Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[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—

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Lords Chamber

I put it to my noble and learned friend the Advocate-General that if, as he argued earlier, particularly in response to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, it is the case that the protocol is not being applied and implemented as was intended, then the doctrine of necessity is not the appropriate legal base—it has to be Article 16. With those few remarks, I ask that Clauses 1, 2 and 3 do not stand part of the Bill.

[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.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 11th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[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.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 Section 3(5)

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

I hope they can, because then the Minister could answer the words of Lyra McKee’s partner, who said:

“It seems that pleas from people who have seen their loved ones murdered mean a lot less than the demand of church men desperate to repress women.”

Lyra McKee’s family are deeply concerned by the way in which her memory and legacy have been used in the debate.

The Minister has to show us, not just by next Monday, but until March next year, that he is prepared to uphold what is in the legislation about acting expeditiously to protect the human rights of women in Northern Ireland. That is not the same as giving powers to the Assembly to deal with it. That is not what is in the Act. He needs to be honest that that is how the Government now intend to deal with it and get the House’s approval for that.

The consequences of not doing that are very real for women in Northern Ireland. The Minister knows that, right now, we cannot tell women in Northern Ireland who might need an abortion how they will access that service next Tuesday. He and I have talked about the issue of pills. We are all worried about women accessing products online that may not be safe. In 1967, when the House legislated to exempt women in England and Wales from prosecution, we did not say, “Look, it’s okay, you can continue to have a backstreet abortion, but at least you will be able to go to a doctor.” We recognised the importance of making sure that people could access safe procedures. Yet it is very clear that that will not be the case for women in Northern Ireland from next week.

Many hon. Members will have heard the brave words of Sarah Ewart, who had to take our country to the High Court because her rights were violated. She had a fatal foetal abnormality and she was not able to seek support in her home nation of Northern Ireland to deal with that. Indeed, when faced with that horrific prognosis, the response that she got from doctors was, “I’m not going to get prosecuted to help you.”

Hand on heart, none of us can say that from next week that situation will change for women in Northern Ireland. Indeed, with hand on heart, many of us have to look Sarah Ewart in the eye, because the Supreme Court has said that it will wait to see what happens with this legislation before acting to see whether the Government have to uphold the human rights of women in Northern Ireland. What a shameful situation that we are still quibbling over treating our fellow UK citizens with dignity and respect, in the way that we would expect for our constituents here in England and Wales.

There is nothing in the legislation that will change the time limits and nothing that will change the existing medical regulations that would allow abortion to take place. It simply removes the criminal element and sees this as a medical matter. It sees women as able to make choices over their own bodies, just as men would wish to do.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I understand my hon. Friend’s passion about people in Northern Ireland being treated equally. This is not to divert us from that important issue, but does she not think, as a Labour Member, that our party should allow people in Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, to vote for Labour candidates? Does she not think that that is a democratic principle? Yes, this issue is hugely important, but it is about a principle of democracy.

[Stella Creasy]

What I do know is that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would not forgive me for straying into what is essentially a family matter for the Labour movement. The Labour movement has stood up for human rights around the world. We stand up for the human rights of the people of Northern Ireland to love who they love and to marry who they want, yet when it comes to the human rights of women in Northern Ireland to have control over their bodies, suddenly this place is stuttering.

The Government have issued guidance on this legislation, but there is no public information campaign. What do we say to people in Northern Ireland next week? Can they go to a doctor and ask for misoprostol and have an early-term abortion—yes or no? It will not be illegal any more, so physicians could certainly prescribe the pill, but the Government have not done the work to tell people what the legislation will be. We will be in an interim period. That is exactly why the legislation was drafted not just with decriminalisation in mind, but to keep the regulatory period as short as possible to avoid this confusion.

What the Minister has done tonight, by waving in front of one party in this place the opportunity to kill this measure through providing the role of the Assembly, is to create further confusion about how women in Northern Ireland will access their basic rights. We know that he is going to do that, because he has talked about having a public consultation on how to do abortion, as though it is something that we all have an ability to make happen. People on Twitter think that I have the ability to do that, but I want to be very clear that I have never made an abortion happen.

The point here is that we do not ask for public consultation on other healthcare issues. At no point do we put the concept of doing a vasectomy up to people in the community, yet somehow—

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have always practised that philosophy myself: however long it takes, we are going to get through them.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister will know that recently it has gone into the public domain that more than 365 people in Northern Ireland were given the royal prerogative of mercy, despite 10 years of files being lost. Will he give a commitment that those names will be made public? After all, if the Queen takes the time to sign 365 names, surely the public and particularly the victims have the right to know.

[The Prime Minister]

I would say to the hon. Lady, who I know takes a very close interest in these issues in Northern Ireland, that difficult decisions were taken, principally by the previous Government at the time of the various agreements, which involved very difficult choices—hard choices—that had to be made in order to try to build the platform for peace and reconciliation. I am very happy to look at her specific point and see whether there is anything I can do to reassure her in a letter, but I do not want to unpick decisions taken at a difficult time to try to give us the peace that we enjoy today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Q13. The Prime Minister quite rightly praised the wonderful work of London’s emergency services during the Olympics, Paralympics and Her Majesty’s jubilee. Does he share the concern of the London public about the number of fire stations that are threatened with closure, in particular the one in Clapham Old Town in my constituency? Will he join the campaign to save that fire station, and does he agree that it is not right to choose a fire station for closure simply because it is on very expensive land?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously this is an issue for the Mayor as well as for the Government, but I will look closely at what the hon. Lady has said. Hon. Members must recognise that the most important thing is the time it takes the emergency services to get to an incident. As constituency MPs, we are naturally focused on the bricks and mortar items—whether ambulance or fire stations, or other facilities—but what really matters for our constituents is how quickly the emergency services get to them and how good the service is when they do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Wednesday 27th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The argument being put forward, particularly by the Germans, is that a new treaty clause is needed to put the eurozone on a stronger footing. Clearly, from our point of view, we are not in the euro and we are not planning to join the euro, so any treaty change would not apply to us—just as, in terms of the new rules on the stability and funding mechanism, we have always had a carve-out from them. We shall be discussing that at the European Council this week.

The greatest priority for Britain should be to fight very hard to get the EU budget under control. It is completely unacceptable, at a time when we are making tough budget decisions here, that we are seeing spending rise consistently in the European Union. I think that is wrong and I shall be doing everything I can to try to sort out the budget for next year, and also to look at the future financing of the European Union, where we want to see strict controls. That should be our priority.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Q4. The Prime Minister must realise that the British public are facing cuts in services and in their livelihoods. They do not want to see a single penny more given to the EU. In fact, they would like to see brought back some of the money that was given away, unfortunately, by our Prime Minister. Will this Prime Minister please ensure that when he goes into battle for our money, he does not—as happens to many leaders when they are involved in that bloated bureaucracy—roll over? Will he promise that if the EU demands that money, we will just say, “Sorry, we’re not paying”?

[The Prime Minister]

As ever, the hon. Lady talks a good deal of sense. It is worth recalling that since Margaret Thatcher won that rebate at Fontainebleau it has saved Britain £88 billion. That is what tough negotiation achieved. The European Parliament has insisted on a higher budget than the one set by the Council, so the first thing we have to do is to say that is not acceptable, and build a majority on the Council to get the budget down again. It pains me to say this to the hon. Lady, but we would be assisted if Labour MEPs did not keep voting for higher budgets, which is exactly what they did this week.