Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 11th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, no one had proposed anything like the Northern Ireland protocol until the second half of 2017. It is worth recalling the genesis. I was a Member of the European Parliament at the time and following the negotiations. In the immediate aftermath of the referendum, no one in Brussels proposed that Northern Ireland should remain under EU jurisdiction for regulatory purposes. They understood that sovereign countries are not in the business of ceding part of their territory to foreign control. They understood that sovereign countries do not usually allow internal borders. All of the talk then was about finding technical solutions: Enda Kenny’s Government in Dublin negotiating in good faith with British authorities to try to find ways to keep the border open, on the basis that the UK and EU had pretty similar regulatory norms and could trust each other’s standards.

What changed? It was a very sudden moment, around October 2017. I remember Guy Verhofstadt coming to the Constitutional Affairs Committee with his customary self-satisfied grin, saying, “We have now made it part of our negotiating mandate that there must not be any change in the EU side of the single market regulations as pertaining to Northern Ireland.” What had changed? We all know the answer: what had changed was that, on 8 June 2017, there was a general election that altered the balance in the other place.

From then, it became clear that a majority of people in both Chambers here were not prepared to leave the European Union except on terms that Brussels liked. That was not the phrase they used; the phrase was that they would not “permit a no-deal Brexit”. But let us think about it for five seconds: that is exactly the same, is it not? So, of course, the European Union—not unreasonably; I do not blame them—started putting on the table all sorts of outlandish demands that, up until then, it had not occurred to them to make.

Plenty of people have said, “Parliament ought to assert itself in this situation.” That is fine, but it strikes me as a little inconsistent for noble Lords who were strongly in favour of this no-deal Brexit stance, who then, if you like, ensured that this treaty was signed under duress, now to turn around and say, “You told us it was a great treaty. How come you have changed your mind after three years?” It was signed in a moment of EU overreach and it was bound to be corrected when the majority in another place changed. I am bound to add that there is something slightly odd about saying, after three years of negotiations, “Shouldn’t we have a little bit more time to talk?” What do noble Lords think we have been doing for the last three years?

I would like to put a question. I am one of the last speakers; some 54 noble Lords have spoken and, as far as I can tell, no one has taken issue with the contents as set out by my noble friend the Minister. Noble Lords will correct me if I am wrong. The aims of the Bill are that companies in Northern Ireland that do not export should be free to follow either UK or EU regulation; that there should be a green channel so that goods not intended for onward export are not subject to additional checks or tests; that Northern Ireland should be part of the general principle of “no taxation without representation”; and that the treaty should be arbitrated in the same way as all other international accords. Are those unreasonable demands? I see a couple of Lib Dem Peers theatrically pulling Paxmanesque leers of incredulity. I shall, of course, give way.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way since he was obviously referring to me. I am wondering about the noble Lord’s assertion—a serious one: that Parliament was misled by the Prime Minister of the day; that the deal that they presented to Parliament was made under duress. We were not informed about that being the case, but that is the case that he is making. Is that correct?

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

There is absolutely no question that the Northern Ireland protocol would not have been agreed had there not been an anti-Brexit majority in another House that was saying in terms, and had taken the legislative agenda and legislated to say, that they would not permit Brexit to happen except on terms that Brussels liked.

I finish by saying that if there is a conflict between respecting the basis of the Good Friday agreement—which rests on the idea of devolution and power sharing—and an overseas treaty obligation, I hope that any British Government would pursue the former objective. That should go almost without saying. If we were not in this situation where a large chunk of the country will automatically want to side with the EU, whatever its position is, that would be an almost banal statement. If there is a conflict between the protocol and our obligation to the people of Northern Ireland, I hope that any British Government would honour their obligation to the people of Northern Ireland.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Excerpts

Thursday 13th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by adding my voice to those who have welcomed our two new Members, my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron—a very judicious and measured speech from the first and a very moving and uplifting one from the second, both demonstrating the way in which your Lordships’ counsels are elevated and enriched by the diversity of experience that individual Members bring to the House.

The words

“electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic”,

were used by a judge in describing some industrialised postal vote fraud in Birmingham in 2005. That phrase stuck with me, because I have what may be the slightly unusual distinction of having served as an election observer in two actual, literal banana republics, in the sense of being republics dependent on the banana crop, Nicaragua and Ecuador. What we saw in Birmingham would have been completely impossible in both those places because, in common with most Latin American countries, they have a form of photo ID, known as a cédula. When you apply to register to vote, you get a little card; it is no different from registering to vote here, except that you have a form of identification. These are countries beset by illiteracy, where there are remote villages that are cut off and do not have electricity or a clear supply of drinking water, yet they do not find that requiring a measure of identification is a vote suppressor. So please let us not make the inaccurate and insulting insinuation that people would somehow be unable to vote in Great Britain as they do in Northern Ireland.

Of course, the tightening of rules on electoral fraud go well beyond personation. That has been the issue picked up by noble Lords in this House, understandably, but there are many more significant measures in the Bill that will come before us, dealing with the harvesting of postal and proxy votes and, not least, intimidation of voters and candidates. I hope that at least on those issues there will be a measure of unity on all sides, because there is no question of any real flesh-and-blood person being prevented from voting. The only people who would be prevented from voting exist only virtually, as ghosts or theories, not as real human beings.

I want to take on the argument that underlines a lot of this debate—an assumption that sounds plausible but which turns out to be specious—which is that the way to encourage participation is to make the act of voting easier. That sounds reasonable enough but, in fact, the proposition was tested under the Blair Governments. There were all sorts of experiments with e-voting, text voting and ballot boxes in supermarkets, and none of it served to increase turnout. Could it be that we in fact want a little bit of ceremoniousness, so that people take the act of voting more seriously—and in fact that if you make it too easy you cheapen participation? If people are filling in a ballot at their kitchen table while half-watching “Line of Duty”, they are not taking it as seriously as they would with that little bit of ritual of having to go to present their card at a physical polling station. After all, the act of casting a vote in coldly transactional terms is actually quite difficult to justify. What are the odds of your ballot changing anything significant? It needs to stand as a form of civic obligation.

On which note: although I strongly agreed with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, said about devolution and localism, I must take issue with the verb that she used when she talked about “denying” the vote to 16 and 17 year-olds. It was only a couple of weeks ago in this very seat that I heard voices from every Bench speaking in favour of raising the age of consent for Botox treatment from 16 to 18. On every side of the House noble Lords said that it was just bringing it in line with all the other legislation that we have—you cannot get a tattoo until you are 18, you cannot use a sunbed until you are 18, you cannot buy a bottle of wine or a knife. Are we seriously saying that people should not be treated as legal adults in all those other respects but should, through the ballot box, be allowed to circumscribe the liberty and property of their fellow citizens? Let people grow up to the right to vote and treat the ballot with a little more seriousness and ceremoniousness, as well as a bit more security. That is how you will get people to value the franchise that they exercise.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice)]

I think the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, may have a more reliable connection now, so let us come back to him.