Lobbying of Government Committee

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

Well, the Scottish people can be the judge of that. If the hon. Member thinks that a Scottish Minister dining with Lex Greensill is okay, his party should put that on its leaflets in the elections in May.

Sir Alex Allan resigned as independent adviser on ministerial interests following the Prime Minister’s failure to take action on the Home Secretary’s bullying behaviour. That was five months ago. The Government have not replaced him. They have not even advertised the job. What does that say about how seriously this Government take standards?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I just point out that, when Gordon Brown appointed his Prime Minister’s adviser on ministerial interests, that job was not advertised either because it is not advertised; it is a prime ministerial appointment. The motion proposes to set up a new Select Committee when there are many existing Select Committees. I am Chairman of the Liaison Committee. Why has the hon. Member not consulted any of us about this manoeuvre? I appreciate what Oppositions do, which is to try to embarrass the Government, but she is right that there are much wider issues to address. Should we not try to address those issues in a bipartisan manner?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The point about Sir Alex Allan is that it is five months later and nobody has been appointed to this role. Whether we advertise the role or not, it has been vacant for five months. [Interruption.] A Member says from a sedentary position that it will happen shortly, but five months is an awfully long time.

I will come on to the issue of the composition of the Select Committee, but like the hon. Gentleman, I had the privilege of chairing a Select Committee. When scandals happened, we looked into them, as we did with the collapse of Carillion, and I know that the hon. Gentleman did so too. The problem is that there is no overarching inquiry planned into not just what happened with Greensill but more widely around lobbying, cronyism and sleaze. I am very happy to work on a cross-party basis to take this forward, and I welcome the comments from the hon. Gentleman over the last couple of days.

As well as the lack of an adviser on ministerial interests, there has been an absence of ministerial interests being published. They are supposed to be published twice a year, but they were published only once last year, in July, and not at all since then. These things matter—they are the foundations on which the standards of government rest, and under this Government, those foundations are being consciously removed. That is why this motion does what the Government should have done but chose not to: it gives the power to this House, not the Government, with a 16-strong Select Committee with clout to investigate this whole sorry scandal. It would have powers to call witnesses and examine them in public, like an effective Select Committee would. The investigation that we propose would look at inappropriate lobbying of Government and what needs to be done to prevent it. It would have the powers needed to demand witnesses and communications. It would examine the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments and whether it has sufficient powers, resources and the right remit. Put simply, this special new Select Committee would aim to tackle the problem staring us in the face, not cover it up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

rose—

[Mr Wragg]

The Chair of the Liaison Committee is indicating that he wishes to intervene.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I rise briefly to make the point that the 2017 Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee report into the ACOBA rules recommended changes to the ministerial code and the civil service so there would be proper conversations about these conflicts of interest as they arise, which do not take place in the current atmosphere.

[Mr Wragg]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct, and I believe the whole new Committee entirely endorses the latest, 2017, report of the previous Committee and would wish to see those recommendations taken forward.

His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 12th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

When I first saw the list of those who wished to contribute to this debate, my heart sank slightly because I wondered how long this debate could go on and still remain so interesting. We have just heard yet another remarkable tribute to His Royal Highness—dare I say the woke paying tribute to the unwoke? It underlines how His Royal Highness was the most amazingly unifying figure. Perhaps we in this House and those outside should take a lesson from this occasion and consider what can bring us together, or, thinking of the words of Jo Cox, what united us rather than divided us. I shall try to avoid repeating what has been said. The sheer variety of these tributes presents an amazing collage of an even more amazing life.

I rise to pay tribute to the late Duke for his particular interest in promoting better reflection among our leaders in all walks of national life in the modern world. There has been reference to his religion from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who paid a remarkable tribute to him. The Duke founded a profoundly changing institution, St George’s House, which is committed to effecting change for the better and nurturing wisdom through dialogue. That was in 1966, before there was much interfaith dialogue between the Christian Churches, let alone between Hindus, Jews, Muslims and Christians of all denominations. That powered a new direction of religious thinking in this country. St George’s House now hosts some 60 events every year for reflection and consultation on contemporary problems and issues.

Out of what became known as the Windsor meetings grew something called the Windsor Leadership Trust, which provides transformational leadership programmes for senior leaders across all sectors, including corporate, public, military, education, faith, not for profit, and anything else we might care to imagine—even politics. The trust offers a safe space for leaders to share personal and professional challenges with each other, and the opportunity for personal growth and reflection. Those who have had the privilege of attending its programmes will attest to the fact that the Windsor Leadership Trust’s values and methods are inspiring and empowering. Without His Royal Highness offering that first spark of inspiration, generations of our leaders over the years would have discovered less of their potential and would have contributed less. That is yet another example of how his influence will live on, to the benefit of present and future generations of our country. As we grieve, and as we think most of all of Her Majesty and the Duke’s other family and friends, we give thanks for that yet further contribution and for the Duke’s great life.

COP26

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 10th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell). My immediate priority is to ensure that the Government have the wherewithal to deliver this. They have many key priorities at the moment, not least the recovery from covid, economic rebuilding, consolidating Brexit and establishing the UK’s new place in global affairs, but what could be more important to that fourth priority than COP26, which represents such a critical opportunity for the world to address the increasingly severe impacts of the climate crisis? The hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, described it as a “crucial milestone”, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) said:

“The eyes of the world will be on us”.

The UK has often taken the lead on climate issues, and this presidency is a chance to push for ambitious commitments from partners across the globe. I personally favour the idea of a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty, embodying treaty commitments to limit fossil fuels coming out of the ground or to bind states to offsetting carbon capture and storage. We already have a good record on that in our own country, and it is important that our own policies reinforce the UK’s commitment to this work. Examples include our commitments to international marine reserves, which promote carbon capture; to agricultural reform and rewilding; to our net zero target; and to insulating homes and reducing carbon emissions from transport. Incidentally, we are going to have one of the biggest hydrogen production green energy hubs in Essex, at the new freeport that was announced last week.

The key to success in the past has been the significant effort and resources expended on conferences like these, long before the conference itself. I was reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, a little while ago that the French employed a former Prime Minister, Laurent Fabius, and he had 12 months and 200 diplomats at his disposal to support the preparation for the Paris COP in 2015. I very much congratulate the COP26 President, my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), on his appointment and on being given a Cabinet-level role for his COP presidency. He is wholly devoted to it, but it is vital that he has a team with both the resources and the clout, not just to bring our international partners together, involving many Foreign Office resources, but to ensure that the Government Departments work together to deliver on our own targets and our own work.

I serve on the Public Accounts Committee, and we had to report that the net zero target was not effectively embedded in policy making on a cross-Whitehall basis, so I ask my right hon. Friend: what is the machinery of government that is going to back him up and support his work in the run-up to COP26? We have been expecting a written ministerial statement, and we still expect it. I have been invited to guest on the Environmental Audit Committee tomorrow, and I expect I will press him on this subject then if he does not want to answer that question in the debate this evening. The question is: how much real clout does the machinery of government give the him to deliver this very substantial and defining task for the Government?

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow pointed out, the Select Committee system in this House is already getting well prepared. Three Chairs of Committees have commented already in this debate, and the Committees are linking their inquiries. The Transport Committee is looking at zero-emission vehicles, the Treasury Committee has been working on decarbonisation and green finance, one of the key summit issues, and the Science and Technology Committee is looking at the potential for hydrogen to meet the UK’s net zero target. The Committees are also demonstrating their flexibility and willingness to collaborate, and I am delighted that they are coming together in this way, effectively to form a kind of informal committee on COP26 to scrutinise the work of the Government in the run-up to the COP summit.

I have to say that this is also an effort to limit the demands on my right hon. Friend the COP President’s time so that there is no duplication of evidence taking by different Committees. As I say, he is coming before the Environmental Audit Committee tomorrow. I ask him what commitments he can make to the programme of other meetings that I, as Chairman of the Liaison Committee, am setting out and that other Committees are setting out, in order that we have a coherent programme of scrutiny of the work of the Government up to COP26.

The big challenge here is for the Government to put themselves in the global picture on the most important global summit we are likely to see them undertake in this Parliament; there will be G7s, G8s and NATOs, but nothing is going to cap this. This is the defining COP summit that has to crown the achievement of the Paris summit. I very much hope that this will be seen as a British diplomatic success and not as something that other countries have had to sort out for us. My right hon. Friend has an enormous task. I congratulate him again on his appointment and wish him all the very best. He should come to the Select Committees, perhaps privately, if he needs us to add pressure in order to ensure that he can deliver the task that the Prime Minister has given him.

Covid-19: Road Map

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is completely right to raise this and to care deeply about supply. We have no supply issues at the moment, and we are confident that we can meet our targets.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con) [V]]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on the fact that sunlit uplands now beckon us. He is right to say that the threat remains substantial, because while we are unlocking, at this stage only a third of the adult population has been vaccinated. What will the Government do to minimise the threat of another lockdown—for example, by strengthening the track, trace and isolate operation, particularly at a local level; providing covid-safe spaces, so that it is easier for people who are infected to self-isolate; and deploying testing capacity more effectively, such as testing schoolchildren twice a week in schools, as we will already be testing teachers?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in the ideas that he puts forward. Test, track and trace has been improving the whole time over the period of the pandemic. He is right to draw attention to the potential of lateral flow testing, not just in schools—as he says, we will be doing it twice a week for secondary school pupils after the first couple of weeks—but rolling it out for companies and local communities to take up as an additional support and an additional way of fighting the disease.

European Union (Future Relationship) Bill

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Can I just help people and say that those who are high up on the speaking list will understandably get put down if they make continuous interventions? I want to get as many people in as possible, so please—

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Including the Prime Minister.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you, Sir Bernard. Prime Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Following the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), I feel that we are having a debate about the glass being half full or half empty. It is worth reminding ourselves that we will be able to do things such as abolishing the tampon tax, which many hon. Ladies on the Opposition Benches railed against, because we are leaving the EU and getting out of its jurisdiction.

This extraordinary recall of Parliament, the day before new year’s eve, in the midst of a raging pandemic, is a pivotal moment in our history. Since 31 January, we have been in limbo, outside the EU, but subject to its laws and institutions. Tomorrow marks the real departure, when we take back control of our destiny. Denial by some of the importance of sovereignty is based on confusion. Sovereignty is not the same as power. Sovereignty is the ultimate source of authority to exercise power. EU member states have given that ultimate authority to the EU. Demanding its return was a revolutionary act by the majority who voted leave in the referendum, which they then confirmed in the 2019 general election.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Briefly, is my hon. Friend aware that in a national opinion poll that was undertaken yesterday, 55% of the British public wanted MPs to vote for the deal, whereas only 15% did not?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

That revolution continues. It recalls our Glorious Revolution of 1688, when the nation broke with an attempt to align the then three kingdoms of the British Isles under James II with an existing European hegemon to create a new arrangement with the modern, free-trading Dutch, when Parliament reasserted the right of the people through the Bill of Rights to consent to its system of government. It is that right that was increasingly compromised in the EU, which attaches more importance to integration and central control than to democratic choice.

Some said that the EU would never allow the UK to leave EU control and to prosper. What the EU negotiators called “governance” became the fundamental difference of principle in the EU negotiations. The agreement may be less than many would have liked in many respects—let us remind ourselves that many of those extra barriers and checks have been imposed by the EU through its choice, not because we chose to accept them—but I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who held absolutely firm on governance, insisting that the EU could only have free trade with the UK if it gave up its control over the UK. As the ERG legal advisory committee has confirmed, the agreement treats the EU and the UK as sovereign equals. I have no doubt that the EU will continue to do everything it can to assert what it intends the provisions of the agreement should mean. This is the new challenge. For two generations, our system became institutionalised by the EU, but we now have the reciprocal right to insist on our view of fair interpretation with equal vigour. We must do that, because only then can we seize the great opportunities that exist for our reborn nation.

I have a final word about Scotland. It is striking that although the Government have agreed an institutional framework for relations between Whitehall and Brussels, and even between this Parliament and the European Parliament, no such formal frameworks exist in our own country between the four Parliaments and the four Governments. Those who want to strengthen the Union, and to strengthen trust within our own Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, must address that issue with urgency. I hope, as Chair of the Liaison Committee, to help the Government do precisely that.

EU Withdrawal Agreement

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I know that because of the geographical proximity of his constituency to Ynys Môn—to the island of Anglesey—he has a particular concern. However, we have been working well with the Welsh Government—I particularly thank their Counsel General, Jeremy Miles—to make sure that we will have infrastructure in Holyhead that can ensure that the second busiest roll-on roll-off port in the UK continues to prosper.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I just point out to my right hon. Friend that whatever he agreed in the Joint Committee yesterday remains subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice under the disputes procedure? Moreover, whatever he agreed yesterday was agreed only because we had the clauses in the UKIM Bill that were threatening to block the ECJ’s jurisdiction. Does he agree that it is very important that we maintain the position that this House can at any time put blocks in front of the ECJ while this withdrawal agreement remains in force?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is right: this House is sovereign. This is as a result of bringing forward the UKIM Bill. I understand some of the unease and controversy that it generated, but he is absolutely right that following on from that we were able to make progress. We are now no longer in a position where we need to bring forward those clauses, but of course it is the sovereign right of this Parliament to legislate as it thinks fit.

Public Health

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I have to say that, although there are many points of merit in what the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has just raised, he has left the House and the public with the impression that he is happy for these restrictions to go through, he just will not vote for them. As for the idea that that is the kind of atmosphere the public want or that they will be encouraged to comply and co-operate when there is disagreement between the main parties on these fundamental issues that cannot be resolved in a sensible way, I think the public will be disappointed with that.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Well, there might be a different interpretation of the events just passed, might there not, which is that a lot of us are very concerned that the Prime Minister does not give the full story to the House and to the nation. The truth is that we are almost certainly going to see another lockdown in January—a full lockdown across the whole of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] I hear the Prime Minister say, “It is not what we want.” Nobody wants any of this—of course we do not—but we have to be honest and straightforward with the British people, and these measures today are not sufficient to the day.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I did not hear my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister make the promise that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that he made. I think my right hon. Friend is being perfectly honest with the House on this. I think it is very difficult, and I will come to that point, but I want to concentrate on what we agree about.

We all agree that we want to keep the R rate below 1, while minimising the restrictions on people’s lives and limiting the economic damage. If the R rate rises above 1, it becomes much too difficult to predict or control. It has a multiplier effect, even if the R rate remains constant. It is perfectly legitimate for colleagues on the Conservative Benches to press the Government for more clarity about why the Government believe the NHS is at risk of being overwhelmed. Data for much of the country does not suggest that at the moment, but it is not uncommon for hospitals to become overrun during the winter months, even without the addition of covid. It is also reasonable for Government to anticipate that the rising rate of covid infections would lead to exactly that in some areas, or much worse, unless we can keep R around or below 1; and that is all that these measures can be expected to achieve.

It is right to press the Government for more analysis of the economic impact of these measures, but maybe the Government were wrong to raise the expectation that they could provide that degree of certainty where so much uncertainty exists. Equally, it must be agreed that it is impossible to predict the economic consequences of a rapid spread of the virus. I understand the frustration of representing a low-virus constituency included in a tier 2 area, and the need to provide the right support to business that is being badly hit, but such frustrations are not about alternatives to the fundamentals of this policy, which I believe the Opposition are trying to avoid.

The real question—it is also a legitimate question—is will the tiers be enough. I hope that tier 2 will keep Essex below the R of 1, but there is doubt: tier 2 did not work before. We must look upon this period as a further period of transition to when vaccines begin to become available. We should look ahead at the challenges that the vaccine programmes will present, and give thought to how reassurance is provided that the vaccine that each person is invited to accept is right for that person. In the meantime, the challenge is to ensure that we can move down the tiers, and not just into tier 1, but to remain in tier 1, even if it takes time for the vaccines to become effective and to be rolled out at scale. That will depend on how we all behave, the example that we set, and what we do to encourage confidence and co-operation with test and trace operations.

There is much to ask the Government that time does not allow today—about how to improve trace and isolate operations, particularly at local level, and about how the community volunteer hubs could help support people who should isolate. That is vital work now.

The last thing I want is to vote for these restrictions today, but until there are better alternatives we have no alternative, and should support them. I am sorry that Her Majesty’s Opposition are trying to avoid that truth. The Government have also the opportunity to learn by continuing to listen, and to gain public confidence from that.

Covid-19 Update

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I can tell the hon. Lady that we are supporting the arts, as she knows, with a £1.57 billion package. They are vital for our country; they are massively important to the UK economy. Her point about the minimum income floor for universal credit is one that the Government well understand and that we are looking at actively at the moment.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I thank the Prime Minister for the bitter medicine that he has had to deliver over the last two or three days? I assure him that I will support his measures, because nobody has put forward a viable immediate alternative that would avoid the overwhelming of the NHS, but what can he do to strengthen public confidence in the Government’s covid response? He has started today to set out some of the features of what might be called a plan for living with coronavirus—a combination of vaccines and testing, and tracking and tracing. Will he consider setting that out in a White Paper? Would that include transformation not just of the logistics of test, track and trace but of its leadership, so that it can run a coherent and viable campaign to change behaviour by consent and co-operation, and get compliance and public confidence in that programme? Finally, will my right hon. Friend publish more of the analysis and data behind the decisions he has had to take so that people can understand more clearly why the Government are making these decisions and there is more transparency and accountability?

Covid-19 Update

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The guidance is very clear that people from areas with very high levels, such as Merseyside, should not be making those journeys.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although the case rate remains relatively low in Essex, the number of cases is doubling every 10 days? Is it not better to bring in decisive measures that will suppress the curve before it climbs, rather than wait until after, provided those measures are effective and there is economic support, particularly for the hospitality sector?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is completely right, and that is why we are bringing in this package.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 14th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

The right hon. Gentleman and I come from different positions. I want to respect the devolution settlements that uphold the Union and he has a different point of view, but on this matter we should be legislating for common frameworks. That would be the way to respect devolution. I do not know whether the Prime Minister even understands the legislation—I know he has many things on his plate—but I am sorry to say that on this issue, the Government’s approach has been cavalier. Since 2017, common frameworks have developed and the Government could have legislated for that. We will seek to do that during the Bill’s passage.

The issues were prefigured in the White Paper. Since then, we have an even bigger question to confront. Let me say at the outset that we want the smoothest trade across our United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. There is a way to resolve those issues in the Joint Committee set up for that purpose. I have to say that, from a man who said he wanted to get Brexit done and won an election on it, the Bill gets Brexit undone by overturning key aspects of the protocol that were agreed.

I have been part of many issues of contention across the Dispatch Box, but I never thought that respecting international law would be a matter of disagreement in my lifetime. As Leader of the Opposition, I stood opposite the Prime Minister’s predecessor David Cameron for five years. I do not know why the Prime Minister is rolling his eyes. I disagreed with David Cameron profoundly on many issues, but I could never have imagined him coming along and saying, “We are going to legislate to break international law” on an agreement that we had signed as a country less than a year earlier. Yet that is what the Bill does, in the Government’s own words.

I want to address three questions at the heart of the matter. Is it right to threaten to break the law in the way the Government propose? Is it necessary to do so? Will it help our country? The answer to each question is no. Let us remember the context and the principle. If there is one thing that we are known for around the world, it is the rule of law. This is the country of Magna Carta; the country that is known for being the mother of all Parliaments; and the country that, out of the darkness of the second world war, helped found the United Nations. Our global reputation for rule making, not rule breaking, is one of the reasons that we are so respected around the world. When people think of Britain, they think of the rule of law. Despite what the Prime Minister said in his speech, let us be clear that this is not an argument about remain versus leave. It is an argument about right versus wrong.

The Brexiteer and former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Lamont, says that the Bill is impossible to defend. The Brexiteer and former Attorney General who helped to negotiate and sign off this deal as Attorney General says that the Bill is “unconscionable”. And the Brexiteer Lord Howard—the Prime Minister’s former boss—said this:

“I never thought it was a thing I’d hear a British minister, far less a Conservative minister, say, which is that the government was going to invite parliament to act in breach of international law…We have a reputation for probity, for upholding the rule of law, and it’s a reputation that is very precious and ought to be safeguarded, and I am afraid it was severely damaged…by the bill”.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the EU has been negotiating in good faith?

[Edward Miliband]

It is very interesting that the hon. Gentleman should say that because a report came out today from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which is chaired by a Conservative Member. This is what the report says and this is my answer to him:

“These talks began in March and continued throughout the summer in a spirit of good faith and mutual respect for the delicate arrangements in Northern Ireland.”

That is what the Conservative-controlled Select Committee says about this issue.

The Prime Minister has said many times that he wants to bring unity to the country during his premiership. I therefore congratulate him on having, in just one short year, united his five predecessors. Unfortunately, their point of agreement is that he is trashing the reputation of this country and trashing the reputation of his office. Why are these five former Prime Ministers so united on this point? It is because they know that our moral authority in the world comes from our commitment to the rule of law and keeping our word. We rightly condemn China when it rides roughshod over the treaties dictating the future of Hong Kong. We say it signed them in good faith, that it is going back on its word and that it cannot be trusted. And his defence? “Don’t worry; I can’t be trusted either.” What will China say to us from now on? What will it throw back at us—that we, too, do not keep to international law?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Rarely can a few words uttered from the Government Dispatch Box have overshadowed a debate like this to such an extent or indeed caused so much instant fury and indignation, but I do not think the House should be in any doubt that the author of those words will have been delighted by the reaction they caused, and that the real purpose and significance of those words will probably prove to be much less than that. The law of this land and international law are both of great importance. I will leave that to the lawyers. The underlying question for the House to address is about where this nation now finds itself.

I support the Bill, because it will be necessary to address at least the worst aspects of the withdrawal agreement and protocol. We cannot be bound by it indefinitely or continue to accept laws imposed on our country by the EU court. At least there was a means of leaving the EU, but there is no obvious means of leaving this withdrawal agreement.

Much has been said about the potential to lose the respect of the international community, but what will other nations think if this great and sovereign nation cannot bring itself to accept that we made a mistake ratifying this agreement? [Interruption.] Some of us warned about it at the time. But the key points are these: the UK will gain respect if we extricate ourselves from the worst aspects of this agreement, which have the capacity to impose laws on our country with even less democratic legitimacy than under our previous membership of the EU.

[Alan Brown]

Is that now the measure of how we are going to go forward with international treaties: when countries change their minds, they say, “Oops, I made a mistake. We’ll forget about it.”?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I do not think it is a matter to be done casually and without very great care, but, as many right hon. and hon. Members, even those objecting to this Bill, are now saying, if the worst comes to the worst, we may have to avail ourselves of these powers, because it is the obligation of this House, first and foremost, to stick up for our national interests.

The EU says it will act against the UK through the European Court, but there is something absurd about the EU attempting to impose its laws on a member state after it has left the bloc—when did the voters endorse that? There is something ironic, even bizarre, about MPs in this Parliament demanding that the EU should continue to impose its laws instead of themselves wanting to make the laws for their constituents—they still do not accept Brexit. One wonders whether the Government recognise better than many here how most voters will react to this. Most of those shouting the loudest now showed how little they understood the voters in the 2016 referendum. Voters will support a Government who are determined to resist the unreasonable enforcement of the withdrawal agreement by the EU. Today, the Government have a strong mandate and a secure Commons majority for taking back control of our laws—voters will expect no less than that and they will give little quarter to this Parliament if they are let down again.

We are in a process of constitutional transition, from being subordinated by the EU legal order towards the restoration of full independence. While we are in this penumbra period of mixed constitutional supremacies, it is unsurprising that this kind of controversy should arise. Our other allies and trading partners will have far more respect for the UK if we stand up for our interests in this way than they will if they watch us accepting that we are to remain indefinitely a non-member subsidiary of the EU. The Government must ensure that there will be a clear end to the jurisdiction of the EU Court; that is the test of whether we are taking back control of our own laws, and our democracy demands it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Wright]

If my right hon. Friend will allow me, I will address exactly that point and what the Government could be doing instead of what they are proposing to do. Let me say first that the possibility of reaching no trade agreement and of deadlock in the Joint Committee was foreseeable yet when the withdrawal agreement was signed, and again when it was legislated for, the Government did not say that the risk of the outcomes they rely upon now undermined the deal on offer; they said then and they say now that this was a good deal. So what has changed?

That leads to the argument to which my right hon. Friend refers: that, unexpectedly, the European Union is now adopting an interpretation of the Northern Ireland protocol so outrageous and so far from a rational reading of that protocol that we could not have seen it coming and we could not possibly accept it, leaving no option but to abrogate ourselves the relevant parts of the protocol. But the withdrawal agreement sets out a mechanism for resolving disputes about interpretation, involving binding independent arbitration and penalties including the suspension of obligations under the agreement. If the EU’s new approach is so far from what the agreement intended, why would the Government not succeed in using that mechanism?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

The answer is that any question in European law, under article 174 of the withdrawal agreement, has to be referred to the European Court of Justice, and the Court is acting not on behalf of the 28 as before, but on behalf of the 27. We know it is a political court.

[Jeremy Wright]

My right hon. Friend might be right to be sceptical about the Court of Justice of the European Union, but the issue likely to arise here is not a question of European Union law; it is a question whether there is compliance with the withdrawal agreement signed by both sides. That does not necessarily raise a question of European law; nor, in my view, is it likely to. It raises a question of treaty law and whether or not this is being abided by in good faith.

I accept that the Government have a problem, but I cannot accept that the proposed solution is either necessary or right. International law matters. The rules that bind nations underpin what the United Kingdom says on the world stage on a variety of subjects, from the Skripal poisonings to the treatment of the Uyghur people to the detention of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. We speak often, and rightly so, of the rules-based international order as the foundation of freedom and justice in the world and of our security. The rules referred to are, of course, rules of international law. If we break them ourselves, we weaken our authority to make the arguments that the world’s most vulnerable need us to make. Nor is it in our long-term diplomatic or commercial interests to erode the reputation we have earned for the strength of our word and our respect for the rule of law—a reputation that, ironically, we will rely on more than ever when the Brexit process is complete.

I do not believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or his Ministers wish to undermine that reputation, but I do believe that if Parliament were to give Ministers the powers they are asking for, and if they were to be exercised, we would all come to regret it. That is why I cannot vote for the clauses as they stand, or for a Bill that contains them.