Conversion Therapy Prohibition (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) Bill [HL]
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, this is a very short Bill, undoubtedly presented with the best of intentions, but it raises some big and difficult questions. The first is why there are no definitions in the Bill, very importantly of “gender identity” but also of “practice”, “suppress”, “aimed” and “demonstrates an assumption”. This means that interpretations are likely to be highly subjective, as well as being left to the courts to sort out. How can something be banned when it cannot be defined?
My second question is whether the Bill represents a serious overreach into behaviour that should not be criminalised, in effect creating a thought or speech crime. What examples of action or speech can my noble friend Lady Burt or other supporters of the Bill give of a real gap in the law where, for example, police, prosecutors or courts have told complainants that they could not act or convict? Practices that amount to physical or mental abuse, torture or inhuman treatment are, of course, very rightly already illegal. The Bill requires no evidence of harm or injury for the offence to be committed, and what room it allows for sincere and voluntary conversations, safeguarding or protection of health and well-being, is thoroughly unclear.
The very term “conversion therapy” is a misnomer—a confusing one, as I think my noble friend accepted—but it is still the core of the Bill. It risks tarring the therapy community. None of us wants to see any pressure or coercion used on people, but explorative talking therapy by mental health professionals, when all aspects of the person’s feelings can be examined, is an entirely different matter.
The Equalities and Human Rights Commission has advised that there needs to be care in drafting so as not to catch legitimate counselling, therapy and support. So my next question is how the Bill, with its lack of any exemptions or exceptions, avoids the risk that anything other than immediate affirmation will put a therapist or clinician at risk of being accused of a “conversion” practice, when their professional duty is to support the person as they explore exactly what it is they want.
My fourth concern is that the Bill conflates sexuality or sexual orientation with gender dysphoria, when they are very different things. The evidence suggests, as Minister Kemi Badenoch noted in her recent letter to the Women and Equalities Committee, that a high proportion of young people who present as struggling with their sex actually turn out to be gay and that:
“If gender non-conformity is misinterpreted as evidence of being transgender and a child is medically affirmed, the child may not have had a chance to identify, come to terms with or explore a same-sex orientation”
and
“early hormone therapy may interfere with the patient’s development as a homosexual”.
So immediate affirmation of a change in gender identity rather than watchful waiting could be “gay conversion therapy”—what are the safeguards against that? How does this Bill avoid the hugely dangerous risk of treating a young person inappropriately and prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones when they are in fact gay?
In its June 2023 statement, NHS England noted both the rise in autistic young people seeking gender transition and the
“dramatic change in the case-mix of referrals from predominantly birth-registered males to predominantly birth-registered females presenting with gender incongruence in early teen years”.
Perhaps when we see the horrendous sexualised pressure that teenage girls are under, a wish to escape from being female can be understood.
But, under this Bill’s proposals, could a parent be convicted for refusing, perhaps because of the above concerns, to affirm the child’s request to change gender or to agree to puberty blockers, as in the Australian state of Victoria? A parent’s duty is surely to protect the child, and in many areas of a child’s life to discuss issues and say “No” or “Wait” if they feel that is more appropriate.
Leading human rights barrister Jason Coppel KC has raised the risk of unjustified or unlawful restrictions contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights on the right to manifest religion and belief, or on freedom of expression. A person like me would be highly unsympathetic to spiritual guidance that, for instance, said homosexuality or same-sex marriage was a sin, but it would be a dramatic departure for that to be made a criminal offence. Has the Bill been subject to an examination of its human rights compliance by the author? If so, it would be very good to see this published.
Finally, it would certainly be premature to legislate until we have seen the final report of the Cass review, which is expected soon.
UK-EU Relationship (European Affairs Committee Report)
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for his excellent stewardship of this report.
As most speakers in this debate have commented, we seem to be in somewhat calmer waters of UK-EU relations after the welcome agreement on the Windsor Framework regarding the Northern Ireland protocol. Indeed, as in the delightful pun of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, we are “thawing the Frost”. However, a big question is whether this benign scenario will be maintained. I think some of us live in nervous anticipation—due to squabbles inside the Tory party—of some other ruction in the relationship, created for internal party or electoral reasons.
When we debated last week the report from the sub-committee of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, objected to what he described as a change in the Government’s stance on the protocol, saying:
“The Johnson Government, of which I was part, always took the view … that the protocol was unsatisfactory and temporary. We always hoped that, ultimately, divergence by GB would produce the collapse of the protocol arrangements”—[Official Report, 11/9/23; col. GC 110.]
Therefore, there is a faction of the Tory party—quite a large one—which does not want or offer stability in our relationship with the EU. Rather, it favours disruption, which seems very unconservative.
The Prime Minister’s disruption today of green targets will surely undermine and embarrass the King, who, on his current state visit to France is set to host a climate mobilisation forum. It certainly angers business. I fear that the perception will be once again that Tories never stick to their promises, which is damaging for them but also, sadly, for our whole country. The chair of Ford UK reacted furiously this morning to being blindsided. She said:
“Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency”.
That is surely what many want from government for our EU relationship.
What we and the EU need now in this relationship is stability, consistency, reliability and a basis for trust; then, we can start to aim for some improvements, modest at first but not insignificant, and, I hope, then growing. Are we going to get this stability? The screeching U-turn on net zero is not reassuring, but I hope the Minister will be able to reassure me.
The Government continue to kick the can down the road on border checks on imports, leading to uncertainty and extra cost to industry, as well as concern about food safety if disease or unsafe food slips into the UK due to laxness.
Of the several specific co-operative initiatives proposed in our April report and previously, two have in fact been achieved; such is the influence of our former chair, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. Those are the association with Horizon Europe and a memorandum of understanding on financial services. The achievement of an SPS agreement would be of great value but unfortunately, the Government say that they will agree one only if there is recognition of regulatory equivalence. That is of course utterly unrealistic, so our farmers and agri-food industry will continue to suffer from red tape and cost burdens.
In some quarters, as I already mentioned, regulatory divergence is seen as a good and an aim in itself, apparently to display our “sovereignty”. I regard that as an empty project, and I am glad to say that I seem to be on the same page as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, on that point; there is no point in it for its own sake. Of course, keeping in step with EU rules without having a say is second best—to which the solution is of course to rejoin the single market—but our economy and business demand it.
If the UK were to depart from the European Convention on Human Rights, that would throw a huge spanner in the works. We might kiss goodbye to the data adequacy agreement that is so valuable to business and torpedo any chance of, for instance, access to EU crime-fighting instruments such as the Schengen Information System or deeper co-operation on justice and extradition.
Much dismay has been expressed at the stalemate on touring for creative professionals and on student exchanges, school visits and a youth mobility programme. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to government narrowmindedness on this. Can the Minister dispel the perception that on these projects the Government know the price of everything but the value of nothing?
The body that represents English language schools, a sector worth £1.5 billion a year, laments its difficulties in securing visas, and my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire referred to current policy as incoherent.
Of course, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has brought the UK and EU together in supplying Ukraine, operating sanctions and planning reconstruction. The Government have taken part in the intergovernmental European Political Community and will host it next year. All this is good, but it is a bit of a jumble without any firm security partnership, either on internal or external security, within which to operate.
The Government have rejected an EU offer of strategic dialogue and do not want co-operation on sanctions encompassed in an MoU. Our committee’s current inquiry on the security and defence relationship heard very interesting evidence yesterday from senior MEPs on the scope they identified for intensifying that relationship, on which they are keen. Nathalie Loiseau, the EU co-chair of the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, regretted the departure of the UK from two military operations in particular: Althea in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Atalanta on piracy at sea, which was in fact UK-led.
Can the Minister tell us what scope there is for re-establishing or furthering such co-operation under PESCO or projects with the European Defence Fund and European Defence Agency? Given that the NATO summit expressed a desire for the fullest involvement of non-EU allies in EU defence efforts, the Government surely cannot claim any tension on that score.
The Minister for Europe told us in evidence that he was open to the idea of regular UK-EU summits, but, disappointingly, the responses to our report have not confirmed that. Can the Minister say whether the Government see value in structures and predictable fora over ad hoc informality and claimed flexibility? Does she agree that a rationalisation and merger of the various committees under the withdrawal agreement and the TCA could be a focus for the 2025 review?
In conclusion, I feel reasonably confident that if Labour forms the next Government, we will not experience the ghastly turbulence in the UK’s relationship with the EU that we have experienced for the last seven years. I am glad that the Opposition leader was meeting President Macron yesterday and visited Europol and Eurojust in The Hague last week, sending, I think, signals on security. But the current red lines Labour has adopted—no to the single market, customs union or rejoining—though apparently designed to reassure some parts of the electorate, are, I think, likely to take some battering from voters who are already rather ahead of the Labour leadership in their ambition, and will increasingly become so as young people come of electoral age. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, mentioned that.
There is some excitement about a new report commissioned by the French and German Foreign Ministers which suggests our old friend, concentric circles, with the outer one being associate membership, but even that would mean participating in the single market. I hope and believe that such participation may well happen under a Labour Government, though I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Collins, will decline to assure me of that.
Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Follow-up Report (European Affairs Committee)
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I also applaud the excellent work of the Northern Ireland sub-committee under its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Jay. Its report on the Windsor Framework summed up the situation. The Windsor Framework is the latest attempt to manage the implications of Brexit for Northern Ireland and, in my words rather than the committee’s, I would say that it is the best of a bad job. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, called it a “sticking plaster”, and I agree with him—but our aspirations for a final destination radically differ.
The fact is that we should not have started from here. One major reason to aspire to at least re-entry to the EU single market for the whole of the UK is to solve the problem of barriers between the different parts of our country. The problems come not from the protocol or the Windsor Framework but from Brexit. My noble friend Lord Alderdice referred to its predictable consequences, and the Financial Times journalist, Peter Foster, recently said that
“the original sin remains the prioritisation of a clean-break Brexit over the stability of the Union”.
That is a serious, but in my view justified, charge.
The proponents of Brexit, and particularly those who forced through a hard Brexit, which rejected staying in the EU single market and customs union, gave little if any thought to the effect on Northern Ireland, the Good Friday agreement or the relationship in these islands, which was shameful. If only those who advocated Brexit had given thought to the implications of creating not only economic problems but further political tensions in Northern Ireland after several decades of things seeming to settle down somewhat. The committee noted that the continued application of EU law in Northern Ireland remains politically contentious and—rightly, in my opinion—urges that, in view of these political tensions, the obligation on the UK and EU is for them both to be fully transparent with Northern Ireland stakeholders over the consequences of what they have agreed under the Windsor Framework. As the noble Lord, Lord Jay, mentioned, the committee urged publication of a consolidated text of the protocol as amended by the Windsor Framework. I hope that the Government are doing that—I have not yet had the opportunity to read their response.
It is an uncomfortable fact that, as the report on the Windsor Framework notes, stakeholders argued that, for many businesses, the movement of goods is likely to be more burdensome than the protocol as it has operated to date with various grace periods and easements in place, and that there are concerns that the ability of retailers based in Great Britain to use the green lane to supply the Northern Ireland market could place Northern Ireland businesses, which still need to comply with EU rules for goods, at a competitive disadvantage in their own market.
Views differ on the Stormont brake. In the view of Professor Catherine Barnard, it is something of a nuclear option to be threatened but not used. Indeed, in her opinion, it will very rarely be used. Professor Fabbrini of Dublin City University said it is a
“tailor-made way for Northern Ireland to object to future internal market laws”.
Note that he did not say to “veto” them. He warned against unrealistic expectations. He added:
“the Stormont Brake creates huge pressure for the Northern Ireland Executive to be restored because the mechanism can only be applied if the First Minister and deputy First Minister are in place”.
My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford mentioned that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, stressed how the avoidance of divergence in regulation is the top priority for business, while the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said that he and Mr Johnson had hoped that divergence would break the protocol. I think I have quoted him accurately and apologise if I have not. I think that developments suggest that alignment might be winning the day, and I hope that that will be the case.
Can the Minister explain if and how the conditions for trade in halal and kosher meat have been eased and tell us whether the respective Muslim and Jewish religious authorities feel that they can now cater to the requirements of their communities in Northern Ireland? The problems with veterinary and agri-food products will be eased by an SPS agreement. The FT’s Peter Foster, to whom I have already referred, reminds us that in 2021 even the DUP, in the person of Edwin Poots, wanted such an SPS agreement.
Finally, can the Minister give an update on discussions with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission on whether issues regarding the application of Article 2 of the protocol on human rights and equalities matters have been satisfactorily resolved?
Electoral Commission: Data Breaches
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
That is a point well made. In a sense, the noble Baroness’s question is about why this took so long, especially in relation to the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission made a statement on this—it is, as I had to emphasise right at the beginning, independent and accountable to Parliament through the Speaker’s Committee—in which it said that it needed to take several steps to remove the hackers and that it was necessary to do that before making a statement. It also said that it was determined to protect against future hacking and that by making a public statement that would have been more difficult. However, the noble Baroness’s point is well made; being transparent with the public is an ambition that we all share—subject, of course, to security needs.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, may I follow that up with the Minister? Is she certain that the data breach notification requirements under data protection law were followed? As I understand it, the Electoral Commission said that it knew about this in October 2022, and yet the Information Commissioner’s Office appears to have been told only a month ago, and there are requirements—certainly there are under GDPR—for the public to be told, normally within 72 hours. What have the Government ascertained about whether these requirements were followed?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her point. I will write to her, if I may.
COP 27
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am very glad my noble friend raised that, because the Glasgow climate pact emphasised the importance of collaboration across sectors in all parts of society to deliver on climate change, and business plays an important part. I remember from my experience of net-zero plans when I was in business, many years ago. Business can contribute in some of the poorest countries in the world by helping the transition, reducing carbon and being more efficient. There is a real win-win there, and what has been encouraging both at Glasgow and in the prospective agendas for Sharm el-Sheikh is how businesses are stepping up to the plate in this important area.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, a few answers ago the Minister said that the attendance of the King at COP 27 was a matter for the King. Was that an answer to my noble friend Lady Sheehan, who asked whether the new Government have lifted the ban on King Charles III attending the conference in Egypt? A quick yes or no would suffice.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
There is no ban. This is a matter for the palace, and I really cannot be drawn on communication between the Government and the monarch. This is a matter for them, but I reiterate that we are very fortunate that our King is so globally identified with nature and tackling climate change.
Retained European Union Law
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford
To ask the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office (Lord Frost), further to his Written Statement on 9 December (HLWS445), how Her Majesty’s Government will consult Parliament in their reviews of (1) the substance of retained European Union law, and (2) the status of retained European Union law in United Kingdom law.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) (Con)
My Lords, the Written Ministerial Statement referred to sets out full details of the two reviews of retained EU law. I and other responsible Ministers are of course ready to engage with Parliament in an appropriate way—for example, directly with this House, with interested Select Committees and with noble and learned Lords who have a particular interest in this question. Of course, we wish to establish proposals which are likely to be acceptable to the largest possible number of parliamentarians while achieving our policy aims.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, Parliament agreed with the Government that a snapshot of EU law at the point of exit should be onshored into UK law in the 2018 and 2020 withdrawal Acts. This was for the sake of continuity, certainty and stability for manufacturers and service providers, and thus the economy, throughout the UK, including Northern Ireland, beyond the protocol. A mere nine months on, the Minister expressed his desire—in what seems a highly ideological and unnecessary move when all the practical issues of financial services, Horizon, and so on are unresolved—not only to take a wrecking ball to the settlement but to do so in a way which takes back control for the Executive such as to represent, in the words of EU law expert Professor Catherine Barnard,
“a full takeover by Whitehall of Westminster”.
The announced intention is only to “incorporate Parliament’s views”, which is not good enough. I thus ask the Minister now for a commitment not only to involve Parliament fully in the review but then to make any changes via primary legislation and not Henry VIII powers.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is of course right in saying that retained EU law was brought on to our statute book for reasons of convenience and a smooth transition. It does not mean that it can never change; indeed, it must change, because that is how we get the benefits of reform and change after leaving the European Union. That is the process we intend to begin. As I have said before, I do not think that it makes sense for rules which never had proper scrutiny in this House to require full dress processes to remove them. The way they were incorporated was not normal in terms of parliamentary procedure, and therefore we should look at other ways of dealing with the consequences.
Retained EU Law
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Statement by the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) on 16 September (HL Deb, col 1533), whether the review of the substantive content of retained European Union law has commenced; and what engagement they are planning to undertake with stakeholders, including those in Northern Ireland.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) (Con)
My Lords, I have now launched two reviews: one into the substance of retained EU law and one into its status in law. As regards the substantive review, departments have been asked to review and map the content of retained EU law that falls within their responsibility in order to be clear where the heaviest concentrations are and what the effect is. Departments are responsible for consulting stakeholders as appropriate in order to complete this task, including, of course, those in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the freezing of EU law in domestic law at the end of last year delivered legal certainty and stability, including for the position of Northern Ireland in relation to the EU single market. Will the Government take great care in unravelling that? How do they intend to implement any change to retained EU law? Will they commit to doing so through primary legislation only?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, as regards Northern Ireland, we will of course proceed with an eye on stability and with predictability, as we have made clear on many occasions. On retained EU law more broadly, I noted in my Statement on 16 September that many such laws had not been discussed or agreed to in this Parliament in any way during the course of our EU membership and any amendments to those laws in future would need to reflect that reality.
Integrity of Electoral Processes
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, noble Lords on these and other Benches have paid tribute to my noble friend Lord Tyler, so I shall be brief. I will pick up the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that my noble friend Lord Tyler has been true parliamentarian for 30 years. He will be hugely missed, not only on our Benches but across the House. I believe it is his 80th birthday in eight days’ time, so I wish him an early happy birthday, but I say to him that 80 is no age at all.
Noble Lords
Baroness Ludford
The older I get, the more I think that 80 or 85 is no age at all. My noble friend is really being very cheeky retiring early.
My noble friend gave a compelling survey of all the threats to electoral and democratic legitimacy. I want to talk about the Government’s intention to bring in voter ID. The number of specific accusations of voter fraud at polling stations is low and very few accusations result in cautions or convictions. The Joint Committee on Human Rights did a report. In evidence, the chief executive of the Electoral Commission, Bob Posner, told the committee:
“I’m not suggesting that there is a high incidence of it happening and of its being established, but we cannot say with confidence that there are not higher levels of personation than the statistics on cases brought by the police actually show. We can know only so much about that.”
That seems to me to be a bit of an Aunt Sally: we think there may be more but we have no idea and no proof. Mr Posner told the committee that making a change in introducing voter ID not only has to improve security, it also has
“to maintain complete accessibility to the system; and it has to be a workable, practical system.”
On both those scores there is considerable doubt. Voter ID is a solution in search of a problem, and one that entails considerable risks.
The Electoral Reform Society said that across the 2018 and 2019 voter ID pilots, 1,000 people were turned away from voting. The ERS, like the Joint Committee on Human Rights, has instead called for the introduction of automatic voter registration. The ERS also urged the Government to replace the current first past the post electoral system with proportional representation. It said that voters already think the UK’s system is safe and secure, but not that it is fair, so fairness should be the priority.
The JCHR called on the Government to find out whether requiring people to show ID to vote might decrease engagement with the electoral process, particularly among people from black, Asian or minority ethnic backgrounds. Cabinet Office research showed that 4% of eligible adults do not have ID that is recognisable or in date. If correct, this would mean that 2.1 million people may not have suitable photo ID to vote, especially older people, people with disabilities, the unemployed and those without qualifications. It showed that 5% of those surveyed said they would be less likely to vote in person if voter ID was introduced. That is a severe impact.
Our colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Woolley of Woodford, founder and director of Operation Black Vote, spoke to us about how mistrust in the Government and their institutions made him
“deeply afraid that if there is another layer of bureaucracy it will be another impediment for a group
—black and other ethnic minority voters—
that is already hesitant about fully engaging in the democratic process.”
I shall skip the bit about the ECHR, since I know noble Lords know all about the obligations of the ECHR, but I conclude with the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ conclusions. The Government must explain why they have reached the view that voter ID is necessary and proportionate, given the low number of reported cases of fraud, the even lower number of convictions and cautions, the potential for discrimination and the lack of clear measures to address potential discrimination. I hope the Minister can give me those answers today.
Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: EU Proposals
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, the protocol has always been a somewhat separable bit of the withdrawal agreement, in the sense that it was renegotiated after the first version of the withdrawal agreement was agreed back at the start of 2019. It is to some extent free-standing in that sense, so I do not think that opening it up should affect wider parts of the deal. It is a text that is there to deal with a very specific problem, and therefore we need to find the correct, very specific solution.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the New York Times ran an interesting article a few days ago under the headline “Showdown Over Northern Ireland Has a Key Offstage Player: Biden”. It was clearly briefed by administration officials and said:
“In recent days, unprompted, Mr. Biden asked his staff for an update on the negotiations between Britain and the European Union over trade arrangements in Northern Ireland. He urged them to relay a message to the Johnson government that it should not do anything that would jeopardize the peace accord in the North”.
It also said that
“pressure from the American president may cause Mr. Johnson to think twice about provoking another destabilizing clash with Brussels.”
Does that pressure do so, or are this Government really going to antagonise what they love to describe as their closest ally?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, as a Government we obviously have our own dialogue with the US Government that does not depend on messages in the New York Times. I refer back to the statement made by the Prime Minister when he was in Washington last month, when he noted that he and President Biden were “completely at one” on the importance of protecting the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We are completely at one on that subject.
Northern Ireland Protocol
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the speech made by Lord Frost on 12 October 2021, what plans they have to change the Northern Ireland Protocol.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) (Con)
My Lords, the objective of the Northern Ireland protocol was to support the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It is now undermining it. I set out our proposals to change these arrangements to this House and in a Command Paper on 21 July. We expect written proposals from the Commission today in response to the current difficulties. I hope that we can resolve this situation by agreement but, if we are to do so, we will need to see significant change to the current arrangements.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I want to ask the Minister two questions. First, apart from with the DUP, what consultation have the Government undertaken in Northern Ireland to lead the Minister to threaten to breach the protocol? The chief executive of Manufacturing NI says that
“no one in business has raised the issue of the ECJ oversight as a problem … It is purely a political and sovereignty issue, and not a practical or business issue.”
Does ideology trump pragmatism and business in Northern Ireland?
Secondly, the Minister has trashed the political credibility of the Government and, indeed, its electoral legitimacy, given that the 2019 election was won on the basis of “Get Brexit done” triumphalism about the withdrawal agreement and the protocol. However, he is also trashing the UK’s international reputation. In the words of legal expert Professor Mark Elliott,
“the UK, if it wishes to be part of the rules-based international order, cannot pick and choose the international legal obligations that it honours”,
and to believe otherwise is “legally illiterate”. Does that bother the Minister?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, there is quite a lot in that question but I will try to deal with the two points. We talk to people of all opinions across the spectrum of political opinion in Northern Ireland. In doing so, I personally have heard quite a lot of concern about the imposition of European Union law in Northern Ireland without democratic consent; of course, the Court of Justice stands at the apex of that system.
On the second question, we set out our approach in the Command Paper. I do not think that there is much more to say. We have been clear that the threshold for using Article 16 has passed; Article 16 is a mechanism in the protocol whose use is legitimate if the circumstances require it. We would prefer to find a solution by consensus but Article 16 is there.