Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Debate between Lord Bew and Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

Committee stage
Monday 31st October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, set out this group of amendments, he rightly said that Clause 4 is at the heart of the Bill, and the debate has really encapsulated that point.

I have a number of questions for the Minister. We will have several debates about the scope of the delegated powers proposed, but as this is the first group dealing with the reports by the DPRRC, it is worth recalling just how unprecedented these were. The DPRRC has chosen on a number of occasions to publish a report while a Bill is still in the Commons—there is nothing unusual in that—but rarely has it been so scathing, labelling the Bill

“unprecedented in its cavalier treatment of Parliament, the EU and the Government’s own international obligations”,

as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said.

The committee was unable to propose tweaks to various powers in the Bill, including those in Clause 4. Instead, it recommended gutting several key clauses. As mentioned in the debate, the Government opted not to respond to the DPRRC before we moved into Committee, even though they had from July to do so. It is hard to see how the two sides can meet in the middle, so, if we proceed to Report, it is quite possible that this House will have to strip out several clauses.

The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, made interesting points when he talked about the previous level of scrutiny of EU law, in which this House played a very prominent part. I am sure many Members of this House served on those committees. The EU Committee scrutinised legislation, as did this House and a whole series of committees, and the House of Commons, of course. That was a far higher level of scrutiny than anything being proposed at the moment.

The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, asked an interesting question—and he was fair in saying it was a genuine question—about the alternatives to this multitude of Henry VIII powers. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response. It seems to me that the alternative is to go through things in detail, as the old EU committee structure in this House used to do routinely. I will be interested to hear the answer to the noble Lord’s question.

We are sympathetic to this group of amendments. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is going to do but we are happy to support him.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I am well aware of the sensitivity in this House regarding Henry VIII powers, and I respect that; it is a serious argument. However, Northern Ireland looks at these things from an angle that is not entirely the way the House of Lords looks at them. For one thing, there are what you might call Louis XIV powers all over the place in terms of European law and regulations, but there is silence about that.

The second issue, which has already been alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, is that again and again, we have had the most dramatic demonstrations of Henry VIII powers in areas where I and other Members, a majority in your Lordships’ House, are in agreement—abortion laws and so on. We do it all the time. When we as a local assembly like it, when it is our kind of opinion, we have no problems. When we do not like what is proposed, we discover that this application of Henry VIII powers is intrinsically terrible. To be blunt, the House needs to avoid looking totally hypocritical on this point.

I feel that I have been living for a very long time with Article 16 and the potential illegality or otherwise of the Government’s legislation. When I first encountered it, in fact, it was Article 15 in Theresa May’s Bill; it was that long ago. I read and reread it until I was blue in the face. Let me say what the problem is in attempting to challenge the Government’s position. The best argument against the current position in the legislation is that Article 16 could be and should have been applied. At the moment, it is ridiculous. We are in the middle of a serious negotiation with the EU and it would break that up, so it is fatuous and politically absurd. Apart from the principle of reality, I can see why people want to argue that, but it is not going to happen now because the Government want this legislation with the EU to succeed. In the Financial Times as recently as September, the EU was defining the application of Article 16 as an outrage and so on. The situation would simply be aggravated.

The other weak point of this argument is that saying, “We want Article 16 but nothing else” is the sound of one hand clapping. None of those who have argued for it in this House since Second Reading has shown any grasp of the central difficulty of the relationship between the two treaties and their interaction. If you are going to argue, as distinguished international lawyers have done before both our Select Committees, that the Government have a case of sorts but Article 16 should be applied first, that is based on the idea that there is an interaction between the two treaties and this is the best way of acting to defend the Good Friday agreement. That is a perfectly respectable intellectual legal argument, but it just does not fit with the political moment we find ourselves in, with ongoing negotiations.

The sensitivity that people in this Chamber have about the attitudes and feelings of the EU is quite remarkable when they do not seem to feel it themselves; they feel that they are quite adult enough to get on with this negotiation anyway, regardless of the Bill. As I pointed out, the Irish Foreign Secretary said openly that they do not like the Bill but that is not a reason for not having the negotiations. Still, it is wonderful to see people stick up for other people’s rights and interests when they themselves do not seem quite so keen or worked up about the subject.

The main point is that just saying “Article 16” is simply one hand clapping. The only possible viable argument is to say—as indeed both the House of Commons and our own Select Committee have been told—that that is indeed the way you could use it to get a result. The best criticism of the Government is that you cannot really prove necessity unless you have gone down this route. It so happens that the Government are stuck in a moment of real politics, the real negotiation that is going on, so they cannot do it, but the majority of speakers in this House say, “I would like Article 16”. That is an amazing recent conversion to Article 16. A few months ago, most of us hated it and regarded even talking about it as a piece of British brutishness. Now we really love it because we prefer it to the Bill. Unless you add to that that you accept that there is a real problem with the interaction between this agreement and the Good Friday agreement, as the former Lord Chancellor said in the House of Commons, then, in the Chinese phrase, it is just one hand clapping.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Debate between Lord Bew and Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

Committee stage
Monday 31st October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I will comment again briefly. I have said on the Floor of this House during these debates that I did not consider it necessary to reopen the mandate. If the EU can genuinely commit itself, as it is committed in the protocol, to defending the Good Friday agreement in all its parts, although it has not really understood what that means, my personal view is that that would be enough. I can understand why the Government feel the EU should reopen the mandate, but it is not a problem for me. I accept the point and I believe there could be successful talks without the reopening of the mandate; that is, providing that the EU accepts what it said itself that this is about protecting the Good Friday agreement in all its parts. As long as that part of the commitment, which has already been made, is upheld, I think there is a good prospect for these talks.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I open by thanking my noble friend Lady Ritchie for tabling this group of amendments. It has provoked an extremely interesting debate, with some strongly held views. First, in welcoming these amendments, my noble friend built on the contribution of my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, who spoke last week about the importance of preserving the rights of people from all communities. The withdrawal agreement was not about the practicalities of trade; first and foremost, it was about setting out matters relating to the rights of citizens. Article 2 of the protocol reflects this, with the Government having committed to

“no diminution of rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity”

under the 1998 agreement.

The concerns raised by my noble friend Lady Ritchie are legitimate and need a detailed answer from the Minister. The Government’s obsession in relation to the European court is not helpful when it comes to questions about the rights of individuals. As my noble friend said, this is indeed an opportunity for the Government to show that they are protecting Article 2 at all costs.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, asked a couple of very important questions. I think I wrote down correctly that he said that the Government do not even know the extent of the powers they are asking for in this Bill. That is quite a statement to make. He also gave a very telling comment about the importance of parliamentary restrictions when one has the responsibilities of a Minister. I thank him for making those points.

The noble Lord, Lord Bew, had a different view. He said that the Bill is less important than the noble Lord, Lord Deben, seemed to imply and that really the focus was on Articles 5 to 10; they are really the target of the Bill, not Article 2. I would be interested to see how the Minister reconciles those two points of view.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, spoke of the law of unintended consequences. She went into some detail—almost the same level of detail as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie—with a number of questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer, maybe in writing at a later stage.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked some interesting questions and reminded us all that two committees have highlighted the unprecedented nature of the Bill. This is an opportunity for the Minister to reassure us that the Article 2 rights can indeed be dynamically maintained through the Bill.