Belfast/Good Friday Agreement: 25th Anniversary

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to take part in this debate: what we may lack in numbers has been more than made up for by the quality of all the speeches we have heard thus far. Maybe it is a sign that we have taken what was achieved 25 years ago for granted, but I agree with at least two speakers who have said that we should never, ever, ever do that.

It is an occasion to say thank you, and many people have been thanked. There are two people who have not been mentioned so far: Margaret Thatcher and Garret FitzGerald. The 1985 Anglo-Irish agreement was hugely significant in the series of events that led up to what happened 25 years ago, because it embraced the legacy of the history that has bound Ireland and Britain together. It put to rest the idea that what was happening in Northern Ireland was a trouble in just a part of the United Kingdom that had no relationship to what had gone on over 800 years, from the original Norman invasion and the claim of the English kings to the land of Ireland, and the way in which the Irish people were denied their land, their voice, their language, their culture and their political representation during the course of those 800 bloody years.

John Major, of course, also helped to lay the foundation, and Tony Blair, Bertie Ahern and Mo Mowlam have been mentioned already. We should add George Mitchell, as well as Jonathan Powell, who probably spent more time than anyone else on the shuttle from London to Belfast, back and forth to help lay the groundwork. As the Secretary of State said, countless other people—many others, some of whom have been mentioned—contributed to this unique moment.

I grew up in London. I watched the reporting of the troubles on the television and I read about it in the newspapers, and I will be frank: like many people, I despaired at what I was seeing. If you lived in London during the 1970s and 1980s and you got on the underground, you would look around the carriage to try to see if there were any bags that did not appear to belong to anyone who was travelling. For as long as I live, I will never forget the only time that I have heard a bomb go off. I was in bed, and it was this sound—you might think it is a bang, but as I heard it, it was a kind of deep thump. It appeared to be so close that I got out of bed, got dressed and went down to Kensington High Street, which is where I was living at the time. I thought that it must have been there; it turned out that it was two and a half miles away, but the sound had travelled through the night air.

If someone had said to me at that precise moment, “I know you may be despairing, Hilary, and look at all of this violence, but at some point in the future, the man who in opposition to the agreement that Margaret Thatcher signed famously stood up and said, ‘Never! Never! Never! Never!’ and a former leader of the provisional IRA will sit side by side with each other as the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of a power-sharing Government”, I would probably have said to that person, “I would love to live to see that, but I do not suppose I will.” But I did—we did. That tells us how extraordinary that moment was.

What was achieved in the run-up to the event we are celebrating was astonishing. It was inspirational and full of hope. I trust there is nobody in the country who has not watched the last episode of “Derry Girls”. I think the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) has referred to it in a previous speech. I watched that episode—anyone who did was profoundly moved—and I wept, I will be frank, because it conveyed the sense of hope that that process had brought to pass. For those who have not watched it, it is set against the background of the run-up to the referendum that took place in May in Northern Ireland and in the Republic. The episode just crystallised that sense of hope that the agreement gave to the people of both those places.

Having taken that step, those entrusted with political responsibility in Northern Ireland have a duty—I use that word advisedly—to make the institutions work. We have seen how one side and then the other has walked away, because they are capable of doing so, collapsing the institutions. I understand the reasons, perhaps more so in the latter case than in the former, in what began I think as a row over the renewable heat incentive in Northern Ireland. It was actually about other things—the Irish language Act, the honouring of agreements that had been entered into and so on—but there is a great responsibility from the legacy to make those institutions work, because the agreement has given something so precious to the people of Northern Ireland, which is not absolute peace, but peace that is so much better than what had happened before.

As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made reference to service, I was sitting here calculating. I served 20 years as a councillor and have served nearly 24 years here in this House, so I am heading for 44 years as an elected representative. We get elected, and I think the public expects us to turn up and do our job. Why do we work so hard to get elected if we are not going to turn up and do our job? There is also a responsibility on others not to do anything that will undermine what was achieved 25 years ago. That is why the Windsor framework was so important. The parties to the negotiations finally realised that as well as dealing with relations between Britain and the EU going forward, something very special was at stake.

The last point I want to make is about the lessons. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) made a terrific contribution from the Front Bench and reflected on some of those lessons. The first is that peace is built step by step. In thanking a whole load of people, one is going back in history over a long time. There are so many stages one could mention, but one is the sheer brilliance of the decommissioning process. If we think about it, the Provisional IRA was not under any circumstances going to hand over its weapons to the British Army it had been fighting. So great minds thought, “How the hell are we going to deal with this?” Someone came up with a brilliant idea: “What if we get someone independent and trusted, such as General de Chastelain?”—he has been referred to and should also be thanked—“and he will go to the places where the weapons have been put beyond use? He will come back and tell all of us, ‘Yes, I have seen them, they are there. They are not capable of being used any more.’” That was true for the weapons of the provisionals and of the loyalists.

When we are trying to build confidence step-by-step, the side that has experienced the violence of the other says, “They say they have given up, but how do I know?” There was a deep well of distrust, pain and bitterness because of all the lives that had been lost as a result of violence on all sides, yet that is how that part of the process was achieved.

The second lesson is persistence. All of those who did their bit over the years did not give up. I say to the Chair of the Select Committee, who reflected on what I think Tony Blair said about if Twitter had existed, that Twitter is not the real world, although we sometimes think it is. When we are looking for feedback on what we have been saying and we go on Twitter, there are plenty of people who will give us their opinion, but it is not the real world. Holding to a belief you have and your determination to achieve it is very important.

The third lesson is courage, which has been touched on. In conflicts and when people feel a wrong has been done, it is actually much easier to sit there and say, “I’m the victim, and you are my oppressor”, but then go around to the other side of the table—the mythical table—and the person there says, “No, no. I am the victim, and you are the oppressor.” We should reflect on the degree of courage that was required on the Unionist side—David Trimble and others—to say to the Unionist community, “You know what, they’re nearly half of the population, and we’re going to have to share power with them.” We should also reflect on the courage it took on the Provisional IRA side—Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams—to say, “You know what, lads, we cannot bomb Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom.” Those were two very courageous things to have said and steps to have taken at great personal risk, but without them, this would not have happened. The other lesson there is that nobody can want peace more than the parties to the conflict themselves—nobody. The outside involvement, with the efforts of the Americans and others, was hugely important, but in the end the parties to the conflict have to recognise that the game is up and that they have to compromise in the interests of peace. Of course, there is also leadership, because it is leadership that enables courage to turn into achievement.

This is one of the legacies of the Good Friday agreement. There is a wonderful organisation called Forward Thinking, which some Members in the House may know. It works in the middle east to try to build discussion and relationships between the parties to the conflict there. One of the things it does is bring people to Northern Ireland and the Republic; it says, “Sit down and listen to what people who were in effect fighting each other 25 years and more ago can tell you about how they transformed the lives of the people in their community by showing persistence, courage and political leadership.”

The final thing I want to say is that it is in many ways easy to say no, and it is sometimes really difficult to say yes, yet when we do so, just look at what can be achieved. That, I think for all of us, is the true legacy of that miraculous Good Friday 25 years ago.

Northern Ireland

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I confess that when I read the Windsor framework I was surprised, and pleasantly so, because as the Secretary of State told the House earlier, there were things in it that I did not think negotiation would manage to achieve. It is to the great credit of the negotiators, and to the great credit of the DUP, that they have achieved so much in this agreement. The EU has had to move a long way.

This proposal is very sensible. Leaving the European Union always confronted us with a choice in what to do about the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Apart from those who said, “That’s not my problem. Leave it to the EU,” everyone knew that some arrangement had to be put in place. The result was the protocol, but it did not work. The Windsor framework provides a way forward. In particular, the Stormont brake answers the point DUP Members make in this House about future EU legislation, because the brake is available.

Secondly, I wanted to respond directly to the point the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) made about existing EU law that continues to apply in the United Kingdom. Many pieces of EU legislation have applied in Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom for years. Have they had an impact on the ability of Northern Ireland businesses to trade with rest of the United Kingdom? No, they have not. They continue to apply in Great Britain because of EU retained law.

When the Government decide which of those pieces of retained law they want to dispose of or change through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, they have a choice about the extent to which they want to create divergence. I suspect that, by the end of this year, many of those pieces of legislation will still apply in Great Britain, because divergence creates problems. That is the point that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) made in a speech shortly after the referendum: divergence results in our having to make a choice.

The final point I want to make is that it is very striking that businesses will take decisions for themselves. There was a recent example: the EU decided to reduce the amount of permitted arsenic in baby foods. What did manufacturers in Britain do in response? They did not wait for the Government to say, “Well, we might or might not follow suit”; they said, “Henceforth, we will of course produce baby foods matching the EU standard”, because they want to continue to be able to sell their products. Ultimately, businesses will decide the standard that works for them. This is a very sensible measure. I congratulate the negotiators, and I really hope the House will vote for it.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Hilary Benn Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

First, I join other hon. Members in congratulating Dáithí on the law that will forever bear his name. It has been a remarkable campaign for an extremely good cause. Secondly, I say to the Secretary of State that I support the Bill, because it is a sensible response to a problem that has gone on for far too long. It is never desirable to postpone elections, but in this case I think it is necessary.

As the debate has unfolded, we have been reminded that if it were not for the row over the protocol, we would not be sitting here debating the Bill. The Bill is a symptom of the mess that we have got ourselves into—one in which rather too many people have said, “We are not moving.” We will solve this issue only if those people are prepared to move in the interests of finding a way forward.

We all know that leaving the European Union was always going to create a problem for the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and just about everyone I have ever spoken to has agreed that that could not be dealt with on the border—there could be no checks, infrastructure or anything else. Something therefore had to be done to address that, while recognising that the European Union needs to be able to ensure that goods coming into its jurisdiction meet its rules. That is perfectly reasonable and we would expect no less for the United Kingdom.

In fairness to the Government, they acknowledged that from the start, rather than saying, “Well, it’s the EU’s problem, not ours, and there’s nothing that we need to do.” As a result, they came up with the Northern Ireland protocol, as we must remember. I do not want to dwell on the ebbs and flows of the rather sorry tale of what has transpired since, which I do not think reflects particularly well on the Government or, in the interest of balance, on the EU Commission.

At the beginning, the EU Commission appeared to advance the argument that what happened in the Irish sea should be treated like any other third-country border of the European Union—that was where it started from. In other words, every single thing would have to be checked, and nothing that did not conform to the rules of the single market would be allowed to make it across the Irish sea into Northern Ireland.

Very early on, the EU came to realise that that was not going to work. The best example of that is medicines, where under full application of the rules, the EU would have said, “Unless your medicines for NHS patients in Northern Ireland have been approved by the European Medicines Agency, they are not getting on the ferry, or on the plane.” It did not take very long for the Commission to work out that that would be an absurd position to adopt, and as a result, it changed EU law. That solved the problem, but it also established a really important principle: the EU can be flexible where it wants to be flexible. That should give us all encouragement in trying to sort this out.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a review into the medicine Roaccutane, which is under an EU licence, has not been published because of issues with the Northern Ireland protocol? Since then, there have been 81 adverse health effects, including one suicide. It has been specifically said that that delay is due to the Northern Ireland protocol and the issues with the licensing arrangements. Roaccutane is licensed across the EU, and unfortunately the publication of the report has been held up, with 81 adverse health events as a result.

[Hilary Benn]

I am sorry to hear what my hon. Friend says. That is news to me—I do not know anything about it. No doubt, those with responsibility for trying to find a solution will have heard what my hon. Friend has said, and will see what more can be done to address the issue.

At the heart of the argument has been this really quite simple, but very complex, question: “How do you identify a good that is moving into Northern Ireland and is going to stay in Northern Ireland, and how do you identify a good that is moving into Northern Ireland on its way to the Republic?” That is why the concept of goods at risk was at the heart of the Northern Ireland protocol, but it was never defined in its application. The negotiation since, between the Government and the Commission, has all been about what that concept means in practice.

Eventually, the EU and the UK both developed their proposals—again, with slightly different names—for what we now refer to as red and green lanes. When I saw that the Commission had proposed that and the Government had also proposed it, it did not seem to me that there was a huge amount of difference between the two concepts, and to judge by the reporting—we are all slightly in the dark, because we have not seen any text—some agreement may well have been reached, which would allow goods that are coming into Northern Ireland and staying there to not be checked on a routine basis. I hope very much that that is an accurate reflection of what has been happening, because it provides the basis for a settlement.

Why does this matter so much? First of all, let us be frank: our relations with the European Union have been in a pretty bad place for far too long, and as the economic consequences of leaving the European Union are becoming more and more evident, that ruptured relationship stands in the way of trying to address some of the problems that arise from our exit from the European Union. To respond to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart)—it is a pleasure to follow her, because she set out her views very clearly indeed—many small businesses in Great Britain will describe the problems that they now face, and many have given up exporting to the European Union because we have left the European Union. It is not just small businesses in Northern Ireland that are facing problems. We cannot address those problems until the Northern Ireland protocol is solved. That is why sorting this out is so urgent.

As was said by the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry), we want Northern Ireland to take advantage of the fantastic opportunity it has: my constituents do not have access to the single market, but his constituents do. The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) raised a point about the democratic deficit, which I will come to, because he raises a very fair issue. The difference is that in Britain, we are largely subject to exactly the same laws because of EU retained law, but we in GB do not have the opportunity to export to the single market. Northern Ireland is subject to exactly the same laws, but does have that opportunity, which puts Northern Ireland businesses in a very advantageous position compared with businesses in my constituency. That is why, on my last visit to Northern Ireland, the businesses I spoke to said that they were really quite keen on that benefit that the protocol gives them. We need to get this solved.

Secondly, the fact that the Executive and the Assembly are not working is something that we should all be worried about. The EU now better understands the consequences of that than it perhaps realised at the beginning. We need both to be restored as quickly as possible.

My third point is a plea against absolutism in addressing this problem, and I cite the role of the European Court of Justice as an example of that potential risk. Of course, if there is any argument about what EU single market law means, the only body to which any person can reasonably go to try to find the answer is the Court of Justice of the European Union, because they are the EU’s rules, not ours. However, that is not the same as saying that any such ruling will absolutely determine the outcome of a disagreement or dispute about the implementation of the protocol within the wider dispute resolution mechanism. The example of medicines, which I gave earlier, is a really good illustration of that: a full application of EU law would have prevented medicines turning up in Northern Ireland, but in the end, a way forward was found. The willingness of the EU to delay the application of the rules to veterinary medicines, which I very much welcome, is another example of the flexibility that the EU has come to recognise it needs to apply.

To address the point that the right hon. Member for East Antrim made, I hope that consulting the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly on new single market rules and how they might apply in Northern Ireland will be another part of an agreement, if one can be reached.

[Simon Hoare]

Given the examples of flexibility, change and evolution that the right hon. Gentleman has highlighted, does he agree with me, and with a growing body of opinion, that the legal justification—forget anything else—for the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill has completely disappeared? Renegotiation is going on, and flexibility is being demonstrated. If the threshold for article 16 to be triggered has not been reached, it would be a complete and utter waste of time to introduce legislation in this place that is not required

[Hilary Benn]

I agree completely with the Chair of the Select Committee—I did not agree with the justification in the first place, but he makes an extremely powerful point, which I will return to briefly towards the end of my remarks. Indeed, I have asked Ministers why, if they have a problem with the protocol, they are not using the mechanism for dealing with disputes that they have negotiated—namely, article 16—as opposed to introducing the Bill. But, for reasons that still escape me, the Government decided that they were not going to go down that particular route.

The reason I raise the European Court of Justice as an example is that, if there is anyone who says, “Unless the ECJ is completely written out of any agreement, we cannot back a deal”, I fundamentally disagree with them. There are some voices in parts of the House and the wider community who appear to take that position, but the Government must disagree with that position too, because of the obligation we have—which the Government have always accepted—to ensure that the integrity of the single market in the Republic and beyond is respected, without unreasonably affecting the flow of goods between Northern Ireland and GB.

Finally, if an agreement is reached—and I very much hope that it is—two things will have to happen that, apart from anything else, will render this Bill’s provisions no longer necessary. First, the EU will have to drop the infraction proceedings it is currently taking against the United Kingdom for unlawfully, as the EU sees it, prolonging the grace periods; and secondly, the Government will have to drop the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, referring to the point just made by the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Again, we read that there are voices even within Government who say that the Government should not drop it, but I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which a deal will be done in which the Government say, “Great, let’s sign. By the way, we are just hanging on to that Bill that we put into Parliament, in case we don’t like what happens subsequently.”

The reason that will never work comes to the question of trust. The Secretary of State will understand there has been a terrible breakdown of trust between the UK and the EU over this matter. I have spoken to lots of people, and it is the thing that is mentioned more than anything else. The Government negotiated the protocol, signed it and urged Parliament to vote for it. They said they would honour it, and then they did not do so. I absolutely understand the problems with the implementation of the protocol. Reference was made earlier to people changing their understanding on the road to Damascus, and I think that is true. I have certainly got a better understanding of what the problems are since this process began, and I think the EU Commission certainly has, and we should welcome that process, because it is the route by which we will be able to find a solution.

In international relations, and in particular in our fraught relations with the European Union, if we restore trust, it means we can look them in the eye and say, “If we sign, we will honour it as the United Kingdom, and we expect you to keep your side of the bargain as well.”

[Simon Hoare]

The right hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time, but he might be using the wrong tense. I always hesitate to disagree with him, but I think trust has been restored. Mutual respect and a much better relationship between Westminster and Dublin has led to a much better relationship between Westminster and Brussels. I do not think any of the conversations would have been taking place until my right hon. Friend became Prime Minister. The trust has already been restored. I think the right hon. Gentleman is better to use the past tense, because trust is there and clear.

[Hilary Benn]

I was using the word in relation to any notion the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill would be continued. I accept absolutely the characterisation that the hon. Gentleman has put on what has been happening recently, which I find encouraging.

The final thing I wanted to say—were it not for that change of personnel and approach, I do not think we would be, hopefully, fingers crossed, at the point of reaching an agreement—is to wish the negotiators well. I really do wish them well. They need the time to sort it out. The deal cannot come soon enough, not least because then we can turn our attention to other pressing matters to do with our relationship with the European Union that need urgently to be addressed.

Northern Ireland Elections

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I will comment on the here and now, if I may, because the legislation I am bringing forward will create the time and space needed for the talks between the UK and the EU to develop and for the Northern Ireland parties to work together to restore the devolved institutions as soon as possible. I have had conversations with the hon. Gentleman’s party leader, who I know is enthused by the prospect of having a debate on the evolution of institutions in Northern Ireland. I tend to think that is a political debate to be framed in Northern Ireland by voices from Northern Ireland, and I will listen to it carefully in the coming months.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

The delay to the elections is clearly sensible, but it deals only with the symptoms. We are told that technical discussions are taking place on the protocol, but we all know that this is a political problem that requires a political solution. So will the Secretary of State assure the House that the time that he is now making available will be used for intensive political negotiations with the EU to find that landing zone that he has said he believes there to be—I agree with him—so that the institutions in Northern Ireland can get up and running again?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I think the right hon. Gentleman will be pleased with the pace and sincerity with which negotiations and talks will continue in the coming weeks.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is an avid champion for his constituents. He might have missed what I said earlier, but there are now 13,576 more police on the streets of this country as a result of the actions taken by this Government. There are also tougher sentences, which were opposed by the party opposite. We are cracking down on drugs gangs, whereas the Labour party is soft on drugs. I think the Leader of the Opposition said he would decriminalise drugs and that he did not want people found with class A drugs to face prison sentences—I think I heard him say that.

Of course, we are also cracking down on cross-channel gangs that risk the lives of migrants in the English channel. We are cracking down on them and, as far as I know, the Labour party would scrap the economic and migration partnership with Rwanda. We have a plan; they do not.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Some 4.5 million people pay for their gas and electricity through a prepayment meter. They are already paying more for their energy than direct debit customers, and the number of people who are disconnecting themselves because they have run out of money for the meter is increasing. What is the Prime Minister going to do to ensure that all our constituents have a right to light and warmth?

[The Prime Minister]

We are working with Ofgem and all the companies to ensure that we protect people at this difficult time. We are also making sure that we support people, and not just through the cold weather payment and the winter fuel payment. By giving £0.5 billion more to councils, we are making sure that we look after the types of people to whom the right hon. Gentleman refers, who are finding it particularly tough. We will do everything we can to shield the people of this country as we get through the aftershocks of covid and deal with a global inflation problem.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) referenced a quote of mine about the opportunities for Northern Ireland. If we just imagine the place we can get to where the protocol is working—where we can resolve the issues within the protocol—we really do have a huge economic opportunity for the people of Northern Ireland. That is the vision that we always had for the protocol and that is how it should be working. We need to get to that position.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

There is clearly a problem here that needs fixing. As the head of Marks & Spencer made clear today, the full checks that are currently being applied on M&S goods going to the Republic are resulting in some consignments being sent back because they have the wrong colour typeface on the form. Mr Norman has said that a veterinary agreement would be

“by far the best way of delivering a smooth trade flow.”

The Secretary of State just made reference to that. Given that we are, in effect, following EU food standards anyway, because they have not changed since 31 December, is that not the best way forward? I encourage the Secretary of State, if he agrees, not to be too purist about the form of such an agreement, because it would bring huge relief to so many people affected by the current fears and arrangements.

[Brandon Lewis]

The issues that companies such as Mr Norman’s have found are the very issues we want to resolve as part of the wider package. It is important to note, as we look at the Command Paper, that we want to deal with a wide range of issues. That is my point about dealing with the fundamental problems, rather than going piecemeal through the symptoms. That is why there is a range of options in there, some of which will make a veterinary agreement redundant, because it will not be required in that kind of process, potentially. That is part of the discussion we want to have with the EU to get a resolution to all these issues; it is more than just the food and chilled meats issue.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Wednesday 10th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes an important and fair point. The Irish Government and their agencies work closely with the UK Government and our agencies and with the Northern Ireland Executive on a wide range of issues to the benefit of people in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and it is important that we continue to do that. He also highlights why it is important that we continue to be very clear about the needs of the people of Northern Ireland—why the protocol was put in place—recognising the unique circumstances and the complexity of the situation in Northern Ireland, and ensuring that the relationship with the Republic of Ireland can work in a smooth and effective way. As I have said before, I absolutely recognise that the EU’s core, prime focus is on the protection of the single market. We are focused not just on protecting the businesses and people of the United Kingdom but on the core determination and commitment to deliver on the Good Friday-Belfast agreement in all of its strands.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) [V]]

I support the aim of trying to minimise unnecessary and disruptive checks, but, on the method, can the Secretary of State tell the House under which article of the Northern Ireland protocol the Government have taken this decision, which he describes as “lawful”, to extend the grace periods? Is it article 16, which allows the UK unilaterally to take appropriate safeguard measures? If not, which other article is he citing as giving the Government the ability lawfully to take this step?

[Brandon Lewis]

As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the article 16 implementation was effectively made by the EU just a few weeks ago, not by the UK Government; that is what has started and led to some of the issues and tensions we have seen in the communities of Northern Ireland. I am pleased that the EU has apologised for that, but we need to recognise that it has had a lasting impact. The measures that I announced last Wednesday are lawful and consistent with the progressive and good-faith implementation of the protocol. They are temporary operational easements, introduced where additional delivery time is needed. They do not change our legal obligations as set out in the protocol—under any of its articles—and we continue to discuss our protocol implementation with the Joint Committee.

These measures are of a kind that is well precedented in the context of trade practice internationally, and they are consistent with our intention to discharge the obligations under the protocol in good faith. As I have said before, the measures are in line with the kind of flexibilities that the Irish Government put in place, and neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any other Opposition Member has yet criticised or challenged the Irish Government for what they did. We think those are sensible measures; there are flexibilities that the Irish Government thought they needed in the same way that we do with these measures.

Northern Ireland Protocol: Implementation Proposals

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

Yes.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

This morning, the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union took evidence from the Ulster Farmers’ Union, the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium and Manufacturing NI. Their message was clear: Northern Ireland businesses and the supply chain will not be ready for 1 January, because they do not know what to plan for, they do not know what goods will be identified as being at risk, and they are not confident that customs facilities, checks and software will be ready in time. As the Minister knows, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs itself says that it will not be possible to complete the necessary work by 1 January. Given the length of time the Government have had to prepare for the bits they do control, how on earth has it come to this?

[Mr Walker]

I recognise the meticulous and detailed work that the right hon. Gentleman does on his Select Committee, and the importance of all those stakeholders he has mentioned. We do want to provide the certainty and the structure, and I have already given an update in my statement on IT systems and some of the support we are providing through the trader support service. However, he will recognise that some of these issues are not yet resolved due to ongoing negotiations with the EU, and I am sure he would join me and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland in urging them to work with us to resolve those in a pragmatic manner.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Monday 21st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

My right hon. Friend is of course right about that, and we still hope to strike a free trade agreement with the EU. I also point out that these issues can and should be resolved through the Joint Committee—I will come back to that.

Both the UK and the EU signed up to the protocol on the basis I just outlined. We are committed to implementing the protocol and we have been working hard to ensure that it is done in a way that delivers the promises that have been made. That includes working with the EU to reach agreement through the Joint Committee process in a number of areas that the protocol left unresolved, and we very much hope that agreement can be reached shortly. But if it is not, the harmful legal defaults contained in some interpretations of the protocol, which were never intended to be used, would be activated. The consequences for Northern Ireland in that scenario would be very damaging. We cannot and will not run that risk.

The provisions we are considering today will therefore ensure that in any scenario, we will protect Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom; ensure that businesses based in Northern Ireland have unfettered access to the rest of the United Kingdom; and ensure that there is no legal confusion or ambiguity in UK law about the interpretation of the state aid elements of the Northern Ireland protocol.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Walker]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment, because I do intend to refer to some of his comments in my speech, and I will happily take his intervention shortly.

Further measures will be set out in the Finance Bill. These will have the same effect as those already proposed in the UKIM Bill, and will make it clear that no tariffs will be payable on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland unless those goods are destined for the EU market, or there is a genuine and substantial risk of them ending up there. We will take the necessary powers in the Finance Bill to ensure that this is defined in a reasonable and proportionate way, which ensures that legitimate traders are not penalised, while also resolving the outstanding issues relating to the payment of VAT and excise duty. So we are taking limited and reasonable steps through the legislation to create a legal safety net by taking powers in reserve, whereby Ministers can guarantee the integrity of our United Kingdom and ensure that the Government are always able to deliver on their commitments to the people of Northern Ireland in line with the three-stranded approach of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

[Mr Walker]

I will come in detail to the amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman’s party later in my speech, but I do recognise that when it comes to state aid, we have made specific agreements under the protocol on goods traded between Northern Ireland and the EU, and we should stick to those in order to ensure the effective functioning of trade north, south, east and west. We are taking steps in the Bill to clarify the state aid elements, and some of those will be to the benefit of businesses in Northern Ireland. I will come back to that point in more detail.

[Hilary Benn]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Walker]

If I may, I will come to the right hon. Gentleman’s point very shortly, and then I will happily give way to him.

We would not take these steps lightly. We hope it will never be necessary to use these powers, and we would do so only if, in our view, the EU was engaged in a material breach of its duties of good faith or other obligations. We would, of course, always activate appropriate formal dispute resolution mechanisms with the aim of finding a solution through this route in parallel to any domestic legislation. I draw the Committee’s attention to the statement that the Government made on 17 September .

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. That is why we are taking the powers in this Bill, and we would seek the consent of the House before those powers were exercised—it is to ensure that there is a legal default different from the one that he suggests. It is about taking these steps in parallel.

I want to recognise the significant concerns that many Members have raised, which is why we have agreed that a “break glass” provision should be included, requiring the House of Commons to give its approval before these measures are commenced. I will return to the detail of that shortly, but the Committee should be in no doubt that this Government will always seek to ensure that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is protected and that the political and economic integrity of our United Kingdom is maintained. That is what the Government amendments in this group seek to achieve.

Clauses 11, 40 and 41 of the Bill give effect to the Government’s commitment to give unfettered access to Northern Ireland goods to the whole UK internal market, in line with the protocol. They will ensure that we protect the vast majority of the £8.1 billion of goods sales from Northern Ireland to Great Britain and guarantee Northern Ireland’s place in the UK’s internal market. That will provide vital legal certainty for businesses in Northern Ireland, whose largest market is the rest of the United Kingdom—56% of Northern Ireland’s goods trade is with Great Britain—and deliver on a promise that has been repeatedly made throughout the process of our exit from the European Union.

Clause 11 sets out that qualifying Northern Ireland goods will benefit from mutual recognition and are not discriminated against. It ensures that the mutual recognition principle will apply to all such goods that will also benefit from unfettered access under clause 40. Clause 40 ensures that, in implementing the protocol, authorities must have special regard to the fundamental need to maintain Northern Ireland’s integral place in the UK’s internal market and customs territory and to facilitate the free flow of goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. That, of course, applies to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in both directions.

Clause 41 ensures that there will be no new checks, controls or administrative processes on goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. This clause is in keeping with what the Government have constantly said, including in our manifesto, and in line with our commitments to businesses in the “New Decade, New Approach” agreement.

Clauses 42, 43 and 45 set out the safety net that I have described. Clause 42 ensures that full unfettered access is guaranteed in any scenario by providing a power to disapply or modify the requirement for export declarations or other exit procedures when goods move from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) rightly said on Second Reading, there is no real justification for such declarations being needed to protect the EU’s single market or customs union. It is a wholly reasonable suggestion from the UK that this issue can and should be resolved through the Joint Committee, but if it is not—and this is perhaps where he and I disagree—there needs to be a safety net in place.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on that point. I want to press him on the safeguard measures that are provided in article 16 of the protocol and the extent to which they enable the Government to take action if they think the EU is being unreasonable. There is a one-month waiting period, but after that, the Government are able to take safeguard measures. Annex 7(5) goes on to say:

“The safeguard measures taken shall be the subject of consultations in the Joint Committee every 3 months”.

Could he clarify what would cause those safeguard measures to come to an end? Would it be a decision of the arbitration mechanism that the Government lost? Could it then go to the European Court of Justice? In other words, could he explain why what the Government negotiated to protect the country from bad faith action by the EU is insufficient? We have not had an answer to that question.

[Mr Walker]

We are talking about the question of legal default. The UK Government are responsible for their implementation of the protocol, and we want to ensure that we have the necessary powers in UK law to avoid those legal defaults. As I have said, we would initiate all necessary proceedings in international law, including those under the protocol, if necessary, at that stage. It is not a stage that any of us want to get to, and we still hope to resolve these issues through the Joint Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman would have to take up the reasons why the case was taken with the lady in question, but the DeSouza case is a clear example of how the Northern Ireland Act 1998 did not address these matters. I have been clear, in many interventions since I left my post last summer and while I was in post, that respecting the right of everybody who lives in Northern Ireland to identify in the way that they are comfortable with is incredibly important and we must respect it. So I say to the Minister: part 5 should not be in this Bill. The Government should not ask MPs to vote for an illegal law as a negotiating tactic. This part should be in a separate Bill, if these clauses are needed, and it should be debated separately; it should not be polluting what is otherwise a good and necessary piece of law. All possible steps to avoid needing these clauses should be taken.

I say to the Minister that I am undecided as to which way I will vote this evening, because I respect the fact that Government have moved and compromised, and I understand that that is a difficult thing for Governments to do. But I ask the Minister to give me clarity: if I walk through the Lobby today, am I breaking the law? If I walk through the Lobby today, will the law be broken as a result of my doing so? Will I have the answer for me at 3 am, not for my constituents or others, that I have done the right thing and that this will lead to a better result for the UK?

[Hilary Benn]

It is a great pleasure to follow that fine speech by the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley). I want to concentrate on how we get out of this mess without breaching international law and the treaty we signed up to. Four issues have caused all this: the question of exit summary declarations, the definition of “at-risk goods”, state aid and third country listing. The Bill deals with only some of those; further legislation is threatened to deal with the rest, but one has to look at them together.

The first thing I want to say is that it seems the Government are in a state of hopeless confusion on two questions. The first is: is the EU negotiating in good faith or not? I asked the Prime Minister that last week at the Liaison Committee and he told me it is not. Earlier that same day, the Northern Ireland Secretary told the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that the EU is negotiating in good faith, and indeed the Government’s response to that Committee’s report confirmed that. I do not know whether that makes the Minister, for whom I have a great regard, the adjudicator in this matter, but perhaps he might offer his opinion in his wind-up, because the Government do not appear to be of one mind.

Secondly, I believe the Minister referred in his speech—I tried to write down the phrase as I recall it—to, “Harmful legal defaults that were never intended to be used” or words to that effect. If they are legal defaults that the Government object to, it really does raise the question: why did the Government sign up to those legal defaults when they negotiated the protocol and the withdrawal agreement, and signed that and extolled its virtues to the House of Commons?

On exit summary declarations, there is a place for this and other concerns to be resolved, which is in the Joint Committee, through the article 16 process. The House needs to ask itself why the Government have said so little thus far about their intention to use article 16 if a satisfactory agreement cannot be reached; I did not get an answer from the Prime Minister last week and, with respect, I did not get an answer from the Minister today, but it seems that the Government have so little faith in the mechanism they negotiated that they have decided that they need to take powers to breach the terms of the treaty, even though—I remind the Minister—article 168 of the withdrawal agreement says that, “For any dispute between the EU and the UK arising under this agreement, the EU and the UK shall ‘only’ have recourse to the procedures provided for in this agreement. This Bill drives a coach and horses through that sentence, which the Government agreed. In the statement that Ministers put out last week, the Government said that they would use the provisions of article 16 “in parallel with” the powers they wish to take in this Bill. In parallel? I really do not understand that as an argument, because surely they should use the mechanism they have negotiated first, and then if they are absolutely determined to break international law, they can get to that subsequently.

I come back to the point about the Joint Committee. Why have the Government not shared with the House the proposals they have made to the EU side about how goods at risk can be identified? It is simply not good enough. Part of the reason why the Government have got into such a mess is that they have not shared with us how the negotiations are going and have then suddenly produced a remedy that is contrary to international law to solve a problem the contents of which we are not aware of because Government have not shared with Members how things are going.

This is not an academic issue: many businesses that trade into Northern Ireland have absolutely no idea, with just over three months to go, of what the arrangements are going to be—none. There is a responsibility on both parties—the EU and the UK—to give them some clarity. Have the Government proposed using, for example, tariff lines as the way to define goods at risk? Or products and shipments, or companies as the basis? To those who have looked into the issue in great detail, it seems that those are probably the three broad approaches that might be taken. I ask the Government to please be open with the House of Commons on this matter.

On state aid, I find it impossible to believe that the Government did not realise what the full implications of article 10 might be. Everybody recognised that it brought into the ambit of the state aid rules what happens in Northern Ireland, but had it really not occurred to Ministers that there might be reach-back—I think that is the expression—implications for state aid in the United Kingdom? This is currently a theoretical issue, because there are not any cases. The Minister will be well aware that in the wake of covid, the EU Commission has significantly relaxed the state aid rules. Other EU members are giving state aid to all sorts of companies. The question is how the matter is going to be resolved by means other than resorting to the breaking of international law.

There is a great puzzle in respect of the Government’s position. When the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster appeared before the Select Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union on 11 March and we asked him whether businesses that trade out of England into Northern Ireland were going to be subject to the full panoply of state aid regulations, he replied:

“No, we do not believe so.”

That was in March, but apparently the Government do now believe so. What happened between March and now to lead them to that conclusion?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster also said:

“The subsidy regime that the UK proposes to put in place after we have left the EU”—

we have now left the EU—

“will be one that the EU will recognise as a robust system.”

Here we are in September, and of a robust system for state aid there is no sight yet. How can that be the case? We read reports in the paper that the reason is because Ministers cannot agree on what kind of state aid policy they want.

The publication of such a policy is urgent for two reasons: not only for the purposes of sorting out the problem of potential reach-back, but for making a breakthrough in the trade negotiations. To be fair to the EU, it has moved from saying at the beginning, “You must follow all our rules on state aid in perpetuity,” to now saying rather plaintively to the Government, “Would you be so kind as to give us just an inkling of what your state aid regime is going to look like?” To announce that we are going to follow the World Trade Organisation rules is hardly a revelation, because as an independent member of the WTO we are obliged to follow the WTO rules. As we know, though, they lack important details and do not cover services.

The sooner the Government publish a state aid regime to answer the EU’s question, the sooner they can help the trade negotiations to move forward. Assuming that an agreement could be reached on that regime as part of the negotiations, the Government could, as the Minister will know, use article 13(8) of the withdrawal agreement to amend article 10, which is the cause of the potential problem—namely, reach-back.

The Bill does not deal with third-country listing, and no Bill could, because it is a regulatory decision of the European Union about the terms on which it lets third-country food and animal product imports into its jurisdiction. I happen to think that if the EU were to deny us such listing, arguably the UK could take the EU to the European Court, on the grounds that it was a perverse decision, or indeed the UK could certainly invoke article 16, on the grounds that denying the UK third-country listing was a breach of the good faith obligation under article 5.

Northern Ireland Protocol: UK Legal Obligations

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

My right hon. Friend has spoken about these issues over the last year or so and has been clear about his position, and he is absolutely right. The UK internal market Bill will make clear what will apply in January if we cannot reach a satisfactory and mutually suitable conclusions through the specialised Joint Committee and the wider free trade agreement. It is reasonable and sensible for the Government to give that certainty and clarity to businesses and people in Northern Ireland, which in itself will ensure that we abide by and deliver on the Good Friday agreement by ensuring that there will be no borders between east and west and north and south. He is also absolutely right that Great Britain will not be subject to EU rules in a state aid area while recognising the unique position of Northern Ireland.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I am afraid the Secretary of State’s protestations of innocence will not wash, because over the past two days—the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) addressed this question—the Government have given the impression that they may not be trusted to honour obligations they have freely entered into.

I wonder whether the Secretary of State can answer a very specific question relating to the Northern Ireland protocol, which he had some trouble answering in the summer when he appeared before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Will goods moving from GB to Northern Ireland be required to complete export declarations, import declarations or entry summary declarations—yes or no?

[Brandon Lewis]

As I assume the right hon. Gentleman knows, that forms part of the discussions that are going on in the specialist committee, between us and the EU, to deal with these issues. Our view is that the regime should be very flexible, as Michel Barnier has outlined, in terms of respecting the unique position of Northern Ireland, because those goods going from GB to Northern Ireland are, by definition, very low risk, and we must ensure that we do not end up in a situation where it is presumed that 100% of the goods going from GB to Northern Ireland are what the EU would refer to as “at-risk goods.” That would be inappropriate for Northern Ireland businesses, would drive up prices in Northern Ireland and would restrict supply to Northern Ireland. That does not fit with the protocol’s outline of Northern Ireland remaining an integral part of the UK customs territory and single market.