Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 27th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

Everyone in the House this evening should remember what this is all about. It is about protecting the Good Friday agreement of 1998—nothing more and nothing less. As a mere lad born in 1966, I lived through those times on this side of the pond. To have peace on that island after so long was a prize worth having by all.

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) said that this was about the situation in which Northern Ireland finds itself, of having regulation without any representation at all. The Northern Ireland protocol contains many articles and provisions, and I assume they have an important basis. Article 1 says most clearly:

“This Protocol is without prejudice to the provisions of the 1998 Agreement in respect of the constitutional status of Northern Ireland”.

Article 13.8 could not be clearer:

“Any subsequent agreement between the Union and the United Kingdom shall indicate the parts of this Protocol which it supersedes.”

Article 16 is the safeguarding clause. Let us not forget that only one party has thus far reached for article 16, and that was the European Union to try to stop us having life-saving vaccines. That is who we are dealing with here.

Article 164(5)(d) of the withdrawal agreement says what the Joint Committee can and cannot do. The Joint Committee can agree to change the text of the protocol to address deficiencies or to address situations unforeseen. There are Members of this House who will say, “Well, you signed it. It is international law.” That is fair enough, but the draconian way in which the EU has interpreted its rights under this protocol is disproportionate. How can it be that goods crossing from GB to NI, which is a mere rounding error in the entirety of trade within the European Union, suffer a full 20% of checks? That cannot be proportionate or reasonable.

I will tell Members why we are in this situation. It is because of animosity towards Brexit. This is about punishment because the EU can. We got to this stage because of the legal straitjacket that the Parliament of 2017 to 2019 put us in, when Members of this place did all they could to make sure that the cards were stacked in the hands of the EU and against this place, and we had a very poor game to play. Do not forget that EU officials were quoted as saying that Northern Ireland was the price to pay for Brexit.

Where do we go from here? We have had 300 hours of negotiation by Lord Frost and our Foreign Secretary. What does Maroš Šefčovič say? He says, “I have no mandate.” Well, please, EU, give us somebody who has that mandate. Let us have that negotiation, because this cannot continue.

We have heard much this afternoon about necessity, and I feel that the clause of necessity has most certainly been reached. The usual doctrine of our constitution says that subsequent legislation is more important than or overwrites previous legislation, but we need to ask ourselves something really important. What is the most important legislation? Is it the constitutional Act of Union 1800? Is it the Good Friday agreement, which has brought peace to the island of Ireland? Those things have been set aside—particularly the Act of Union—by the Court of Appeal in Belfast. Or is it more important to somehow save the dear European single market from the threat of an errant pork pie? That is what we are looking at.

The EU should take great comfort from those on the Government Front Bench. I have heard the Foreign Secretary and others say throughout that this Bill will protect the single market, including with powers against those who may seek to undermine it. We will have full legal measures to stop those who want to break the rules. The EU should take every comfort that it needs from that, because this has nothing to do with upsetting the single market.

I believe that there is a little bit of timidity in this Bill, and I would have preferred it to go further. I see some difficulties with the red and green lanes, because if the EU does not trust us now, I find it hard to believe that it is going to trust us in the future. We need mutual enforcement, where we trust it and it trusts us. That is what people do across borders.

We are the Conservative and Unionist party. I look across the Chamber to my Unionist friends and say: I am with you. I will fight for this Union, and this Bill will help.

China

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I think I have already answered the question about Magnitsky sanctions. We will assess the evidence; I do not want to prejudge any future designations, but we will look at that very carefully. We also are engaged and in touch with various civil society movements in relation to both Hong Kong and more broadly, and the Minister for Asia is meeting Nathan Law later today. That is one illustration of the engagement we have had.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

By taking this welcome step to suspend extradition to Hong Kong, we are saying clearly that we have little confidence in the judicial processes of China. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will be looking at other extradition treaties that this country has to make sure that there are no halfway house routes that China might exploit to get citizens with whom it disagrees back to Hong Kong or China to face questionable charges?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

9. What steps he is taking to enhance UK soft power overseas.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

15. What steps he is taking to enhance UK soft power overseas.

[The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)]

We regard the UK as a soft power superpower, and this is widely recognised in independent international surveys and reports. [Interruption.] A few more tongue twisters and I will be anyone’s! This is the sort of thing you want to do at 11 in the morning, not 11 o’clock at night. The FCO vigorously continues to support the UK’s soft power through the funding of, among others, Chevening scholarships, the British Council and the BBC World Service.

[Mark Field]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the UK has an unbreakable connection to the Commonwealth and the democratic, inclusive values that it upholds—we discussed earlier the importance of maintaining a rules-based international order, particularly in these uncertain times. The Commonwealth also proudly represents some of the fastest-growing economies and accounts for one fifth of global trade. We shall of course continue to work closely with all members of the Commonwealth to ensure that it realises its full potential in that regard, and to ensure a more sustainable, prosperous and secure future.

[Craig Mackinlay]

Royal Yacht Britannia played a key role in promoting UK trade around the globe during her years of active service. More than 50 Members of this House believe that such a role would be enhanced post Brexit and that a new national yacht would help to promote our international humanitarian role. Will the Government now support our campaign in this brave endeavour?

[Mark Field]

I fear that I may have to disappoint my hon. Friend, who represents a coastal constituency. As a regular visitor to Broadstairs in his constituency, I know what a wonderful part of the country it is, but I have to inform him that there are no plans to commission a new royal yacht for the royal family.

Zimbabwe

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

As constituency MPs, I am sure that many of us have met Zimbabweans who are in exactly that situation. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular cases that he wants to raise, I would be happy to pass them on.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

Many people in the UK and, indeed, in this House will have friends and family either currently living in or with close links to Zimbabwe, and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) referred to the diaspora. Will the Foreign Secretary assure me that the UK, working with our international partners, will be at the forefront of seeking a democratic and prosperous future for Zimbabwe? We should seize this opportunity as one that does not come around too often; it is a chance for us to make a difference.

[Boris Johnson]

Absolutely. That is the key point. This is potentially a moment of hope, and many people in this country will be looking at it in that way. We must ensure that we do not jump the gun and that we are not premature, which is why I have been cautious with the House today. However, my hon. Friend can be absolutely certain that if our hopes are fulfilled, the UK will be at the forefront of helping to turn Zimbabwe around.

Parliamentary Sovereignty and EU Renegotiations

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate, which is the right debate at the right time. I fear that during the referendum period we will often hear people say, “The EU is just something about free trade and you needn’t worry yourselves that it’s any different from the institution we joined back in 1973”—or thought we were joining. I very much fear that we will not hear much said about sovereignty, so I am very pleased that we are having this debate today.

Much of the debate, as we heard from Opposition Members yesterday, will be about the idea that we would lose trade through Brexit. Rarely cited, though, are the 5.5 million jobs in the EU that are reliant on trade with us, and the £60 billion trade deficit that we have with the other 27 EU countries. We are a premier market for EU nations’ products. We abide by the rule of law; we are a decent country to do business with. Are we really to believe that on the stroke of our leaving the EU, BMW would not want to sell us its cars? Are we really to believe that a Frenchman would look at a Range Rover and say, “Ah, they’re not in the club any more, so I’m not going to buy their product”?

[Peter Grant]

The hon. Gentleman is making some valid points. This is why it is important that the “stay in” campaign is positive rather than negative. Does he realise that the arguments he is rubbishing about what would not happen if Britain left the EU were advanced by his party in almost exactly the same terms in relation to what would happen to Scotland if we left the United Kingdom—that nobody would buy our whisky any more? Does he now accept that the arguments advanced by “project fear” at that time were complete and utter nonsense?

[Craig Mackinlay]

I think the hon. Gentleman would find that 300 years of history makes things rather different. I find the SNP’s arguments really curious, and I really struggle with this one. As for the arguments you make about trade, you are somehow twisting them round to your enthusiasm for the European Union. I tended to agree with you: I did not think that trade would have been at risk if Scotland had left, but you now think that in respect of the European Union.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman keeps using the word “you”. He is a partisan and enthusiastic advocate of the British Parliament, and a key tenet of our debates is that debate goes through the Chair. There is no “you” involved, because I have not expressed any views.

[Craig Mackinlay]

I apologise, Mr Speaker; it is always exciting when there is an intervention from an SNP Member.

We have to recognise that trade has changed—that the world is now a global place and trade barriers have come down. A lot of these trade areas are good, friendly nations—Commonwealth nations. I always find it very strange that our friends—our kith and kin; our family—extract their wallets and purses and find, lo and behold, a note with a very familiar and loved face on it, but we deny them access to our country, and we are not allowed to speak to them on trade terms, because of course that is done by a Swedish Commissioner—Cecilia Malmström, a former university lecturer. You could scarcely make this up. We have enthused about having the Premiers of China and India over to our country—you entertained them, Mr Speaker, in your House and in this place—and yet it was nothing much more than a charade.

Those on the contra side of this debate will say that the EU is moving in our direction and we have to stay in it to be of influence. Well, I am sorry, but we have tried that argument for 40 long years. We have tried to change things; we have tried to reduce its powers. Try arguing that with the small fishermen in Ramsgate or the small businesses across our country, given all the regulations and red tape! What is the recent history of being at that high table and working from within? In the Council of Ministers, Britain is always on the opposing side. Our PM has been outvoted under qualified majority voting rules 42 times since 2010. It is time, I think, that he was honest with himself and with us that the EU is moving in a different direction.

We will also hear much in the referendum debate about what might be—what could be—with regard to security and justice. I am afraid that that will all just be part of “operation fear” to encourage the electorate merely to acquiesce quietly and gently as we continue the destruction of the sovereignty of our Parliament and this place.

I think we need to go back in time a little. We will go back to 1971—to Edward Heath’s White Paper, in which he said:

“There is no question of Britain losing essential…sovereignty.”

In 1973, he said:

“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”

Papers have been written since by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that, I am afraid, reveal what was really happening.

What has developed since then? Obviously those papers were produced in the very infant days of what the European Union was trying to become. It has since amassed a number of treaties, directives and decisions, and of course the bulk of ECJ law. For brevity, I shall concentrate on a couple of fiscal matters. With regard to VAT, in particular, we are entirely and completely subservient to EU law. Some months ago, we had a rather entertaining debate about the tampon tax. That really did highlight the fact, perhaps accidently, that we in this place are completely unable to enact any changes to a very key stream of national legislation. We merely walk through the Lobbies, supplicant to what Brussels has told us we must do.

When the Chancellor prepares his annual Budget, he has to start with the £20 billion of gross contributions to the EU—some 30% of our current deficit. Across corporate taxes, in dividends and losses, the primary authority is increasingly ECJ cases. When he seeks new rules to enhance Britain’s investment and entrepreneurial spirit—I cite the enterprise investment scheme and, more recently, the seed enterprise investment scheme—he has to seek permission from Brussels in case they flout state aid rules.

The direction of travel of the European Union is very obvious. I merely quote Angela Merkel:

“we need a political union—which means we need to gradually cede powers to Europe and give Europe control.”

We are simply on the wrong bus. If we do not take this opportunity to leave, it is probably just as well that there is a proposal for a major renovation of this palace to be conducted, because dear old museums need care. This referendum gives us the opportunity to restore this place—to restore to the public of the UK that which should never have been taken away from them.

Europe: Renegotiation

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

Despite the challenges ahead, I remain confident of a successful outcome to these negotiations and of joining enthusiastically with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in favour of continued British membership of a reformed European Union on the basis that my right hon. Friend set out in his speech this morning.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement to the House today. I am pleased to see that “rule nothing out” still features large in everything that is said and heard. What vexes me, and I am sure many right hon. and hon. Members, is the best way to achieve that deal and the aims that he has advanced today, which are both welcome and laudable—free trade, immigration and benefits control, sovereignty of Parliament, independent economic governance and the removal of ever closer union. Does he agree that the best way to achieve these aims is very simple—that is, to vote to leave?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I let the hon. Gentleman blurt it out because I did not wish to stop him in mid-flow, but the question, which was more a list, suffered from the disadvantage of being too long, and it would be good to avoid that in future. I say that to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman and to the House.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

The rules relating to purdah in elections ensure a fair and proper process during elections and referendums. In fact, the Cabinet Office’s general election guidance, issued just before this year’s general election, states that elections

“have a number of implications for the work of Departments and civil servants. These arise from the special character of Government business during an Election campaign, and from the need to maintain, and be seen to maintain, the impartiality of the Civil Service, and to avoid any criticism of an inappropriate use of official resources.”

The Scottish National party believes that the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union—arguably our most vital and strategic international relationship—should set the gold standard for fairness and impartiality. The Government’s original proposals fall far short of that standard—indeed, they will undermine public and parliamentary confidence in the process. That is why they are now—eventually—being opposed by Members on both sides of the House.

The Government’s latest back-pedalling exercise, otherwise known as new clause 10, still fails to live up to the highest standard of impartial conduct, and specifically fails to introduce any mechanism properly to enforce the purdah regulations it proposes. Amendment 11, standing in my name and those of my colleagues, fills that gap. The Minister’s own former Government colleague, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), from whom we have just heard, is quoted in The Times today as saying:

“All we’re asking is that this debate is open and fair, and we adhere to the current rules on purdah”.

He continues:

“You cannot have sneaky little tricks to try and rattle the thing through… It is just going to dirty the whole process and the losers may well consider it to be illegitimate if it has not been done fairly.”

Many voters in Scotland remember the sophistry deployed by the previous Government during the referendum campaign on Scottish independence. Despite the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats signing up to the Edinburgh agreement, the agreement was blatantly ignored following the no campaign’s last-gasp panic in the face of judgment by voters in Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) mentioned the vow, and we will continue to mention the vow until it is implemented in full, but eleventh-hour initiatives such as the vow, and using the referendum unit in the Treasury to orchestrate a scaremongering campaign by pressurising banks and other companies, were clear breaches of the agreement on the part of the UK Government. Understandably, MPs on both sides of the argument do not want to see a repeat in the Euro-poll. If only they had spoken up last year. That is why I call on the House to support the SNP amendment, which will introduce an enforcement mechanism against breaches of purdah covering both Ministers and civil servants.

As on so many issues, rather than provide strong leadership, the Prime Minister has botched this business at every possible step. That may lead some of us to believe that his heart is not in it and he was somehow bounced into making the commitment against his own free will. First, he backed down on asserting collective Cabinet responsibility on a vital national issue. Then, he caved in on the timing of the poll, after his attempt to hold it on the same day as the Scottish elections faced parliamentary defeat before the summer recess. Last week, he was overturned by the Electoral Commission on the referendum question itself. And in the past few days, we have seen the Government retreat on their original attempt to influence the campaign by using Ministers and civil servants during what should be a strict purdah period. Our amendment will keep the campaign fair and honest and provide the means to enforce good intentions, and I recommend it to the House.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on using the summer recess very well in bringing back this Bill in a different form. The fact that legislation was put together in haste before the recess can only be put down to the manifesto commitment to the referendum. We now have back, at least so far, section 125 of PPERA in some form.

This afternoon, I am not going to speak about the good or ills of the European Union; that is for a future debate. I can appreciate the concerns that led the Minister to try to alter the usual section 125 terms, given the nature of the tentacles of the EU’s involvement in vast tracts of just about every aspect of UK Government, although he is probably over-concerned about this.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) put it very well when he said that legitimacy is the most important thing, in that whatever the outcome of the referendum, the losers, no matter which side they are on, must be able to say to themselves and to the world at large, “We did our best; we lost—but it was fair.” That is the position we need to be in with this European referendum, because it may not happen again for the next 40 years. I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) talk about the problems of the 1975 referendum. I was obviously too young to take part in that, but it was, by all accounts, something of a shambles. For the Welsh referendum in 1997, the Neill Committee came up with the precursor ideas to what became the PPERA that we know today.

In all legislation, simplicity is best. While PPERA is far from simple, the purdah rules in section 125 are rules that we know. They are tried and tested, and they have served us in quite a number of referendums. We do not live just by legislation in this country, but by convention, a degree of case law, decent behaviour and knowing what is right. We have an enlarged Electoral Commission. Some might say that it is a somewhat bloated bureaucracy, but it has earned a high degree of respect. We have the ministerial and civil service codes. Also, the media have changed. It was said earlier that “The Andrew Marr Show” breaks various stories. We now accept that all these are just the new ways of doing things. Purdah has not been broken; we know how things are and know that normal business continues throughout elections and referendums. We know fairness when we see it, hear it and feel it.

As was described earlier, the PPERA legislation was put together in anticipation of a euro referendum, when the same concerns that have been aired by the Minister would have been known by the then Labour Government. Legislation does not always do all that it should, but PPERA served us well through the alternative vote referendum. Had there not been local elections in 2011, many people would not even have known that that referendum was on. No aspect of that was important to the day-to-day basis of normal government, unlike the Scotland referendum. PPERA has served for new forms of election as well, including the police and crime commissioner elections. We have all appreciated that government continues. The EU will continue to go through its machinations whether there is a UK referendum or not.

Conservative Members may not always be in government; I doubt it, much as I hope that we will. Changing now legislation—PPERA—that has served us well for some 15 years would be a dangerous step for the future. I urge the Government to accept that amendment 53 merely muddies the waters of that legislation. I would prefer amendment 4 or, even better, amendment 78 as a far more elegant means of having a free and fair referendum that has legitimacy, and after which the losers will be able to say, “We lost, but it was free and it was fair.”

[Mr Baker]

It might be helpful to return to the origin of this problem: some people, including many Conservative Members, are concerned about tipping the scales using taxpayers’ funds. If this place is for anything, it is about Members choosing to restrain power through the law, and that is what we are seeking to do tonight. Ministers might be tempted to take steps at the last moment to help influence the result, so we want to ensure that they are appropriately restrained in the usual way through normal purdah rules, or as close to them as we can get.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

I am sure Members will be unsurprised that I have stayed for the whole day of debate on a topic that is of great interest to me. Indeed, it is the topic that brought to the fore my interest in politics some 24 years ago.

It is 40 years since this nation has had a decision of any type made by the people of this country—by their hand alone—about where the European Union is going. I give great credit to the Foreign Secretary for his very wise words this morning and for his great preamble to this debate. He really had the heart that I have in some of the concerns he raised. I also pay tribute to the shadow Foreign Secretary, because he argued his case equally well, albeit from a completely different viewpoint. Indeed, I wonder how Labour Members will vote later and as this debate develops.

We have heard this afternoon from some very good right hon. and hon. Members about the pros and cons of various aspects of the European Union, and I do not suppose I need to expand on too many of them. However, when we compare what we have today with the 1975 settlement and the agreement that the British people gave to what was then the EEC, and we look at its move through the Single European Act, the Maastricht treaty, to the treaties of Amsterdam and of Lisbon, we find that we have a very different beast. It is only right that the issue is put to a referendum of the British people, so for me this is a day of great joy. It is, perhaps, the end of a journey; but it is also the start of a brand-new one.

I suggest to Members on both sides of the House, but to more on the Opposition Benches, I think, that when they say they would stay in the European Union no matter what, which we hear a lot, they ought to consider where we were those 40 years ago compared with where we are today. If we cast our minds forward 40 years, we can imagine there being no purpose to this place whatsoever.

Referendums do not come round very often, so this has to be a proper referendum. It must not be pored and raked over after the event, with people saying, “It wasn’t quite right. It wasn’t quite fair”. I am fairly comfortable with the question as it stands. It has gone through the Electoral Commission, which, for many of us, has pluses and minuses—we used to run elections quite easily without thousands of sheets of paper—but on this I think it has got it fairly right. However, I was more than convinced by last year’s Wharton words, which had a complete lack of ambiguity, were simple and did not favour one way or the other. The words in the Bill have the benefit of simplicity but still angle slightly towards the status quo, and therefore do not have the neutrality I would prefer.

The purdah period has been discussed widely this afternoon. It was good to hear from certain Opposition Members—as ever, I listened to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) very closely. The Bill is full of clauses about loans, permitted persons and maximum expenditure, but it puts aside section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which causes me concern. On this, I actually agree with the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond). I would perhaps be more comfortable if it was set out in legislation exactly who could spend what, how and where. Of course, I am most concerned about how the European Commission spends public money. I want the Commission, in particular, excluded from what is a personal debate within these islands on a constitutional matter.

I was taken by other speeches this afternoon, particularly that by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox)—there were others, but hon. Members must forgive me for not knowing everybody’s constituencies just yet. The important words are those in all the treaties: “ever-closer union”. As one advertiser says of its product, it means exactly what it says on the tin. In fighting my election campaign over the past 10 months—I am only 90% of the person I was, having walked so much—I found that this referendum was on the lips of many. People want this referendum, and it is right that we have it, but I want it done pretty much for good. The lid must not come off again for 40 years. We must not pore over it afterwards and say, “It was not right and fair”. That is what I will fight and argue for in this place, and doubtless, when the debate moves to the streets of this country, I will make clear which side of the debate I am on. Currently, I could support staying in the EU. It would have to be massively reformed, but I am not one to close my mind; I am here to listen to arguments. That said, I want what we thought it was going to be: free trade and friendship.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for interfering briefly in this important debate. On Thursday, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Mr David Anderson, is publishing a 300-page report on surveillance strategy. It is normal for the Government’s reports to be presented to the House first, before anybody else, but I understand that there are major press briefings tomorrow about it, meaning that we will not be the first to hear about it. We will hear about it first on the “Today” programme, rather than in the House of Commons. Can you advise me, Mr Speaker, on what we can do to bring the Government to heel on this matter?