Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Conor Burns]

The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly valid point. I will build, if I may, on the points that I made in reply to the hon. Member for Foyle. We have deliberately taken time to get this right. The Bill has evolved from the Command Paper that was published in July 2021. We are determined to get this as right as we can and make sure that it delivers. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, and as I have said repeatedly, where we think amendments could improve the objectives of delivering for victims and increasing the attractiveness of engaging with the independent commission—and potentially making the sanction for not engaging stronger—we are absolutely up for that.

As the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) knows, the other day I was in the primary school that his son goes to. We were unveiling the shortlist for our platinum jubilee rug competition in alliance with Ulster Carpets. Our motivation is to make absolutely sure—as much as we can—that those young people grow up in a society that acknowledges a past but is no longer defined by something called “the past”. We believe that these proposals will edge Northern Ireland society further in that, I hope, noble ambition.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Further to the intervention by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), the Minister will know that I have expressed my support for the Bill, caveated by the fact that it is by no means perfect. It is far from perfect; it has lots of flaws, and we ought to iron some of them out. However, on Second Reading, I said quite categorically to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that one of the key issues that victims need to see settled is what happens to those who do not take part and those who are demonstrated to have lied to the commission. At present, they will get a two-year tariff even if they have committed the most heinous murders. Will we move to a position whereby those who play no part in the process, and those who are proven to have lied deliberately, lay themselves open to the normal criminal justice process and a full-life tariff for heinous crimes?

[Conor Burns]

I am incredibly grateful to my right hon. Friend. His contribution on Second Reading impacted powerfully on me and on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and we have been having discussions and deliberations internally about how, as we progress the Bill, we can address to his satisfaction some of the points that he makes, which are made sincerely and with conviction and are solid. We believe that his motivation, if carefully enacted, could improve the proposals that are before the Committee today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Perhaps it would be helpful for me to put a case to the Minister. Let us say, for example, that somebody committed a terrorist offence, in the course of which they committed a sexual offence such as rape. They put themselves forward on the basis that they committed a terrorist attack, but the sexual offence is a criminal offence—it should be a criminal offence, not a terrorist offence. My point is that they would get cleared due to the fact that it was locked into the troubles, because it was committed at the same time. The individual who suffered rape would then have no recourse to the courts. Will my right hon. Friend take away a commitment to review the matter and come back categorically, if necessary on Report, with a way in which this issue can be specific, clear and obvious in the Bill?

[Conor Burns]

I am absolutely happy to give that explicit undertaking to my right hon. Friend and the Committee today. The fact of an offence having been committed during the period of the troubles does not make that offence troubles-related. That is key.

--- Later in debate ---

[Conor Burns]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and it has been said repeatedly by myself, the Secretary of State and other members of the Government that there is absolutely no moral equivalence between the actions of those who were in Northern Ireland to uphold the rule of law and those who were engaged in a terrorist campaign. I also agree—I hope I have demonstrated this to some degree today—that language is incredibly important when we are dealing with these highly contested, deeply emotional topics. Often the overriding thing that someone wants is their loved one back, and that is the one thing that none of us can give them. What we can try to do is give them the information and help them to find a way through these processes and a way to deal with and face up to the traumatic events in their past.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I do not wish to detain my right hon. Friend, but I was listening to what he said about inquests, and I am a little concerned or confused—or both—about how this process will work. If somebody goes to the commission, will it be public knowledge that they have gone there on the basis of a set of issues and have been clear about those issues, one of which may relate to a potential inquest? If that individual’s situation is not related to a particular area of crime, can that inquest still not go ahead because they have been in front of the commission? How do we actually define when an inquest cannot go ahead? Will the coroner know that? Who will have the information? My right hon. Friend’s statement was a bold one, but I am not quite sure I understand how the process will work.

[Conor Burns]

The intention—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I say to the hon. Member, having sat here for 30 years, that he has every right to press his amendment to a vote. That is what this place is all about. We debate something and decide which side we will take. I will not ask him not to press it to a vote. On the contrary, I say to the Minister: the clock is ticking. Let us get something sorted before we end up in that situation.

[Peter Kyle]

I agree; the clock is ticking. Let us get on with it. It feels like it has been 30 years since we started talking about this amendment.

As we consider the amendments, I want to echo the words of my friend, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer)—what a shame he is not in the Chamber to hear me heaping praise on his previous oration. He said on Second Reading that

“we have to go further and over-compensate for a past that has failed victims…Families do not have confidence and we must commit to a level of transparency and openness.”—[Official Report, 24 May 2022; Vol. 715, c. 256.]

If the Government are sincere in their desire to deliver reconciliation with the Bill, I hope that they will look at our amendments as a way to begin the process. Victims and their families deserve nothing less.

--- Later in debate ---

[Conor Burns]

I thank the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. That is exactly what Committee of the whole House is about—drawing on collective experience and wisdom to improve the legislation before us.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I congratulate the Minister on this, but I have a specific question. I want to be absolutely certain and get clarity from the Dispatch Box that a Report stage will be guaranteed in the business motion and that it will not be bumped. That will allow us to rectify and fiddle around with what goes on, so it is settled.

[The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Christopher Pincher)]

indicated assent.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 24th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. One of the things that has been clear in talking to victims groups, and obviously one of the challenges of this issue is that different people, even within the same family, can have very different views about what they see as a successful outcome for their family, in terms of finding a resolution, or information and understanding. With that information and understanding, as the Bill will outline, can come accountability. It is right that we have accountability, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East, who was Chairman of the Defence Committee, outlined in his report, we cannot have justice in the sense of the punishment fitting the crime following what was done in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act. I will touch on that in a few moments.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I am listening carefully to my right hon. Friend. May I ask him a linked question? Is not one of the problems that those who can be pursued through the courts tend to be those who were working on behalf of the Government, because there are records, which are well kept and in huge detail? There is little in the way of records on those who committed terrorist acts, on whichever side of the community. What, in general and specific terms, will happen to the letters of comfort that have caused such chaos in many of those cases?

[Brandon Lewis]

My right hon. Friend makes the same point, and I will deal with that issue specifically in a few moments.

My message to victims and survivors, many of whom have engaged with us since we published the Command Paper last year, is that we have listened, and carefully. We understand that, no matter how small the prospect of a successful criminal justice outcome, that possibility is something that they do not want to see removed entirely, and I know that, despite the changes we have made, this legislation will none the less remain challenging for some.

I want to say directly to all those individuals and their families that I, and we as a Government, respect the personal tragedies that drive their determination to seek the truth and accountability for the losses that they have suffered. I share that determination. The Government are not asking and would never ask them to forget what they have been through in the name of reconciliation. This is about finding a way to obtain information and provide accountability more quickly and comprehensively than the current system can and in a way that aids reconciliation both for them and for the whole of Northern Ireland.

I am immensely grateful to the many people who have engaged with us, sharing their deeply moving experiences and helping us to understand the sheer frustration and hurt that they feel over the loss of loved ones. Every tragedy remains raw, as we have seen even this afternoon in this Chamber, with the pain of many as strong today as it was on the day it happened.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

I am just going to make a bit of progress.

It is crucial that people with the right level of expertise take the important decisions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst outlined. That is why a judge-led panel will make the decisions about whether immunity should be awarded, aided by guidance that we will publish prior to any such decisions being made.

The introduction of this legislation is firmly in the context of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the decisions taken as a result of that agreement in the name of peace and reconciliation, outlined by others this afternoon, that have already fundamentally altered the criminal justice model in Northern Ireland for troubles-related offences.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Let me ask my right hon. Friend a specific question. If somebody who committed a terrorist act appears before the truth and reconciliation commission and, during that appearance, talks a lot about what happened and names names, including the name of somebody who was involved in such a crime with them but refuses to give evidence to the commission, will the courts use the evidence provided as part of the truth and reconciliation process to prosecute the individual who refuses to testify before the commission?

[Brandon Lewis]

Yes. I will go further: as we will outline in guidance, people will not be able to benefit if they come forward at the last moment. They have to engage at the point when they are asked. The short answer to my right hon. Friend’s question is yes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle]

I will give way to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith).

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I served in Northern Ireland, and I do not feel in any degree that there was equivalence between what I was doing and what terrorists were doing. Can I ask the hon. Gentleman to try to clarify a point for me? He has spoken about some victims and quoted them, and in particular one who wanted to know the balance of what makes this work or not work. He talked about there being this equivalence with terrorists. Is the balance about punishment; is it about investigation, or is it about knowledge? Where does the balance in this lie for him? This is important. Instead of dancing around what is complained about, where does he think the balance lies for somebody who is a victim?

[Peter Kyle]

I have been very clear: I want to make sure that the rights of victims and veterans are equal to the rights of terrorists and people who committed crime in the era of the troubles. This Bill does not achieve that. Proper scrutiny and proper preparation would have delivered a Bill that did.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Lloyd]

So there is a genuine issue about victims, but victims who were serving soldiers.

I have to make this point as well. I have listened to this debate over many years. One of the things I find intriguing is that when I talk to former members of the RUC, the PSNI and the armed forces they will say to me very directly that those who were culpable of criminal acts should be prosecuted, because they offer no credit to those who served under the law and in protection of the people of Northern Ireland. The idea, therefore, that we pit the rights of veterans in some way in opposition to the rights of victims is simply a dangerous fiction and one we have to dispense with. Frankly, that lies very much at the heart of the Bill. The reality is that the Secretary of State has given in to what he perceives to be the demand from his own Back Benchers, but at the expense of the many people who could have been served by a much better Bill. That has to be recognised.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind me saying so, I think he is mischaracterising the concern of those of us who served and who remember what others went through. No one has ever asked for immunity. Everybody has always said that those guilty of a crime must face the normal judicial process. That is an established fact. The problem for them is that, because they are the ones on which information exists, there has been a fishing expedition going on without any real evidence to start the process. Then there is an inquiry and it goes on and on for people, without end. That is the problem: it is the process that is actually the penalty, not the prosecution.

[Tony Lloyd]

Actually, I would not want to mischaracterise the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks, because I have heard him say that before. I have always welcomed the fact—the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) made the same point and he is a very well-respected former serving soldier—that there is no demand for an absolute amnesty, and that those who broke the law should face the consequences of the law, whether they are from a paramilitary organisation or from those who claim they were there to serve the public good. That is right and proper. I recognise that that is the position he has always taken, but nevertheless there has been the demand elsewhere for amnesty as a way of simply saying, “Let’s move on”. That is precisely what the Bill will do. In five years’ time, there will be an absolute amnesty. De facto, there will be an effective amnesty under the provisions in the Bill.

We need to look at whether the Bill is compliant with the European convention on human rights. I know that for some on the Conservative Benches that is a contentious issue in its own right, but nevertheless we should be compliant with that convention. There is considerable opinion that the Bill does not conform to either articles 2 or 3 of the convention in terms of the need for proper investigation, in particular in terms of torture, and to make sure there is adequate redress. The Bill is almost certainly not compliant, but, in a way, important though it is, that is a lawyer’s point. What lies behind the lawyer’s point is delivering justice to the people who suffered during that period of violence.

There are other defects in the Bill that have to be established, because any system of justice, if it is going to satisfy victims, must have enough transparency and a sense of independence. The Bill simply has neither. When the Secretary of State appoints the commissioners, the process will already be undermined because it is open to political manipulation. When the Secretary of State can direct the commissioner, for example in granting immunity, we have a very dangerous political precedent. The idea that this will be equivalent to the South African truth and reconciliation process is, frankly, a joke. There was a very different process in South Africa, one that was independent of politicians—that was important—and one that, of itself, allowed for challenge of the evidence brought forward by those who came seeking the amnesty process. That is why only 17% of those in South Africa were allowed that form of immunity from prosecution.

In that context, we have to recognise that there are many, many things that must change in Committee. In the end, we have to deliver something that is trusted. The words on reconciliation depend on trust. As the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon rightly said a few moments ago, the words on reconciliation need all parties—the IRA, the loyalist paramilitaries, the Irish Government and our own Government—to stand up and accept that things went wrong in their name. That process is important to reconciliation and it is not there in the Bill. In the end, it is important that there is trust in the justice process that, frankly, will not be there and is not there, because victims’ groups and politicians across the piece in Northern Ireland just do not accept that this is the legislation that will move things on. Unless we have that trust, we will not move further on down the road of reconciliation.

I will finish at this point because of the time and to let others speak. I hope the Secretary of State will now listen to the voices that have come here. This is not a party political division or a division on ideological grounds; it is a division because this is a bad Bill that will not deliver justice to either veterans or victims. It will not deliver the capacity for Northern Ireland to move on down that road of reconciliation.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I would be inclined to agree with many of the speeches made from the Opposition Benches, not least the eloquent one from the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), if it were not for one salient fact. As part of the peace superstructure, in 1998 the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill was passed. That Bill put an end to the argument that we must not treat terrorists on the same level as security forces, because it does that in one sense only, which is that everybody is treated equally before the law. It was often said at the time, “Security forces personnel could go to prison for life, but terrorists could not be sentenced to more than two years in jail no matter how many people they had killed.” I had a meeting with MPs from both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland, including Sinn Féin MPs, who pointed out to me that, as far as they knew, that applied to the security forces just as much as it applied to the IRA. And they were right: it does.

I think the Defence Committee was one of the first organisations, if not the first, to introduce the concept of a statute of limitation into the current debate. We did so in 2017 with our first report, but I had heard of the concept of the statute of limitation some 50 or 60 years ago in the context of Nazi war criminals who were escaping justice because a certain number of decades had elapsed since they had committed their crimes. As it happens, a few years before I was born, the vast majority of my family in Nazi-occupied Poland was murdered for nothing more than the crime of being Jewish. I felt then, as I am sure the victims’ families feel now, that it would be outrageous for the perpetrators to get off simply because a certain amount of time had elapsed. However, there was a difference then, in that legislation had not been passed—as it was felt necessary to pass it in this context in 1998 —to say that no matter how many people someone had killed, they could not be sentenced to more than two years in jail and they would not serve more than a derisory few months of that sentence. So the pass has already been sold on the question of getting justice for heinous crimes.

We then come to the question of those who say, “Well, it is not so much the length of the sentence that matters, but that we should have our day in court.” There is another problem here: all these years have elapsed and people have not had their day in court, because there has not been enough evidence adduced.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I tried to raise this point with the Leader of the Opposition and I pose it to anybody: what do people want? Do they want the knowledge of what happened or do they want the prosecution and the punishment? As my right hon. Friend said, the punishment is pretty much gone. The point of the prosecution is also gone, unless it is only about the knowledge—in which case, how do we go about getting the knowledge? That is clearly what this seems to be settling down to, if people are honest about it.

[Dr Lewis]

That is exactly the central point. There are perhaps two ways of getting the knowledge. One way is to go on as we have been in trying to investigate these things piecemeal, with everybody trying to hide everything to the maximum because they feel that they will be prosecuted. The other way is to bring in a truth recovery mechanism which, in return for the granting of immunity, maximises the possibility that the truth may come out.

[Dr Lewis]

That is precisely what the truth recovery process is meant to achieve.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Lewis]

I will one more time, but I would like to develop my argument, fascinating though these interventions are.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I apologise, but I want to develop this point. Is the Bill not, in fact, about changing and tightening the process, if knowledge is the key element, to make it happen in an interrogative manner—in which case, that would be the way forward?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I rise to speak in this debate because I have had a long interest in Northern Ireland. I served in Northern Ireland in 1975. I remember the billboards at Christmas saying, “Seven years will have been too much”. To be honest with you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I hated every moment of it. I did not ask or volunteer to go there. I did not want to be doing something that I did not think I was ever trained to do, although we did carry out training. It struck me as a real problem.

I also want to say one other word about it, because often it is bandied around that political parties over here do not really get it. The Conservative party has lost a large number of people to terrorism—in the Brighton bombings alone and in other killings. We can see their coats of arms up on the wall in the Chamber. My predecessor, Norman Tebbit, has had a lifelong period of pain. His wife was disabled. She is now dead sadly, God rest her soul, and she put up with a lot as a result of her husband being in politics. The sadness is, as he leaves politics now, that he bore that all the way through. After the Good Friday agreement, he had to watch those who he knew had done it walk away. They walked away under the agreement that reduced everything to two years, and the pain he and his wife must have suffered was enormous—I know it was. I speak therefore with a certain amount of humility, as much as I speak about my own service.

The truth is, I want to talk about one particular person. Captain Robert Nairac was a good friend. He was passionate about going to Northern Ireland as a Catholic. I am a Catholic myself, and he thought that he could do something over there to help and that he would understand it. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) served with him as well. The truth is that Robert was captured. He was taken, he was tortured, we understand, and we think he was eventually executed after attempting to escape, but we do not know the full circumstances.

The sadness of all of us who have watched is that we want to know what happened. We want to get some closure. We have never understood what happened. Where is he buried? His parents went to their graves never knowing where he was. They could never go to that grave and say some words over it. That is the reality of where we are today and the point is that many people already suffer because of it.

The truth is that I do not love this Bill. I think that it is, in many senses, imperfect—as it will be—and it has problems and difficulties, some of which were related earlier. The question that we need to face is what we are really after. If we want justice in terms of prosecution and, if necessary, eventual incarceration, we need to deal with the reality that we no longer have that, because two years for murder most foul is not justice. It cannot be justice.

So do we want the prosecution to raise information? The problem is that many prosecutions are taking place against people about whom there are huge numbers of records because they happened to be servicemen and women. That is why those cases can be taken up—because the Government have all those records. Those who committed terrorist acts, however, where there is little information and little willingness to do anything about giving evidence—they may have fled the country—will remain a mystery. I talked about Robert Nairac, but I have no idea who committed that murder or how many were involved in his final demise.

All I can say is that if the Bill is about knowledge, the system at the moment is imperfect. If it is about punishment and prosecution, the system at the moment is imperfect. So what are we going to do? I understand that the Bill is a process and I think it is a genuine attempt by the Government to try to find a way that allows the families of victims to at least know and understand what happened.

My point is that things will have to change if we are to see any of this happen. On that, I have a small comment for the Opposition. I understand their position, but I wish that they had said “Maybe” rather than “No”, because we now engage in a process. The question is whether we can get some of those things right during that process. That is the point. There was an exchange between my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) about exactly what we want to achieve at the end of this and whether it can be made to achieve it. That comes down to a couple of issues, which I will deal with now.

First, we have a problem in the reconciliation process. To allow someone to just come in and say, “As far as I can recall, this happened and that’s my lot,” and for them to be told, “Well, that’s okay. Now you can go away and you’ll never be prosecuted for it. It’s alright. Don’t worry.” does not work for me, and I do not think it will work in the process. It must be much more interrogative and individuals must be cross-examined about exactly how far their knowledge went.

Secondly, I would like the commission to decide whether we are going to go ahead with this regardless of whether it considers that, on balance, the individual has told the truth and deserves any kind of immunity from future prosecution. In other words, that needs to be tightened up a great deal. If families of victims are to have any faith in it, they will need to understand that there was due process.

[Gavin Robinson]

The right hon. Gentleman touches on a good point, because the commission would consider what the individual seeking immunity says and whether it is truthful, but under the Bill it is not allowed to consider any other information. Does it not strike him as odd that it has no ability to challenge the rigour or integrity of what it is told?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I understand that. As I said earlier, with all humility to my colleagues from Northern Ireland, I start from a position of trying to find a way through. That is one of the problems with the Bill. If it is about knowledge, we have to meet that requirement somehow in the Bill, because it is not happening out there. For all the talk about prosecutions and knowledge, few of those who carried out those heinous crimes have ever ended up in the courts or will ever end up in the courts, so how can we manage to make that happen?

Another part of the problem is those who do not co-operate. I worried about the two-year issue in 1998, because it seemed unfair and not really justice. If someone blows somebody else up; murders them; or takes away a family’s father, brother, sister or whoever or a member of the armed forces who was there to protect them, they should, after committing such a crime—murder most foul—face the fullest penalty.

I understand the compromise that was made at the time—I understand that. Many of us had to bite our lips, but we understood it. My point is that if we are going to open the door on the one hand to those who would entertain the possibility of coming to speak the truth, we must also say that those who do not will face the full penalty of the law for murder most foul: “You will not be given an exemption. You will not end up with only two years. You will face a full prosecution if you are not part of this process. In other words, either you co-operate, you face the interrogation and you actually come out as having told the truth, or else you go down the other road back into the justice system and you face full prosecution.” To some degree, that would at least give balance. It would at least give an idea that somehow the process not just sought the truth, but punished those who refused to participate in that process.

I end simply on the basis that the process will never satisfy everybody. I know that, and I know that families will feel very hurt by this process so far, but I think there is a way through. The one thing that has characterised, in many senses, this House over Northern Ireland has been somehow trying to find a way through the thicket of the different positions that people take. I for one think that the process of trailing veterans—where the information is there, they had given evidence previously and they have been fact-faced at interrogations—should not go on, because it is terrible and belittling, and at the same time creates real problems for them at home. We want to find a way to settle that, but I do not want to settle it on the backs of those who still await to find out what happened.

If we can find a way through on this Bill, imperfect as it is at the moment, that would be worthy of the effort. I would encourage the Opposition to engage as much as they possibly can, because this is too important an issue to divide on in a very political sense. I want to see closure: I want to find out what happened to my friend Robert Nairac, because it troubles me every single day and I never got to say goodbye to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

I am honoured to speak in the debate and I understand the sensitivities, the emotion and the hurt that many people in the Chamber feel, given their personal experiences and those of loved ones. I shall try to temper what I say in my speech as a result.

I served for 18 months at the back end of the troubles, so I am one of the youngest of those who served there. My father served in Northern Ireland in the early days of the 1970s with the SAS. I grew up in Hereford watching my dad search under cars. I would ask, “Why are you looking under the car, Dad? What have you dropped?” We grew up with that—I lived two or three roads from the SAS camp. The fathers of many of the kids I went to school with served in Northern Ireland and were family friends. The whole community felt it, and we would regularly have bomb threats near the camp.

On a lighter note, some of my friends realised that if they called in a hoax bomb threat to the school, we would be sent home for the day. After three days of hoax threats, the school said that we would have to go in at the weekend, so the bomb threats stopped—at least, the hoaxes did.

In my community, we grew up understanding all that; it was always there. We would see it on the news when I was at school throughout the early ’80s. When I left school, I joined the Army and the Royal Green Jackets, which as a regiment probably lost among the most soldiers throughout the troubles. If we put it with The Rifles and the Light Infantry, they would without a doubt have lost more than anybody else. Every single loss of life in that experience is a tragedy.

When I joined, all our instructors at the depot were Northern Ireland veterans—they could not have been instructors without having gone through that—and we knew that, within a few years of passing out from the depot, we would be going to serve in Northern Ireland. Everything was geared around that. Twelve months after getting out of the depot, getting shot and recovering, I went on Northern Ireland training. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who did not look to enjoy it, I could not wait to go to Northern Ireland. I was looking forward to it and could not wait to serve my country over there.

I had had extensive training; I knew right from wrong; I knew my rules of engagement. I knew, in no uncertain terms, what I could and could not do. I and all my colleagues were tested to breaking point on the ranges in scenarios over and over again for several months. We took the experience from those who had served many times before. I know that quite a few hon. Members served over there. During the process, we were shown what had happened to some of our colleagues who sadly never returned. We saw, in graphic detail, the loss of life from car bombs and murders. We saw videos. We knew that, if it was to go wrong for us, it would really go wrong. We knew what that was like.

When I was deployed, I remember getting to Belfast—we were in big, armoured trucks—and, as I looked out of a gap, I could see what looked like my home area. I saw streets, not a war zone as I had thought. It looked like a normal area. I am not afraid to admit that I was afraid. I was nervous and did not know what to expect. I was a teenager on an operational tour. Most of my colleagues had not been there before—I think that only the corporals and above had—so we were very wary.

Initially, there was a ceasefire, but the Canary Wharf bomb going off at the beginning of 1996 changed what was happening. I was in Drumcree in the summer of 1996 when we stopped the marching, and the whole Province erupted. Several RUC, who were always outstanding in operating with us, were shot. I think that four were shot in one night. There were multiple attacks, with people getting burned out of houses. We were in riot, and we were being full-on attacked left, right and centre. That went on for a long time. After about three or four days, we realised that we had not slept. We were tired. We were exhausted. We were getting bricked and people were getting shot at and petrol-bombed. That was going on and on, but we knew what we could and could not do.

We must weigh up how, in that scenario, every one of us had a split second to decide whether the person running round the corner with something in his hand was running away from someone trying to attack him or running towards us to attack us. At that very moment, we held life and death in our hands. If we took action, we took a life. If we did not take action, we died or our colleagues died. We were in that scenario.

I believe that, through all of my operational tours, people acted in the most professional manner. There have been mistakes that have happened, and there has been wrongdoing by people in unform. That is a stain on what the British Army represents. Those incidents are few and far between, but mistakes happen in the heat of the moment. Things do go wrong. I am 46 years of age, and I sometimes struggle to remember what I did last week, let alone 25 years ago—

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

You’re a young man.

[Stuart Anderson]

I know—my right hon. Friend served the year before I was born—but many people would not remember exactly what happened then. Everyone in my patrol would describe those incidents in a different way. Dragging soldiers through the courts for what has happened is a stain on what we had.

The Good Friday/Belfast agreement was put in place in 1998. I can see why it has taken until now to get to where we are, because there is a lot of talk and there are a lot of reasons—people always have a reason for why something cannot be done—so I take my hat off to the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for getting us here. We have heard that there will not be unanimous support for the Bill. We see that. I look to my colleagues on the Opposition Benches who serve in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said that Democratic Unionist party Members do not agree with the Bill and do not support it, but want to make some reasonable changes as it goes through. I understand that this has a different impact on them and their communities. Many of us will be touched by these issues, but DUP Members still live in those communities. It will be decades before there is change. No Bill will change the impact of the lives that were lost or the impact on people who went and served over there. People are never the same afterwards.

I would like to think that I am quite a reasonable person and I tend to measure what I say, but those on the Labour Front Bench have put up one Back-Bench Member to debate the Bill, and I find that an absolute dishonour to this House. I find it an insult.

--- Later in debate ---

[Conor Burns]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and he is absolutely right. There is nothing in the Bill that precludes an international person from serving on the body. In fact, it could well be warmly welcomed and add rigour to the body’s credibility, impartiality and independence.

Over the decades, a number of politicians in this House have taken courageous steps to build the peace and stability we enjoy in Northern Ireland today. It was started by Margaret Thatcher with the Anglo-Irish agreement, and John Major built it up. Tony Blair signed the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and David Cameron gave an incredible speech on the publication of the Saville report, which I was privileged to hear in the Chamber. That peace has been hard-fought and hard-won.

Since I rejoined Government in this role, I have visited multiple schools in Northern Ireland in Castlederg, Hillsborough, Armagh, Belfast, Bangor, Craigavon, Saintfield and Newtownards. People questioned why, when education is devolved, I was bothering with schools as a UK Government Minister. I pointed out that kids are not devolved, parents are not devolved and teachers are not devolved. The future of Northern Ireland is in those schools.

Two schools, in particular, stand out in my memory: St Brigid’s College in Derry, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Foyle, and Antrim Grammar School. I visited Antrim Grammar having met a young man at a charity play for the centenary “Our Story in the Making: NI Beyond 100,” which the Northern Ireland Office had the privilege to fund partially. This young man, Chris Campbell, was going into his A-levels, and he was playing Mr Northern Ireland almost 25 years on from the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement—this young man was not even born when Northern Ireland knew the troubles. One line from the play stuck in my mind: “Being divided keeps us united.” When I returned to my primary school in north Belfast, Park Lodge, I was asked—

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I hesitate to distract the Minister from his theatrical memories—he is doing very well—but I would like to take him back to the Bill for a split second. I mean no offence, of course.

If people do not choose to be in the reconciliation process, whatever one feels about tightening up how it works, is it feasible to adjust it so that, if they choose the courts or if the courts choose them, they go back to a full-life tariff for committing murder most foul, whoever they are?

[Conor Burns]

It is always a delight to be silenced by the quiet man. We will have to come back to those matters in Committee, but I hope hon. Members on both sides of the House and the Labour Front Bench are hearing, not least in our determination potentially to find more time to consider these matters in Committee, our openness to good ideas from both sides of the House that could improve the Bill.

Public Prosecution Service and Legacy in Northern Ireland

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Conor Burns)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) for his speech on a hugely complex and sensitive area.

Northern Ireland has moved on dramatically since the Belfast/Good Friday agreement was signed. We have moved society in Northern Ireland into a much better place than the one I remember—going to primary school with armoured cars on the streets, troops patrolling residential roads and, sadly, atrocities by terrorists a daily event—but in candour, what we have not done in the 23 years since the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is move Northern Ireland to a point of genuine acceptance of her past and reconciliation between the different communities.

At the outset, as someone who has never served in the armed forces, I want to make clear the admiration I have for those who have served Queen and country and who in Northern Ireland were at the frontline—a frontline that we in the United Kingdom did not want to create, but a frontline created by the actions of terrorists who were murdering innocent civilians and many members of our security forces, both in the Army and in the police.

I know the sincerity of my hon. Friend. Since he came into politics, his driving focus has been to secure adequate protections for those veterans who gave service so valiantly in Northern Ireland. I say to him that that is still an aim that this Government thoroughly share, as I hope was demonstrated through the delivery of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021, but our objectives in Northern Ireland are, rightly, far wider. We are unequivocal in our commitment to introduce legislation to address legacy issues in a way that focuses on information recovery and reconciliation.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I recognise that my right hon. Friend has arrived to his position fairly recently, so this is more of a trail of what has gone before. None the less, there is a genuine and deep concern among many of us. I served in Northern Ireland, and lost people in Northern Ireland. I remember Captain Robert Nairac being tortured and murdered. His family never found his body—no one ever told them. We have had to put up with that for all these years, watching others who committed those murders go free. I simply say to him that, for me, this legislation—this requirement to protect our veterans—is not just an add-on. For me, it is part of my life. Can the Minister please tell us whether that is how the Government see it, or is it something to be shoehorned into the future?

[Conor Burns]

My right hon. Friend speaks powerfully. I think I am correct in saying that I am one of a very small number of Ministers to serve in the Northern Ireland Office who was born in Northern Ireland. I still have a large number of my family across the island of Ireland and in Northern Ireland. For me, this is absolutely essential.

Shortly before Christmas, I returned to my old primary school, Park Lodge, in north Belfast. One of the children in a primary 7 class in a Q&A asked me what was the difference between Northern Ireland today and the Northern Ireland in which I spent the early years of my life. In answering that question, I realised that the Northern Ireland that I remember is but a distant history for those young people, but we believe passionately that addressing these legacy issues is vital to underpin a better future for Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend, whom I have heard speak on this many times over the years, is right that those who went to Northern Ireland to serve Queen and country, to uphold the rule of law, and to resist a brutal, barbaric campaign of Irish republican terror did so courageously, and it is wrong that they should now be hauled through processes for events some of which are 40, 45 years old or even older. That is what we are trying to address.

--- Later in debate ---

[Conor Burns]

To give my right hon. Friend an assurance that this will be resolved before he dies would require advance information from on high that unfortunately is not available to me. I hope he will have a long life and that he will see the Bill introduced and become law in good time.

The Government published the Command Paper mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View in July. I joined the Government in September. There was a large amount of feedback on that Command Paper and there has been a massive amount of engagement. The delay is to ensure that we get this right and that it not only achieves the Government’s objective to provide the necessary protections to those who served so courageously in Northern Ireland, but is also a measure that will advance the agenda of reconciliation and cross-community understanding in Northern Ireland.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

That is the point of the whole debate, so let us get to it. I must tell my right hon. Friend the Minister that the Secretary of State told me specifically in terms that this Bill was now sitting solely for sign-off. It was all done, it was drafted and it was ready to go before Christmas. My question therefore is, how did it suddenly discover a whole set of consultation that needs to happen when it had gone to sign-off? I really find this very difficult. If the Minister cannot answer now, can he please go back to the Department and say, “For God’s sake, get this clear”?

Legacy of Northern Ireland’s Past

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 14th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman tends in this House, as we saw yesterday, to use emotive comments for soundbites, often for his own social media outlet. To use somebody’s harrowing experience and loss in that way says much about him. I would happily meet any victims to talk to them about the experience they have been through and why we need to be honest with them about what is achievable and how we help Northern Ireland to move forward in a positive way, rather than continuing to use harrowing experiences like that for political ends in the way he has done in the past 24 hours.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I particularly welcome your opening statement, Mr Speaker, about the way in which this information came out today.

Many years ago, I was called to serve in Northern Ireland. I did not ask to go and it was a terrible thought that I had to carry a rifle amongst members and citizens of the United Kingdom. I, like many others, lost a friend. Robert Nairac was captured, taken prisoner, tortured and murdered, and his body has never been found. His parents died never knowing where he was or what happened to him. The Good Friday agreement, with its associations, and also the letters of comfort that followed have meant pretty much that many of us have now accepted, sadly, that we will never really know the truth about what happened to that brave man. I simply say today that this process, which is four years in the making—I do upbraid the Secretary of State for not having brought forward legislation at least giving us an idea of what the Government are planning—will not be beloved of anybody, but I do recognise, sincerely, that if we are to move forward we will all have to make some kind of sacrifice. My only concern is that the vexatious pursuit of soldiers who served, like many of us did, because that is what their country called them to do, should end and they themselves be seen as victims.

[Brandon Lewis]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. As he will appreciate, I know about the Robert Nairac case, which is a very good example of where we have not been able to get to information. That is why it is important to try to work with our partners, with the Irish Government and potentially the United States as well on how we can find a way forward that delivers information in a way that we have just not been able to do so far, and what allows us to step forward and do that. As I say, I think these proposals give us the basis for doing that.

My right hon. Friend also makes a very powerful point, which I absolutely accept, about legislation. He, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and others in this House have, for a very long time, made the case for needing to move this issue forward, and I absolutely accept that they want to see that delivered as quickly as possible. He makes a very strong, powerful point that I support; I alluded to it earlier and it is worth making again. Those who served their country with honour, to protect life and to protect their country, are victims as well and have just as important a voice in this as anybody else in looking at how we move things forward for the people of Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Margaret Valente was just 30 years old when, in 1980, her husband was abducted by the Provisional IRA and held captive for three days before being murdered. Ten years later, her son-in-law was brutally murdered by the Ulster Volunteer Force. To this day, she has no idea whether there was a thorough investigation into either murder. How can the Secretary of State stand there and say that the response to this staggering failure of justice for Margaret and hundreds like her must be to close the book altogether and cruelly deny her any chance of finding the truth about what happened to her loved ones? Would Conservative Ministers be so insensitive about coming up with such ludicrous legislation if a member of their own family had been such a victim?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

We lost two people in this House.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Monday 21st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield]

That is certainly an additional answer.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman says that this is about a collapse in trust. The collapse in trust in that description is one way; that is to say with the UK Government, because they are apparently breaching treaty law. However, if he were to go to the case Kadi v. Commission, he would see that the Advocate General at the time of the case made it very clear. I want to quote this, as it is quite important:

“first and foremost, to preserve the constitutional framework created by the Treaty…it would be wrong to conclude that, once the Community is bound by a rule of international law…The relationship between international law and the Community legal order”—

that is their constitution—

“is governed by the Community legal order itself, and international law can permeate that legal order only under the conditions set by the constitutional principles of the Community.”

So the EU itself has the principle that it will vet its obligations and not necessarily implement them, as it requires.

[Paul Blomfield]

The right hon. Gentleman came back at me on the quote I gave about trust. That quote was from the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, and it was about trust in relation to the Government’s actions. In terms of how we deal with the issues that the right hon. Gentleman refers to, I will come on to those subsequently.

The Government’s cavalier disregard for the rule of law has been condemned by the Law Society and by the Bar Council. It has shocked people across the country, and it has disturbed our friends and allies around the world. Part of the tragedy of the Government’s actions is that they never needed to do this. Instead of throwing their toys out of the pram, there was a grown-up solution there in the Northern Ireland protocol itself: the dispute resolution mechanisms agreed by the Prime Minister, to which the Minister has referred at length and which have been utilised already on other issues. However, in recognising those, the Minister failed to explain to the House satisfactorily why the Government have chosen not to exercise that route and have instead put this proposed legislation before the House. Article 16 provides for either the EU or the UK to take unilateral safeguard measures:

“If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties”,

and annex 7, to which I think he alluded, sets out the process to which matters can be resolved through the Joint Committee set up to oversee the implementation of the withdrawal agreement.

Do not take my word for it. The former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), who I seem to recall was once celebrated in the Conservative party, made the case in The Times last week when he said:

“There are clear and lawful responses available to Her Majesty’s Government”,

which

“include triggering the agreed independent arbitration procedure set out in the withdrawal agreement and, in extremis, these might legitimately extend to taking temporary and proportionate measures, where they are urgently necessary to protect the fundamental interests of the UK”.

That was his conclusion. And the Prime Minister could not answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) at the Liaison Committee last week when he asked the simple question why he had not been prepared to use those measures, which he negotiated, to resolve any disagreements, rather than engage in lawbreaking.

So let me ask the Minister a simple question, which I hope he will come back to at the end of this very long debate, on the question of state aid. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), said it was a matter for the Joint Committee. Will the Minister be able to confirm in his winding up whether the Government have actually raised their concerns there for resolution?

Our amendments seek to put the Bill right. They reassert our commitment to the rule of law by removing the notwithstanding clauses, which have been the subject of so much attention, but also the other references to disapplying the protocol and disregarding the law.

--- Later in debate ---

My plea to Members is to not go down the line of breaching international law. That is entirely self-defeating, counterproductive and will not only undermine our position in terms of Northern Ireland, but will also do huge damage to the UK’s economy and standing in the world.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am conscious that everyone needs to get in, so I will try to be as brief as possible. Most of the things I will say have probably already been said and certainly will be said in the course of the debate. I make no claim to uniqueness.

I rise to support the Government’s Bill with particular reference to clauses 40 to 45, which we are considering today. After all, the free flow of goods and trade in the UK is critical and is part of the constitutional settlement—the settlements between Ireland and GB and, later, Northern Ireland and, earlier, Scotland and England. Those principles are at the core of what we believe and what we consider to be immutable, and therefore they cannot be changed. There are areas in the protocol that, if improperly used, could affect those principles, and that cannot be allowed.

I remind colleagues that in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020—nobody seems to have referenced this—our potential intentions were very clear in section 38, which was part of the legislation when it was passed. As I recall, the Opposition did not vote against that provision. If that was the case, it sent a very strong signal to the EU that there was every likelihood that we considered that constitutional settlement in the UK to be above the implementation of the withdrawal agreement, should the agreement end up damaging the settlement. That was quite clear. In fact, it was so clear that when the 2020 Act had passed both Houses, interestingly the EU still went ahead and ratified its end of the agreement through the European Parliament, knowing full well that that was in the Act. If the EU disagreed with that provision or disagreed with the principle, it should not have ratified the treaty at its end, but it made no bones about it and did it.

The effect of clauses 40 to 45 is just to protect the basic implementation of the UK’s internal market in terms of its constitution. I recognise the concerns of my colleagues in Northern Ireland about the application of state aids in Northern Ireland as well, but in this case the provisions allow state aids in Great Britain to be dispensed under the framework devised in this country, and not elsewhere. It seems intolerable to me that we should leave the EU only to find that it has hold of us in a number of ways that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) said, were categorically never the intention.

I do not believe that the Bill actually breaks international treaties, particularly not at this stage. I think article 46 in the Vienna convention on the law of treaties is clear about that. These things are always open to interpretation —I accept that—and different lawyers will take different views, but generally I think that at this stage in particular the Bill does not do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) was clear that that was one of the reasons he is prepared to go along and accommodate the Government on this point, and that is quite reasonable.

The combined effect of article 4 of the withdrawal agreement and section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is that key parts of the withdrawal agreement and the NIP are already part of domestic law. That therefore makes it impossible for the Government, should they see that the EU is not acting in good faith at this point, to ensure that there is, in a sense, a backstop.

I raised a point with the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) earlier about the EU’s behaviour in this. My point was not, “Look, the EU doesn’t always recognise international law, as applied internally, and therefore we shouldn’t.” That was not the point. The point I was making was that we talk a lot about trust, and there is a lot of debate here about trust, with people saying, “The UK will lose all trust should it do this; no one will ever trust us again”—I do not believe a word of that, by the way, because so many other countries, including the UK, have previously breached international law, for lots of good reasons—but the EU binds it in that it is its right to breach international law.

That was very clear, as I said earlier, in Kadi v. Council and Commission in 2008. The Advocate General made it very clear that the EU does not necessarily have to bind into international treaties with direct effect if they clash with its constitutional settlement. They do so time and again, which has given us a very long list of occasions when the EU has done just that and refused to implement all or part of international treaties. I do not extol its virtues in that regard; I simply regard that as a reality.

What does that say? Does the rest of the world say that the EU cannot be trusted in international agreements? So far, apparently not. So far, it has done deals with a number of different countries and not one of them has said, “We don’t trust you, because you breach international law,” which it does. But the UK has also breached international law. In fact, it was a Labour Government that refused to implement, in about 2005, as I recall, prisoners’ voting rights, which came directly from the European Court of Human Rights. All that happened was that the Government said no. It took 10 years before that was resolved. It was not resolved because the UK Government—I think at that stage it was a Conservative Government and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) was Prime Minister—implemented it. No, they negotiated again over its implementation and observance, and came up with a fudge.

That is the point about international law: it is not always directly applicable by the letter. Ultimately, when it is not agreed that things should be brought in, they require negotiation subsequently. That is why I say that my right hon. Friends in the Government are absolutely right to use these clauses of the Bill to make it clear to the European Union that, should it wish to pursue the line that it does not agree to work hard in the Joint Committee to resolve these matters about application, which are always a problem, the UK still reserves its right not to breach its own constitutional settlement, which is a primary cause of most breaches of international law around the world.

[Mr Harper]

I intervene only because the prisoner voting issue is one that I remember very well, because I was then the Minister responsible for that policy area. Indeed, our friend David Cameron, who was then the Prime Minister, made it clear in his interview last week that his view is not as firm as some former Prime Ministers, because he recognises that there are these clashes. His point was that we should not break our commitments as a first course, but that having that as a backstop, with parliamentary control, is actually something worth considering. The example that my right hon. Friend gave is a very sound one.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

That is why I gave way to my right hon. Friend—because he was there. I think he was a very good Minister too, by the way, for what it is worth.

The point is that for 10 years, Labour Governments and other Governments simply refused to put prisoners’ voting rights through. Finally, there was a fudge negotiation, where not all of what was asked for was agreed, but it was agreed that what had been done, I think on furlough—as I recall, prisoners on furlough had voting rights—was okay. That was not what was asked for.

Let us not be too pompous about this idea that international law is some God-given gospel that says, “Absolutely nobody can ever trespass away from this.” Many of these things are fudged anyway, and implementation is very important. I come back to section 38, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) initiated. That made it very clear that we would, if necessary, place our constitutional law ahead of both of those.

I make that point because in truth, we are now in exactly that state. That is why I believe that I can happily vote for this tonight. I am happy that, following the debate between my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and the Government, they have tabled amendment 66, which will give Parliament a chance to say yea or nay when the moment comes. But we are not in breach until we decide to implement this. This has been done before. It is important to show that we want to do this if necessary, but we would rather find an agreement between the parties.

I come back to the point that I made about good faith in principle. I see that Monsieur Barnier has threatened our negotiators that, if they do not agree with him—he has not, by the way, wanted to move anywhere near the Joint Committee to discuss these matters—the EU will, if necessary, not give us the status of third country. That seems a bizarre threat to make. The list of third countries, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) mentioned, is long and peculiar. Belarus, for example, which we watch almost nightly on the television, would have third country status. We would not have it, apparently. Others include the Central African Republic, China, the Islamic Republic of Iran—the list goes on. I think there are now 137 countries that would have third country status, but apparently to Mr Barnier, it would be quite acceptable for a country that has been very close to the EU for years to not have third country status. I think it is a hollow threat, but it is a peculiar threat to make, and it gives an indication of bad faith.

The EU is meant to avoid bad faith in this, and so are we. The whole idea of the Bill is to say, “Stop. Let’s consider this again. We do not want—and you should not want—to end up in a situation where we are running around on your laws. This is not what the agreement was meant to be, and we are not prepared to see our constitutional settlement trashed in the pursuit of your own vainglorious idea that somehow you’re going to keep hold of us and run us afterwards.” As my right hon. Friend said, we did not vote to be a subsidiary state; we voted for independence. That is the key point.

I am going to vote for this Bill, and I vote for it with a clean heart. I vote for it because so many areas—from state aid, to transfer of goods and agriproducts to labelling—will be affected unnecessarily. If the EU seriously wants to help and to get this done, it needs to return to the table, go into the Joint Committee as it said it would and accept what we are saying: we will not allow our constitution to become the prisoner of an EU that wants to have all power over the UK.

[Joanna Cherry]

I rise to speak in favour of amendments 43 and 44, in my name, and to support the amendments tabled by the Scottish National party, our friends from the SDLP and our friend from the Alliance party.

I will focus my comments on my amendments, which I tabled to work out just how far this Government are prepared to go in ousting the jurisdiction of the domestic courts in relation to judicial review and review under the Human Rights Act in clause 45, as it appears on the face of the Bill. I also wish to highlight, as I mentioned in an intervention on the Minister, that, in so far as clause 45 seeks to restrict judicial review in Scotland by circumscribing the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session, this not only trespasses into devolved territory but may well breach another treaty: the treaty of Union between Scotland and England, article 19 of which preserves the independence of the Scottish legal system.

Before I address my amendments in detail, for the avoidance of doubt, my primary position—and I find myself curiously on the same ground as the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May)—is that clauses 41 to 45 should not stand part of the Bill. Everything we heard from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) was designed to hide from us the fact that we are talking about a bilateral treaty that was entered into by the Prime Minister and the United Kingdom less than a year ago, to deal with a specific situation that arose between the United Kingdom and the European Union; and the most controversial part of that treaty—the one dealing with Northern Ireland and the north of Ireland—is the one that this Government are seeking to drive a coach and horses through. That is what we are talking about, and that is what is so wrong.

Northern Ireland Protocol: UK Legal Obligations

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Lady and I have a distinct difference of opinion, because whereas the SNP want to hand powers straight back to Brussels, we, the UK Government and the Conservative party, have been clear that we want to take back those powers for the residents and citizens of the United Kingdom, and indeed we will be devolving power to the devolved authorities, as we have outlined in our discussions with those authorities, including the First Minister of Scotland just this week. This is about taking back power from the EU, as people voted for, and giving it back to the people of the UK, including the Scottish Parliament. I am just sorry that the SNP does not share the desire to see democracy exercised here in the UK.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I wonder if my right hon. Friend recalls that in clause 38—the sovereignty clause—of the Act that gave effect to the withdrawal agreement the Government reserved to themselves the right to make clarifications. Given that, and given that when the protocol was signed, the Government recognised that state aid rules would apply to Northern Ireland, their extension to the rest of the Great Britain is an interpretation by the EU, and the Government are quite within their rights to dispute that interpretation and use clause 38 to explain that they do not agree with that and will not implement such an agreement.

[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.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons & Committee: 2nd sitting
Wednesday 8th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire]

This is quite extraordinary because, again, the right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that there was a referendum in which the British people chose to be in the European Union, and they have voted for Members of the European Parliament over the course of four decades. I have acknowledged that the result of the 2016 European Union referendum is going to happen on 31 January, but we are arguing here about a clause that is in the Bill, and it is entirely proper for the Opposition to propose an amendment to try to probe what on earth it means.

Did I imagine that we considered the Northern Ireland historical abuse Bill? I checked Hansard this morning and it appears that I was not dreaming—I was actually there. I did not dream the passage of the world’s first Climate Change Act in 2008. Nobody had to ring Brussels to ask, “Can we pass this law?” or if we could equalise marriage. We have been passing our own laws all this time. We have never needed to ask for permission. It is not true that we have no say on EU rules; we have had democratically elected representation in the EU Parliament since 1979.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

The hon. Lady has made two points that I think are incorrect. First, the British people voted to join something where we had a full veto over anything that we did not agree could be imposed on the UK. Secondly, on judicial activism and the mission creep of the European Court of Justice, perhaps the hon. Lady would like to comment on the way in which power was grabbed through two court cases—namely, those of Van Gend en Loos and of Costa v. ENEL.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

One of the things that interests me about the right hon. Gentleman’s argument is what we will do when we are trying to resolve a dispute over a trade agreement at a supranational court—[Interruption.] They will not be elected representatives. The World Trade Organisation court of dispute does not consist of elected representatives. Government Members seem quite happy to hand over control to the WTO court of dispute resolution and pretend that that is somehow more democratic. [Interruption.] Calling me silly is not worthy of the right hon. Gentleman.

We have been sovereign all this time. On our money, we have always had our sovereignty. We set our own budgets. We are represented at EU budget setting by our democratically elected representatives. As I have said, we have even had opt-outs, negotiated by Tory Governments, from some of those financial agreements. We have negotiated opt-outs, variations, rebates and all sorts of specific conditions for the UK.

The phrase used is “money, laws and borders” and I cannot remember which way around they are, but on borders we chose, rightly or wrongly—and we can decide for ourselves whether it was right or wrong—how we interpreted the requirements on the free movement of people, one of the four freedoms of the single market, which, I remind hon. Members, a Tory Government took us into. Other EU nations have interpreted that freedom differently. We chose, as a sovereign nation, not to participate in the Schengen area. We decide how we police our borders and whether or not there are enough border police.

We have also chosen to benefit from freedom of movement, which I acknowledge will end after 31 January. It is a freedom that I wish we had valued more and whose passing I will truly mourn, but it never undermined our sovereignty. That is implied even in the wording of the clause, because it states that “sovereignty subsists notwithstanding” various provisions. Of course, we agree—and will continue to agree after debate, scrutiny and amendment—to many other rules beyond our borders. International treaties, trade agreements and security co-operation arrangements all carry commitments to shared rules and to abiding by the rules of supranational bodies of dispute resolution, most of which are not elected, but Parliament’s sovereignty will remain intact.

I ask the Minister respectfully if he will explain the legal and practical purpose of clause 38. Even the phrase, “It is recognised”, has the feel of a political rather than a legal statement. The purpose of the Opposition’s amendment 11 is to discover the Government’s intention. We think that stating that Parliament is sovereign

“and has been so during the period since the passage of the European Communities Act 1972”

is entirely consistent with what the Government themselves said in their White Paper only a few months ago. We have been sovereign all that time.

I am sure that Members know this, but our sovereignty was never in doubt and was not diminished. I could spend a long time asking what this non-argument about sovereignty has all been about, but I am pretty sure that a lot of it—perhaps most of it—has been a false argument to distract attention from the desire to deregulate this country and turn us into a bargain basement nation with no attention given to workers’ rights, environmental protections, health and safety or any of the other regulations in which we played a part in Europe, which we have implemented and which have helped us help the people we represent. I would like the Government to explain the point of clause 38.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

The hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) said, “What is this sovereignty?” It is terribly simple; it is the ability to make our own laws in our own Parliament, in accordance with the electoral decisions taken by the people in line with a manifesto and with their constitutional arrangements, which have been in place for many generations. It is this for which people fought and died in world wars. The very simple reality is that sovereignty is about whether or not we can govern ourselves.

My rebellion against the Maastricht treaty was based on the simple proposition that that treaty created European government. In 1971, we entered into arrangements—then enacted through the European Communities Act 1972—on the basis of a White Paper that said we would never give up the veto under any circumstances, and furthermore that to do so would be not only against our own national interest, but contrary to the fabric of the European Community itself. Believe it or not, it was understood in Government circles at that time that the veto enabled us to retain the actuality and reality of the ability to make our own laws. Gradually, over the next 30 or 40 years, that veto was whittled away to extinction, and the processes that I have to deal with day in, day out in the European Scrutiny Committee—and have been doing so since I first went on the Committee in 1985—have demonstrated to me that, in fact, we have not been governing ourselves. That is why I entered into opposition to the Maastricht treaty and then to Nice, Amsterdam and ultimately Lisbon. The reality of what has been happening is that the individuals who sit on these green Benches have simply had their ability to make the laws that they are entitled to make on behalf of the people who vote for them reduced to rubble.

In return, we have been faced with an increasingly dysfunctional European Union that did not work in the interests of the British people, and that is why we got the result we did in the referendum. It was the people who voted. Interestingly, when the decision was taken to hold the referendum, it was decided by six to one in the House of Commons. We voluntarily agreed that we would abdicate our right as Members of Parliament and let the people of this country make that decision on their own behalf. All the resistance we have seen over the past three years from the Opposition Benches and from a number of our recalcitrant colleagues, many of whom are no longer in the House, was based on a complete failure to understand that the decisions that were taken in that referendum were authorised by Parliament and, indeed, by themselves.

Section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—I did the first draft of the Bill, which was accepted by the Government—said that the European Communities Act 1972 would be repealed on exit day. That is now in fact implementation period day, but for practical purposes it comes to the same thing. The Opposition religiously—or irreligiously, depending on how one cares to put it—decided that they would oppose that Bill in principle, as they did on Second Reading and on Third Reading. Every single Conservative, even my recalcitrant colleagues—even Kenneth Clarke—voted for the withdrawal Act on Third Reading, but the Opposition denied not only the sovereignty that was being restored by the repeal of the ’72 Act but the democracy that went with it. That is a fundamental issue. They destroyed their credibility with the British people, and I believe that the ordinary man in the street—the people who voted in the last general election—understood that.

I have already made the point that European laws are made behind closed doors by a majority vote. Nobody can say that the decisions that were taken, which we had to accept because we had no alternative, were laws made by our elected representatives. I have never heard such trash coming from a Front Bench as the suggestion that the fact that these people happen to be elected Members of Parliament in the Council of Ministers conferred upon them some form of democratic right to decide.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend is making absolutely the right case about sovereignty. I mentioned Van Gend en Loos and Costa v. ENEL. The point about those two cases is that they were judicial statements. One was about direct effect and the other was about the whole idea that European law had supremacy. They were never voted on in this House. Nobody agreed to them. Nobody said, “This is what we wanted.” That led to something quite interesting—the imposition of the extension of welfare payments to EU migrants who came here was the result of a judicial review of something that we had never voted for, and it cost us a lot of money.

[Sir William Cash]

That is a very good point. Those cases happened before we came into the European Union, and they invade the very concept of the constitutionality of this country and of other countries too, because they say that we are obliged to obey not just any law, not just all laws, but even constitutional laws. That is the point. It is an utter invasion. It is a complete and total destruction of the decision of people through the ballot box in general elections. That is the problem. Sovereignty and democracy are intertwined at the heart of our constitutional system. The hon. Member for Bristol West ought to reflect on the rather absurd propositions in her speech, because she cannot prove a single point that she made.

--- Later in debate ---

On borders, where again those on the Labour Front Bench seem surprisingly dismissive of a very important question that has been in our debate throughout the referendum and in subsequent general elections, I think there is a general view in the country, which goes well beyond Conservative voters, that there should be a fair system of entry between EU and non-EU people. At the moment, the EU gets preference. I think a lot of people feel that there should be some overall limitation on the numbers of people coming in seeking low-paid work or speculatively seeking work. They favour some kind of a work permit system, which is quite common in many other advanced civilised countries. Because we wish people who join us to be welcomed, because we want them to live to a decent standard and because we accept the commitment to pay them benefits and find them subsidised housing if that is their requirement, surely it should be in our power to decide how many people we welcome in this way, and to decide that that should be related to our capacity to offer them something worth while, and to our economic needs. I give way to my right hon. Friend, who has done so much in this area.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

May I just pick up on one point? My right hon. Friend talks about, “should we wish to give them benefits”. The reality now is that the British Government have to pay benefits even to families of people working over here when their families are not with them. That is roundly disliked across Europe, but those countries all accept there is nothing they can do about it because the European Court of Justice imposed that as part of freedom of movement. It was never debated as part of freedom of movement and it was never supposed that it would happen. It is an end to sovereignty when one can no longer make a decision to change something like that.

[John Redwood]

My right hon. Friend puts it brilliantly; that is exactly the kind of limitation of our sovereign power, and of our freedom to make decisions that please our electors, that I have been talking about. It is quite important, given the history of this debate.

Turning to the Scottish nationalists, I agree with what the Scottish nationalist spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), said: we only want volunteers in our Union. We are democrats. We believe that the Union works, but that if a significant portion of the Union develops a feeling that it is not working for them, we need to test that. I was a strong supporter of accepting the Scottish National party idea, just a few years ago, that there should be a referendum. That referendum had the full support of the United Kingdom Parliament, which is the sovereign authority for these purposes on Union matters. I also fully agreed with the then SNP leadership when I talked to them about it—I think our formal exchanges were recorded in Hansard. They said that they agreed with me that whichever side lost should accept the result, and that it would be a “once in a generation” event, not a regular event that happened every five years until one side got the answer that it liked. I hope that the SNP will reflect on that. We are democrats and we want volunteers in our Union, but we cannot pull it up and examine it every two or three years through a referendum, which is very divisive, expensive and damaging to confidence and economic progress. We should live with the result.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

What we are talking about is the freedom of this Parliament to influence the outcomes for our electorate. [Interruption.] What I am saying, as my hon. Friend chunters in his seat, is that we will move from a position in which we can influence rules that will be applied in Britain to one in which we cannot influence those rules, and they will still be applied. We are not suddenly leaving and going to the moon.

I know that there is a move on the other side for us to become semi-detached, or worse, from the EU, and to thrust ourselves into the fond arms of the WTO. However, as I said to the Minister earlier, and I have had some experience of this as a trade rapporteur for the Council of Europe at the WTO, we will end up negotiating with 164 countries with just one vote, not proportionate to our population—and some of those countries will be dictatorships—as opposed to being in a club of 28 mature economies with a strong bargaining position within the WTO. As I said earlier, the WTO is being undermined by the United States, which wants its own massive power to decide everything, rather than rules. Moreover, it has existing rules that are contrary to what we are allowed to do within the EU.

We may talk of sovereignty, but if at some point in the future the Government of Britain wanted to return the railways, for instance, to public ownership—I appreciate that the Minister may not want to do this—the WTO would be able to stop us. It also has rules about patents which will increase the price of drugs. I do not think that “people in the street” voted for that.

Furthermore, the WTO will impose—as will bilateral trading relationships with the United States—new systems of arbitration courts and panels with independent judges who, unlike the European Court of Justice, are not democratically elected, and who will make decisions on whether big companies can either sue us or threaten to sue us for not pursuing various activities, or will block our legislation.

In case there is any ambiguity, let me give an example. Lone Pine, the big fracking company, sued the Canadian Government because Quebec had a moratorium on fracking, saying that it would affect climate change, or was not in the interests of the environment, or whatever it was. We have started fracking in this country, but let us suppose that the Welsh Government said that they did not want fracking in Wales. If there were to be an investor-state dispute settlement tribunal, the frackers could come along and say “Look here, we cannot have this, we are fracking”, and sue the British Government. Is that sovereignty and control in any normal circumstances? Of course it is not. Courts will be available that will fine, or threaten to fine, the British Government for passing legislation to protect the environment and the public health of our citizens, and their intimidation will deter future Governments from doing that.

We have introduced a sugar tax, but when that happened in Mexico there was an attack on it through an investor-state dispute settlement. If we introduce a plastics tax, we will be attacked for that.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

rose—

[Geraint Davies]

This is not sovereignty; it is madness and self-harm, on which point I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I really do not understand what the hon. Gentleman and his Front Bench are up to. It is as if they are trying to rewrite the whole concept of the world order in trade. The EU has to abide by WTO rules just as we will when we leave—and we already do. There is no issue here that is going to change. WTO rules apply to the EU as stringently as they apply to us, and when we leave and become a voting member, they will still apply to us. The difference is that if there is a debate for change, we will have a vote which we do not have now because we are subsidiary, underneath the EU. The hon. Gentleman’s argument is specious, and it is total nonsense.

[Geraint Davies]

Well, that was very helpful.

Some hon. Members have failed to understand this. I remember the big debate over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, for example, and over these investor-state dispute settlement clauses being used by the Americans on fracking and other issues. Once we are in a situation where, instead of being in the powerful trading bloc of the EU, negotiating head to head with China or the United States from a position of strength to sustain our environmental and workers’ rights and our standards, we will suddenly instead be broken free, semi-detached, and turning our back on our biggest local market—[Interruption.] It is all very well for the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) to chunter, but that is what will happen. It is already being discussed in the trading arrangements with the United States. The United States is saying, “Right, you’re on your own now and we are going to have this relationship and we will enforce it through the international tribunal.” That is what is going to happen.

Let us take as an example the simple European REACH protection—the regulations concerning the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals. If the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green were making chemicals in Europe, he would have to prove they were safe before marketing them. In the United States, he would just be able to market them and an environmental protection organisation would have to prove them harmful. That is why they sell asbestos in America, and that is why there will be pressure for us to have asbestos in our brake pads here. That is why there will be pressure for us to have hormone-impregnated meat from America imposed on our growing children, who could then have premature pubescence. I know that some people think that that is sovereignty, but I do not.