their preference, fails. Well, the time to do that is when it has failed, when the Government have made a full and detailed report of why it had failed, and when we can see what the other side in the negotiation says about whether those reasons for failure are justified. Then Parliament can take a view on what to do next.
Instead of which, we are being asked to do all this now in the, alas, totally futile belief that this will somehow put the frighteners on Brussels. Well, it does not look to me as if Brussels is terribly frightened; nor has it been for many months. So I wish we could just get away from this and leave the process of deciding what we do if the Government’s preferred option fails, and then we will deal with that when we get to it. We will cross that bridge when we get to it.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I too support my noble friend’s amendment. When we look at this pointless and rather daft Bill, we realise that it has achieved absolutely nothing. They would have been more influenced by the man in the moon than by this Bill.
The Bill might have done something, but so far has done nothing, to achieve progress in Northern Ireland. I would be very interested if the people negotiating on the European Union’s behalf looked at a video of the last couple of hours’ debate in this Chamber. They would then realise that these are not the “technical issues” that we are told are being resolved at the moment. It is not about oranges, sausages and the rest of it; it is about people’s identity in Northern Ireland, whether they be unionists, who feel that their own British identity is threatened by the protocol, or nationalists, who feel that they are threatened in some other way.
The first thing the Government should understand is that in some ways the negotiations now have to be parallel: a negotiation between the European Union—with, as I said earlier, a much bigger involvement by the Irish Government—and the United Kingdom Government on the protocol itself, in parallel with negotiations to restore the institutions of the Good Friday agreement. Those institutions have effectively collapsed and there is a case for looking at them again. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, referred to the Taoiseach’s comment about changing the rules on the way the Assembly and Executive operate—remembering, of course, that the St Andrews agreement changed the rules of the Good Friday agreement. But they were changed by agreement. That is the issue: they were not changed unilaterally by one side or the other.
In the next six months—I will come to that in a second—there should be a structured negotiation on the one hand with the European Union and on the other between the political parties in Northern Ireland and, where appropriate, on strands 2 and 3, with the Irish Government. I do not think that has entered the Government’s head over the past eight to nine months. For all sorts of reasons, which everybody knows about, they have not really been bothered; they have let things drift. There have not been proper negotiations. It seems to me that one of the Government’s most important responsibilities is to ensure that Northern Ireland does not go backwards 30 years—and it is quite possible that that could happen.
I think the European Union sometimes does not understand the absolute uniqueness of the Northern Ireland situation, of the Good Friday agreement and of the identity issue. There is no comparison anywhere within Europe, perhaps even in the world, with what has happened in Northern Ireland, and it seems to me that that has not been appreciated by the people doing the negotiating.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. Perhaps I may pick up on a couple of points made by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. I listened carefully to his earlier contribution and those of others, and the Government’s position is very much about negotiations with the European Union and having a very informed discussion also with all the parties in Northern Ireland. I know that my noble friend Lord Caine and I have listened attentively and carefully to some of the constructive proposals the noble Lord put forward about effective engagement.
The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, makes a notable point about the anniversary of the Good Friday agreement as well. He knows far more than I about the ways that we can make the agreement—whatever agreement is, one hopes, negotiated with the EU—work for all the communities of Northern Ireland. I am sure this will be an ongoing discussion that we will have in the days and weeks ahead.
I turn briefly to Amendment 56 and the reasons why the Government cannot support this amendment. It would prevent a Minister of the Crown exercising regulation-making powers under the Bill, unless the Government have sought an agreement with the European Union regarding outstanding issues with the Northern Ireland protocol, or all legal routes under the EU withdrawal agreement have been exhausted. It also commits a Minister to outline specifically to Parliament the progress on negotiations. Let me say once again—I have said it a number of times and will continue saying this—that the Government’s primary intention is to secure a negotiated agreement with the EU. That is why we have been engaging in a constructive dialogue with EU officials over recent weeks and engaging at a political level, as I said earlier this evening.
However, we feel that linking the exercise of regulation-making powers in the Bill to progress in the negotiations and an exhaustion of legal routes in the withdrawal agreement, which I suspect was the intention behind this amendment, would hinder rather than improve the chances of a negotiated settlement. It risks drawing the UK into a never-ending dialogue with the EU, whereby it could always be claimed that an agreement is constantly within reach but never materialises. As such, we are not supportive of this amendment. The Government have also outlined that in our view the Bill is consistent with international law. This is of course without prejudice to other legal mechanisms existing under the withdrawal agreement that we have discussed previously.
On the central point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about updating the House, we are of course both listening carefully—I was discussing this with my noble friend Lord Caine—from a Northern Ireland Office perspective as well as from that of the FCDO. We will look to update the House on negotiations and discussions at the appropriate time. I hope that at this time the noble Lord, on behalf of his noble friend, will withdraw this amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a short debate which has gone over some territory that we have covered a number of times already. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to putting the cart before the horse and my noble friend Lord Murphy described this as a pointless and daft Bill—but je went on to give some very constructive suggestions about how to move forward with proper negotiations as we come up to the 25th anniversary of the agreement.
I will withdraw Amendment 56, but I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, was diplomatically opaque when he said that he would update the House at an appropriate time, whereas we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, earlier this evening that it may well be later this week.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
While there are discussions going on, I do not want to anticipate which department will give a Statement. I want to be definitive, so I do not in any way want to give misleading information or information that is not yet correct. That is why I was being “diplomatically opaque”, as the noble Lord called it.
“Parliamentary approval of the outcome of negotiations with the EU
(1) A Minister of the Crown may make regulations under section 19 only if—(a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament—(i) a statement that a relevant agreement as defined in that section has been reached, and(ii) a copy of the agreement,(b) the agreement has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown, and(c) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the agreement has been tabled in the House of Lords by a Minister of the Crown.(2) A Minister of the Crown may make regulations under sections 4 to 17 only if—(a) they have laid before each House of Parliament a statement that—(i) His Majesty’s Government have been unable to reach an agreement with the European Union regarding outstanding issues with the Northern Ireland Protocol, and(ii) they are of the opinion that His Majesty’s Government have exhausted all legal options under the EU withdrawal agreement,(b) they have laid before each House of Parliament an assessment of the likely impacts of the regulations, and(c) they have consulted Northern Ireland business organisations on the contents of the proposed regulations and laid a report regarding that consultation before each House of Parliament.” Member’s explanatory statement
In the event of a negotiated settlement being achieved with the EU, this amendment would require both Houses to debate that agreement, with the Commons having to approve it. In the event that no agreement is achieved, Ministers would have to follow various steps before being able to make regulations under parts of the Bill.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I will be very brief. I do not want to spend too much time on this amendment. Essentially, what we are asking for is a process in Parliament in the event of an agreement being reached. We want the Government to succeed in getting an agreement and think it is a helpful safeguard to allow the elected House to express its view and for this House to debate a draft of the agreement. It would be especially useful, I suggest, if the Northern Ireland Assembly is not restored in time. It would be helpful because if it is not and there is no debate in Parliament, who knows what they might be agreeing to? There would not be an opportunity for anybody’s elected representatives anywhere to have a debate about what is going to happen, and we think that is not ideal, given the history of how we got to where we are.
If Ministers are unable to achieve a deal and have exhausted legal routes under the protocol and wish to use the powers in the Bill, they should have to follow the steps in subsection (2) of this amendment, which would include a detailed impact assessment and proper consultation with Northern Ireland businesses on proposed regulations.
We have had many of these debates already and I do not propose going over each element of this in great detail now. Ministers know how we feel about consultation, draft regulations, the involvement of Northern Ireland and listening to businesses. So I think I will just leave it at that and I beg to move.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the amendment and her explanation. On her second point about consultation, I think the Government have rehearsed this point several times and the record of the Government’s position stands. It totally resonates with us. I have sought to the extent that I can to give reassurance of continued consultation in that respect.
Turning specifically to Amendment 57, on the supremacy of the House of Commons and giving the vote, I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from on this. However, I once again state quite clearly that the procedures under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act—CRaG 2010—will apply to any qualifying treaty that needs to be implemented by regulations made under the Bill. The Act already provides for appropriate scrutiny and I hope that, while she may not be totally satisfied, based on the fact that she has tabled this amendment, I once again give her that reassurance. I am sure that we will return to several aspects of this, particularly as we move through to other stages of the Bill.
Again, I note the point she is making about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny, but I hope at this time she is minded to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not really feel the need to reply. I think we have said everything that can be said on this topic through these debates, so I beg leave to withdraw.
“Impact assessment: construction
(1) Within the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, and before a Minister of the Crown may exercise any of the powers in sections 1 to 20, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament an impact assessment pertaining to the construction sector in Northern Ireland.(2) In preparing the impact assessment under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must—(a) publish any draft regulations they intend to make under this Act, and which may be reasonably expected to relate to the sector,(b) consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate representatives of the sector.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish and consult on draft regulations relating to the construction sector, prior to using the powers under the Bill to make regulations affecting that sector.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Similarly, these amendments would require the Secretary of State to publish and consult on draft regulations relating to various sectors of the Northern Ireland economy—including construction, electronics, energy and manufacturing—prior to using powers under the Bill to make regulations affecting those sectors. We want to see these draft regulations. They keep coming up. We have made our contentment with going to Report conditional upon them; they are very important to us and, I believe, to sectors in Northern Ireland.
We have previously had interesting debates on the merits of a UK-EU veterinary agreement and the importance of proper consultation with food-focused sectors of the economy, but it is important to remember that Northern Ireland businesses operate in every imaginable field, so these amendments cite a variety of sectors. We could have gone further—it is not an exhaustive list by any means—but we wanted to highlight to Ministers the unique challenges faced by businesses in Northern Ireland. Manufacturing, in particular, is having a tough time at present, with supply chains still experiencing disruption and inflation adding to business costs. In August, the Northern Ireland Business Brexit Working Group said that using the powers under the Bill would
“create a myriad of reputational, legal and commercial risks for many of our businesses”,
putting at risk Northern Ireland’s position as
“a top performing region in exporting goods”.
My noble friend Lord Hain has previously spoken about the challenges facing the energy sector in Northern Ireland, and the ongoing uncertainty around future trade terms is creating its own difficulties for the other sectors mentioned in these amendments.
We continue to hope that the protocol can be made to work but, if the Government are to insist on their unilateral action, they need to fully involve the businesses that are operating on the ground, trying to fill and satisfy their order books. It is an incredibly difficult time for businesses anywhere in the UK but you cannot listen to the debates that we are having and not understand how much more difficult it is to plan and run your business in Northern Ireland. Some of the problems are caused, of course, by the protocol that we all want to see fixed; others, I am afraid, are caused just by the continuing uncertainty that has been brought about by this situation. I beg to move.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 59. Again, I suppose the final thing is about approach. There is nothing the noble Baroness has said that I disagree with, in that, yes, we are seeking to provide clarity to Northern Ireland businesses. I totally subscribe to what the noble Baroness said about problems arising from the operation of the protocol but that, equally, there are wider issues that businesses across the United Kingdom, and indeed globally, are facing.
I fully sympathise and align myself with the desire to ensure that we consider the full impact of our legislation and its practical application for businesses. My noble friend Lord Caine previously detailed some of the groups that we are working with; indeed, the Northern Ireland Business Brexit Working Group, which the noble Baroness mentioned, is one of them. We will continue to engage with them. We have had quite extended discussions and debates on the publication of regulations, and I have acknowledged that I fully recognise the desire to do so, and to ensure the scrutiny of these regulations in the usual fashion. Equally, our view is very clear that these regulations also need to be fully discussed—a point agreed on by all noble Lords—to ensure that businesses can make them operable in a practical sense. Notwithstanding that, I hope the noble Baroness will be minded at this time to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am obviously happy to withdraw the amendment. I note what the Minister just said about understanding our desire to see the draft regulations and his desire to make sure that they are worked up—I think he said “consulted on with business” or words to that effect. However, we had asked for draft regulations before we moved to Report. Before I sit down—that is the phrase we use here—can he indicate whether he anticipates that the Government will be able to provide that?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I will have to disappoint the noble Baroness on that point. I cannot give a specific commitment. The material will be published in due course. I fully recognise and note what the noble Baroness has said.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes most regulations under the Bill subject to the affirmative procedure.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 65 and 66 would make most regulations under the Bill subject to the affirmative procedure and strip out supplementary provision which would become redundant as a result.
As we discussed in earlier amendments, most powers in the Bill could be exercised with little or no formal scrutiny. These amendments would make the bulk of regulations made under the Bill subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring that the SIs had to be debated and justified. Of course, I understand that this is no silver bullet and this House never makes a habit of voting down statutory instruments.
Last week, I asked the Minister what planning had been undertaken in relation to the powers in the Bill. Have the Government decided on a sequence yet? Do we know how many statutory instruments we may be dealing with? If the Minister is unable to comment at this time—we have received no correspondence on this matter—is he in a position to update the Committee on the likely number of statutory instruments that the Bill may generate? I beg to move.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for moving this amendment. I also recognise his point about these instruments being affirmative. I note that we recognised that in an earlier debate today on another issue. Of course, affirmative statutory instruments allow for those debates to be taken forward.
My colleagues and I have said before that we want an opportunity to scrutinise all regulations under the Bill. The Government will provide all their usual accompanying material under normal parliamentary procedures. I can commit at the current time that any regulations that amend Acts of Parliament will be subject to the affirmative procedure, although there will be some technical and detailed regulations under the Bill that may be subject to a negative procedure. That does not in itself mean that there will be no scrutiny, but I note what the noble Lord has said.
There are obviously details still to be determined around the volume of the SIs that would be coming, but I will see whether there are further details that I can share with the noble Lord and inform him appropriately. For now, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (3) may not bring any such provision into force before 31 December 2026.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment delays the coming into effect of most of the legislation until 31 December 2026.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to move this simple amendment. Basically, I am suggesting that the Bill, if it were to carry, would not enter into force before 31 December 2026.
On a number of occasions my noble friend Lord Ahmad has repeated that it is the Government’s firm belief that by proceeding with this Bill on the Northern Ireland protocol, they are not jeopardising our relations—particularly our trade relations—with the European Union. Personally, I agree very much with the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who said earlier that the Bill not just breaches the EU withdrawal agreement but would breach the terms of the trade and co-operation agreement agreed with the EU following our departure.
Today we hear from Egypt that the Prime Minister had his first meeting with the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. At the same time, we have also heard that European Commission Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič—apologies for my pronunciation —has stated that there would clearly be ramifications for trade should the Government persist with this Bill.
This amendment is, if you like, a get-out clause for my noble friend if he were to follow my advice and better judgment and pause the Bill at this time. There are other ways of dealing with the very real sentiments raised by my noble friends on the DUP Benches and others, and I do not believe that the Bill is the right vehicle to do that. It is my firm belief that the best way forward is through negotiation, not intimidation. I am sure my party would wish to distance itself from any form of intimidation, in whatever shape or form it comes.
That is my plea to my noble friend the Minister and the Government at this time: if they persist with the Bill, they should agree with Amendment 71 that the Act would not come into effect before 31 December 2026. I beg to move.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for moving the amendment. I understand and acknowledge that she wishes to create the space for negotiations, but the Government have passed the Bill through the other place and introduced it to your Lordships’ House because of the situation in Northern Ireland. For more than four years the situation has continued in a very challenging way. Furthermore, it is the Government’s view that this amendment, if agreed, would remove their ability to rapidly implement any new agreement via Clause 19.
As my noble friend will be aware—we have discussed it several times during the passage of the Bill in Committee and at Second Reading, and it was a point made by several of our colleagues and my noble friends from Northern Ireland—the Assembly has not sat since February and there is ongoing business disruption across the economy. Much of this can be aligned to the unworkability and lack of operability of the protocol.
From our perspective as the Government, it would be a sad dereliction of our duty if we were just to let the current situation continue. Although I hear what my noble friend says—she expressed her opinion about my right honourable friend meeting the President of the European Commission and our continued discussions with the EU Commissioner leading the negotiations—there is nothing more I can really add to what I have said already.
From my perspective and that of the Government, we do not feel that this amendment would be helpful to our current position. Therefore, we cannot support it and I hope my noble friend will be minded to withdraw it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his response and I will consider what to do between now and Report. I believe this amendment would give the possibility of reaching consensus and agreement in Northern Ireland, so that democratic legitimacy can be returned, and enable us to meet our international obligations. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
“(3A) A Minister of the Crown may not make regulations under this section so as to bring sections 1 to 20 into force until both Houses of Parliament have approved a mandate for negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Union regarding the Northern Ireland Protocol.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that core provisions of the Bill cannot come into force until Parliament has approved a mandate for negotiations between the UK and the EU regarding the Northern Ireland Protocol.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, brought about some cross-community consensus earlier when she said that she was glad that I had not spoken. As I am trying to ingratiate myself with all colleagues, it may assist if I speak to the last two groups together, if that is acceptable to the Minister and the Committee, just for efficiency’s sake.
I found it curious earlier when the Minister said that he rejected an earlier amendment because it might give the impression that agreement was in reach and talks would go on. That does seem to be the Government’s approach and, at some stage, we will need much greater clarity about not only the status of the talks—or negotiations, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, indicated —but what they are about. We know what the mandate of the EU is, but we still do not know what the position of the UK is. The purpose of Amendment 72 is to indicate that, before any regulations come into force, we would need to know exactly what is likely to be agreed.
Amendment 73, the final amendment in Committee, relates to the points that were very well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, regarding the fact that there will be a stage when we need to see the regulations, and I need not rehearse that argument again. We cannot do our job without seeing drafts or indications before Report, and it really should be impossible to commence the legislation unless we have seen the regulations. That is the purpose behind Amendment 73, but I beg to move Amendment 72.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want to make it very clear to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that I love listening to him speak and I have no aspersions against him whatever. I was just pleased that perhaps he felt that my amendment was worth considering enough to not contribute.
On this, I know it is extremely difficult for the Minister to do so, but could he give us some idea of how long he visualises—he is smiling, so I think he knows what I am going to ask—the negotiations going on before someone actually says that this is not going to work? One of the reasons I am very keen to get this Bill through as quickly as possible is so that we have it there as a safeguard. It would be helpful to know if there are any discussions going on behind the scenes on timing and just how long we can keep negotiating if we are not getting anywhere.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, because I think I heard him say earlier that he returned from Buenos Aires this morning and then went straight into this debate on the Northern Ireland protocol. It is very appropriate that he is the proposer of the last two amendments. I commend him on his stamina. I agree with the idea that regulations should be published as quickly as possible.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this brief debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for combining the last two groups, which means that I cannot actually say I did 13 groups in total today. I am really grateful for the contributions that have been made.
To pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, about the time of negotiations, I would put my career as a Minister—and indeed that of any negotiator—on the line if I were to determine the length of negotiations. As I said, I have shared as much as I can. I have heard the desire to know more and I fully recognise that; if I were sitting anywhere else in the House but in this position, I would be pushing in the same manner for more details of the discussions and negotiations. I am pressing colleagues across the Government to see how much more we can share about discussions taking place both in Northern Ireland and, importantly, within the EU.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister, as always. I thank him, the noble Lord, Lord Caine, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, the Advocate-General, for their courtesy in Committee, which is very much appreciated. We look forward to the correspondence.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for her kind words. I was just teasing but, as the Minister well knows, silence from me is not always tacit approval. Still, the question that she asked is valid; we were told in July that talks had been exhausted, but now they have not been. Before we come back for consideration of what we decide about Report, we will need much more information on that.
I very much enjoyed contributing with the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, in Committee. These issues do not tire me because I find them intellectually stimulating, but we owe the people of Northern Ireland our effort, our interest and our scrutiny, because these are the lives of people of our country that we are legislating for and it is an important job that we do. The conference that I was speaking at was with many MPs from different countries who are struggling and fighting for the ability to do what we have been doing in Committee, and I am very privileged to be able to do it.
But, ultimately—the words of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, always stick in my mind from a previous day in Committee—this is still a pig of a law, with apologies to the Minister. It has lipstick on now, and we have given it a nice frock, but it is still a pig of a law, and that has not changed. It is illegal, it is a power grab, and it will not work. Fundamentally, those three aspects are what we will have to decide on in deciding whether it even goes to Report. Until that point, and with those considerations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.