King’s Speech

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, and thank him for his mention of Northern Ireland and his commitment to his role there.

The gracious Speech speaks of continuing support for the political institutions and devolved government in Northern Ireland. The only Bill relating directly to Northern Ireland will begin the process of repealing and replacing the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. It is ironic that it was precisely the failure of devolution that led to legacy being dealt with here in Westminster, rather than in Stormont. I very much welcome that the new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has helpfully made it plain that this will not lead to the abolition of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, led by Sir Declan Morgan. It is right that this must be allowed time to show that it can gain the confidence of victims and families.

The replacement of the legacy Act will take many months; bringing the Act in took more than two years in the last Session. While it was always stated, and has been stated today, that all parties in Northern Ireland opposed the Act, it is important to point out they all had different reasons for doing so, and they still have no agreed alternative. I am concerned that the long period needed to work on new legislation will give time for resentment to build up and, consequently, lead to increasing use of lawfare. Your Lordships should be aware, too, of the potential colossal costs if demands are acceded to: £50 million to reintroduce the Troubles inquests; a Finucane public inquiry, if decided upon, costing up to £150 million; and payments for collusion—the new buzzword of former terrorists. That means limitless amounts of money, but certainly in the hundreds of millions of pounds. Then there are reparations in the form of bereavement payments, as advocated by the Commission for Victims and Survivors.

This would total several billion pounds and give little or no value in terms of satisfying victims or providing information, and zero prosecutions of IRA killers or other terrorists. However, once again, the brave soldiers and police officers who did their best to protect the public in hugely difficult circumstances along border areas, being blown up and shot at, only to find the terrorist escaping over the border into the safety of the Republic of Ireland, will be the only people persecuted and prosecuted. The state kept records; the IRA did not. The state gave on-the-run letters of comfort and royal pardons to terrorists, giving them amnesty. Veterans have been abandoned, and the real winners are some lawyers, who are literally making millions, and republicans, who want the history of the Troubles rewritten.

In Northern Ireland, devolution has taken a strange turn. The central basis of devolution, the Belfast agreement, has been unilaterally upended by the disapplication of cross-community consent, which was removed to impose the protocol and remains removed. Therefore, many who value the union will see that, when it comes to devolution, on the most fundamental issues Parliament has not devolved powers to the lawmakers at Stormont but has devolved lawmaking powers to the unelected and unaccountable European Union, which now rules over large parts of Northern Ireland’s legal system. That historic and unacceptable betrayal—I have to use that word—by the previous Government has not been accepted in Northern Ireland and will never be accepted. Political and societal instability will continue, because the damage to the union from the protocol has not been undone. It continues to infect Northern Ireland. One example of how things will get worse is the general product safety regulation, an EU regulation to be introduced in December, which will undoubtedly mean that more and more GB businesses will just refuse to trade in Northern Ireland.

The protocol will continue to be opposed, as the election of the Traditional Unionist Voice leader Jim Allister to the other House and increased votes for strong anti-protocol voices like Carla Lockhart MP demonstrate. Unionism is tired of being taunted about a border poll; there is an intensifying cultural war by republicans, weaponising such things as the use of the Irish language in areas where there is no demand for it. There is nothing in the Belfast agreement that says that the UK Government have to be neutral on the union. The Irish Government are certainly not neutral. There is concern at BBC Northern Ireland’s seeming lack of impartiality—there are too many examples to go into that today.

The people of Northern Ireland want to see workable and constitutionally compatible devolution, but it must be on two grounds: first, restoring the balance at the heart of the Belfast agreement, which means removing the protocol framework; and secondly, and most fundamentally, ensuring that devolution of power runs from London to Belfast, rather than from London to Brussels, with Northern Ireland left powerless. Sadly, the gracious Speech made no promise of genuinely restoring Northern Ireland’s place as an integral part of the UK.

Section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

It is very nice to follow the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), because she talked about taking a consensual approach to this. The consensual approach of this House was to trigger article 50 and to decide on the date of 29 March. The extension that is being requested today is very open-ended, and I find this incredibly concerning. The rhetoric in the media surrounding the extension has been, as the Attorney General said today, that we might not have to take up our seats in the European Parliament if we end up taking part in the European elections. However, if the extension were to last a year or longer, those European parliamentarians might well be in their seats. I find it bizarre that we are talking about good behaviour and not interrupting a budget—in other words, trying to bind those people who might have stood on a manifesto of their own making or perhaps a Conservative manifesto, and expecting them to behave themselves and be good. I find that very worrying. If those discussions are indeed taking place, it would be even more worrying if a similar agreement were extracted from the Prime Minister of this country that she and the British Government should also behave themselves and not give due scrutiny to or make any criticism of the budget.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I am following carefully what the hon. Lady is saying. Does she agree that it seems really humiliating for this country to have our Prime Minister going over to the European Union to beg for an extension? What does this say about our country when we know that 17.5 million people said very simply that they wanted to leave? That was very simple.

[Mrs Main]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady.

I should like to refresh the memory of those in the House who think that there is no problem in having this flextension. In 2002, a decision by the European Council stated:

“Members of the European Parliament shall vote on an individual and personal basis. They shall not be bound by any instructions and shall not receive a binding mandate”.

The article also stated:

“Members shall exercise their mandate freely and independently, shall not be bound by any instructions and shall not receive a binding mandate”.

The loose talk about what we may or may not expect of our MEPs if we stand candidates in the next elections is extremely worrying. We have to take that seriously. People who stand in those elections should have every right to take up their seats as MEPs. It is likely that the House will not reach any form of agreement or consensus. It needs restating that only five Members of the official Opposition agreed to the separated withdrawal agreement. The political declaration has always been open for discussion, yet Labour seem to want to bind any future leader of the Conservative party. When people seek to bind the hands, the voices and the opinions of duly elected MEPs, who speak on behalf of their constituents, or of this Government, that is not democracy.

It is appalling that we may seek an extension with no real sense of purpose. If the Labour party gave an undertaking that it supported the withdrawal agreement and that its disagreement was simply with the political declaration, perhaps our Prime Minister could go along in the sure and certain knowledge that some sort of deal could be done fairly quickly.

United Kingdom’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Friday 29th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

I understand the dilemma that many of my hon. Friends on the other side of the Chamber face. The dilemma for me as a Unionist is that I cannot—and we as a party cannot—put our hand to an agreement that would have Northern Ireland treated differently, with the difference between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom imposed on us forever by the EU, and that breaches the principle of consent in the Belfast agreement, because it would change irrevocably the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, as we would have our laws made in Brussels, instead of London.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that as a result of having absolutely nothing changed about the backstop since it was first introduced, the people of Northern Ireland—the pro-Union people of Northern Ireland—whichever way they voted, remain or leave, will see anyone who votes today for the agreement, whether they mean it or not, as not supporting the right of people in Northern Ireland to be part of the United Kingdom?

[Sammy Wilson]

That is the judgment that we have made. For us, having been through a terrorist campaign of 40 years, if people try to remove us from the United Kingdom, we are not prepared to see our constitutional position altered by Brussels in a fit of pique against the United Kingdom for daring to leave the EU.

Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Opinion

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

Well, my hon. Friend will know that as an Attorney General I simply could not give countenance to the idea that this country would break its international legal obligations. As I have pointed out to the House, there is a right for the United Kingdom to terminate this agreement. If fundamental circumstances change, in the view of the United Kingdom, it would attempt to resolve the matter within the joint committee and it would attempt to resolve it politically, but if, ultimately, with the sovereign right of this House and of the British Government at the time, the United Kingdom took the view that those fundamental circumstances had indeed changed, it would have an undoubted legal right to withdrawal from any treaty.

Let us be clear about these kinds of absolute interpretations of black-letter text. A sovereign state has the right to withdraw if a treaty is no longer compatible with its fundamental interests or, to put it a different way, if fundamental circumstances have changed. I would say that apart from that, of course this country could resile from its commitments, but it would be unwise and it would not be in the tradition of this country to do so. In those circumstances, it is perfectly true that the only remedies the Union would have would be to take countermeasures, and no doubt it would pollute the atmosphere for fruitful relationships between us, which is precisely why this country will never do it, and neither would the European Union.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I am not a lawyer, and neither are millions of people watching today. I obviously defer to the Attorney General’s advice, but will he tell people why the United Kingdom, a sovereign country, would think of signing up to anything—we signed up to the European Union and at least there was a way out of it through article 50, although it has taken a long time—that does not allow us simply to say, “This is not working, we are not going to sign up to this and we are leaving”?

[The Attorney General]

We have made a solemn pledge to the people of both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland that the border will be guaranteed never to be a hard border. That required the United Kingdom to say that in all normal circumstances we will not depart from that pledge. I repeat the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg): in the case of a fundamental change of circumstance, which is ultimately the sovereign right of this House and the Government to determine, the United Kingdom could withdraw, pursuant to customary international law. So it is not true to say that there is not ultimately the right of this House and the Government of the country at the time to exercise their discretion to do so in those circumstances. But in every other circumstance, we have said to the people of Northern Ireland, “We will ensure that your lives will be able to continue as they do now at the border.” I say that that act was worthy of this House, worthy of the Government and worthy of the British people, and it is one that is worthy of support.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 15th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), and I fully agreed with most of what he said. It is with sadness that I am going to have to vote against this withdrawal agreement, because I had hoped that I would be able to support it, because I am one of the few Labour MPs who genuinely wants to leave the EU and one of a somewhat larger group of Labour MPs who genuinely wants to honour the referendum result—I include the leader of my party in that.

I am very conscious that this Parliament is full of remain MPs—it is a remain Parliament. Most of them were very upset when the referendum result came through, as they could not believe that people had not listened to their dire warnings. It is absolutely true, and the public know this, that some in this Chamber have spent their whole time from day one after that referendum trying to think of ways to stop this. They have been trying to think of ways of preventing us from leaving. Tonight, we have the culmination and we will have another opportunity for people who will be trying to stop this after tonight.

For me, today is about something very simple. I do not understand why we need to vote on any of these amendments, because if they go through they will have no bearing whatsoever on the legal agreement—they are not going to be “legal”. We have seen, and we realise now, that the assurances given are not going to mean anything, because they are not put in a legal, prescribed way. I remind people who think these assurances might be able to be fulfilled that we are going to have a new European Parliament in May and new EU Commissioners. The Prime Minister may have built a relationship with some of the current ones, but they will not be there then. We can reject the idea that somehow they would even think—some of them—of honouring those assurances.

What happened to the mantra of, “Nothing agreed until everything is agreed”? Why are we giving the £39 billion, even if we owe it—I do not think we do owe as much as that? Why are we giving that up front, before we have had anything in return? The withdrawal agreement will mean more uncertainty for the next few years, with the EU holding the trump cards, especially on the backstop. I can never support a situation in which Northern Ireland will end up being treated separately from the rest of the United Kingdom and in which the only people who will speak for it will be representatives of the Irish Government. That is just not tenable.

I have heard some people say, “It was only 52% to 48%, after all; why don’t we just give a little bit of compromise to those who voted to remain?” Had the result been 52% to remain and 48% to leave, does the House think that we, and all the lawyers, QCs and solicitors here, would have been beavering around trying to find a way to get a little bit of Canada or Norway into the remain decision? Let us be honest: there are people here who would do anything to stop us leaving the EU. We voted to take back control to, I believe, the people. The people made their decision. Parliament gave the decision to the people to decide whether they wanted to leave. We gave it up—we said, “People, you decide”—and they voted to leave. The idea that Parliament will spend the next week or so trying to find other ways to stop us leaving on 29 March is shocking.

The Attorney General said that we must vote for the withdrawal agreement “for wholly pragmatic reasons”. With respect to him, the vote did not ask the people of the United Kingdom whether they wanted a pragmatic leave or a pragmatic remain. It was very simple, and they wanted to leave. Whatever happens after tonight, one thing cannot be evaded, overruled or wrecked: the United Kingdom must leave the EU at the end of March to implement and honour the will of the British people.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has listed a series of arguments and reasons that might undermine the 2016 decision. Does she agree that a second referendum would have no credibility if the result of the first referendum was not implemented thoroughly and properly?

[Kate Hoey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The people, many of whom voted remain, will just not understand why we should even think of a second referendum when we have not implemented the result of the first.

As I was saying, whatever happens after tonight, the UK must leave the EU at the end of March to implement and honour the will of the British people. I trust our Prime Minister on this. I have heard her say over and over again that we will not revoke article 50. I have heard her say over and over again that we will be leaving on 29 March. Yes, that may mean some difficulties, but those difficulties are nothing compared with what this country has had to go through in the past. We are a strong, proud and determined country, with a people who believe and have confidence in our country, so let us go forward to 29 March, leave the European Union and have that bright future that we know is ahead of us.

Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Position

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

Evidence of wilful intransigence, evidence of refusal to engage, evidence of refusal to entertain alternative proposals or alternative means of achieving the outcomes that both share: that type of evidence, cumulatively, could amount to a case of bad faith, but each situation is facts-specific. It is not possible to identify beforehand, but those are the kinds of things that would be relevant.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

The Attorney General has been very honest about the downside of this backstop, and that is even without the legal advice, so we dread what we would actually see in the legal advice, if we could see it.

On Sunday, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland told Northern Ireland’s “Inside Politics” with Mark Davenport that even if the backstop kicks in, Great Britain will stick to the same rules as Northern Ireland. Will the Attorney General have a word with her? She is going around Northern Ireland on a tour and saying some things that are actually not accurate, giving the people of Northern Ireland a very wrong impression about what this agreement means.

[The Attorney General]

The regulatory regime in Great Britain will be a matter entirely for the Government of the United Kingdom. It is permitted and agreed under the protocol that they can maintain their regulatory regime in the way they choose, in which case they could choose to maintain, as I have no doubt they would wish to do, regulatory parity with the position in Northern Ireland. That is all the Secretary of State is saying, and I see nothing controversial in that.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 15th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna). We are co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on EU relations; our relationship with the EU will continue. He chairs it extremely ably. I am grateful to him for the kind comments that he made at the beginning. His analysis, as ever, was absolutely spot on. For far too long, we have had far too much rhetoric and far too many insults flowing around. We have to stop the silly things that have been said about people like me, and indeed him and other right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, and the constant attacks. We are told that if we have the views that we have then we are remoaners who are trying somehow to thwart the will of the people and so on. It does not help and it has not helped. History will not be kind to this place when what has happened since the referendum back in 2016 is written about.

What is really interesting as we enter day two of this debate is to see Conservative Members suddenly coming over and talking to each other. People who voted leave and were very vociferous during the campaign are coming over and talking to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) where there are clear concerns on constitutional matters and on the sovereignty of this place. Conversations are held between those of both main parties and of other parties. All these things are good. This is about healing the great divide that has occurred in our party. The fact that it is happening on this side of the Chamber as well is important.

The reason that people like me get so agitated is that one moment last night was really deeply unpleasant. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, when they saw the electronic copy of that newspaper, were genuinely concerned and worried because they knew that they would get the sorts of emails, tweets and Facebook postings that we have had before, and we would get all that stirring up of the old antipathy of this long-running sore that has bedevilled my party in particular. It is not acceptable when people keep perpetuating these myths. As the hon. Member for Streatham says, it fuels the flames.

If nothing else, I think we can now make progress. Let us stop the rhetoric, stop accusing people like me of wanting to thwart the will of the people and accept that we are leaving. If my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) accepts that we are leaving the EU, how many times do we have to say it before all these insults stop and we make the progress that we need to make in now delivering a Brexit that benefits everybody in this country? I support new clause 22.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I would not like the public who are listening or watching to take the right hon. Lady to mean that the abuse, nasty remarks and things that are going on are only against people who were remainers. Some of us on the other side of the argument have received a huge amount of abuse, but we sometimes think it is probably easier and better simply to ignore it.

[Anna Soubry]

I would love to ignore death threats, but I actually find them quite frightening. As a result, I have in the past reported at least two to the police. The courts took it very seriously, I say gently to the hon. Lady. They sent one person to prison and suspended the other person’s custodial sentence. I am glad that some people in this place take it seriously.

John Downey

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

No, I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance. I understand his point, and I am happy to get back to him.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Does the Attorney-General understand that all these fine words about errors and administration mistakes will not wash with the people of Northern Ireland who will see that this has been an amnesty under another name? It is an amnesty that has been put through without this Parliament’s permission when it specifically decided, when the Bill was withdrawn, that it did not want it to happen for on-the-runs. I want to know why we are blaming an individual in the police for writing or sending those letters; they did not write them without somebody at the very, very top of Government telling them to do so.

[The Attorney-General]

As for the hon. Lady’s views about how this would be viewed in Northern Ireland, I suspect that it would be viewed in the same way on this side of the Irish sea. I do not have any reason to differ with her analysis. Most right-thinking people will be shocked and profoundly troubled by what has happened.

I disagree with her characterisation of the letters being tantamount to an amnesty; I do not think that they were, if written as they should have been and sent to the recipients who should have received them. Unfortunately, in this case, as we know, somebody received a letter that they should not have received. I do not wish to comment further. The PSNI has indicated that it takes responsibility for the information that was supplied. The hon. Lady believes that fault might lie elsewhere; I am in no position to comment on that one way or the other. I can only say that the information I have at the moment does not suggest that the fault lies elsewhere.

Voting by Prisoners

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

There is no doubt that there has been criticism of the Court, just as I have at times heard views expressed in this House applauding judgments made in the European Court of Human Rights—the judgments on stop and search and on DNA databases come to mind. We therefore need to be careful about too much picking and choosing of what we might think is desirable or not. I recognise that there is a fundamental issue in this debate, which the right hon. Member for Blackburn and others touched on, about the extent to which the Court is turning into a micro-manager.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

If compensation was awarded, would it not be appropriate for the Government to decide to take it from the legal aid budget of the civil lawyers who will have brought most such cases about?

[The Attorney-General]

That is an interesting proposal from the hon. Lady, but, if I may say so, I would not seek to answer that question at the Dispatch Box today. It raises a number of ethical and practical issues to which, on the whole, I would want to give further consideration.