Newport Wafer Fab

Lord Stirrup Excerpts

Thursday 7th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Nothing will go through in terms of an error, I can assure the noble Lord of that. This transaction is being considered very closely and there is an ongoing review by the National Security Adviser, as I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. But the decision has to be taken, as outlined under the terms of the Act, by the Business Secretary. It is his decision and his alone, in quasi-judicial terms.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, I realise that the structures and processes of government can be something of a mystery, but I am at a bit of a loss to understand—perhaps the Minister can help me here—how something so crucial to the security and defence of this country and our national infrastructure can be an issue for the Business Secretary.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I can certainly help the noble and gallant Lord on that. That is what Parliament decided under the NSI Act: that these decisions are a matter for the Business Secretary to take under the terms of that Act, under the powers granted to him by Parliament under that Act, and he will take those decisions. Obviously, a lot of advice is coming his way from all different parts of government, and from the National Security Adviser, but the decision is his alone to take.

Russian Oil and Gas Imports

Lord Stirrup Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, Russia is clearly the immediate focus, but will the Government take a wider strategic view and set urgent work in hand to reduce our dependence on the supply of resources, goods and services from all autocracies, most particularly China?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Of course we need a diverse mix of energy, which this Question is about, and to generate as much of our own power as possible. The noble and gallant Lord makes a good point about reducing our dependence on autocracies.

Newport Wafer Fab

Lord Stirrup Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord is of course aware that we have announced action in both of those cases: both the instances he mentioned are currently being reviewed. As I said, if we need to take action, we will. On his broader question about semiconductors, we already offer a lot of support to industry through the research councils and the catapults and will continue to do so. It is an area that the Government are acutely aware of.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, this is part of much wider picture, of course. Can the Minister assure the House that, in their forthcoming national resilience strategy, the Government will deal with such industrial issues in a sufficiently agile way that will be able to cope with a rapidly evolving corporate and technological landscape?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble and gallant Lord makes a good point, which is why we have strengthened our powers under the National Security and Investment Act, recently passed in this House. We look forward to implementing that legislation on 4 January. It will require notifications in 17 key areas of the economy. On top of that, the Secretary of State has additional call-in powers.

National Security and Investment Bill

Lord Stirrup Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 4th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, let me say at the outset that I welcome the proposition that underpins the Bill—the proposition that we need to act to protect our critical national infrastructure from the possibility of malign actions by external agents operating under the cover of legitimate businesses. We live in an era when those who wish us ill will not confine themselves to traditional forms of confrontation; they will seek to exploit weaknesses in the fabric of our social and economic structure. Technological advances bring with them exciting opportunities to do new things, or to do old things in new ways, but unfortunately, they also introduce new vulnerabilities, and the more complex and interconnected society becomes, the more vulnerable it is to shocks. It is this vulnerability that we must address.

The proposed involvement of Huawei in the UK’s 5G network certainly brought the issue to the fore, and although there were some exaggerations on both sides of the argument, people were right to be worried about the involvement of a foreign Government—the claim that Huawei is a private company free from any influence of the Chinese Government is, frankly, risible—in such a crucial part of our infrastructure. So, in my view there is certainly a serious problem that needs to be addressed. The question is how well this Bill contributes to that process. It is, I think, a good starting point, but we need to take care that it does not end up being more of a hindrance than a help.

I return to my central point: those things that advance the capabilities of our society introduce new vulnerabilities. However, the reverse is also true: those things that introduce new vulnerabilities also advance the capabilities of our society. The free flow of ideas, inward investment, the introduction of new business processes; all these things contribute to the health of our economy, to the opportunities within society and, indeed, to aspects of our national security. So, in constraining a laissez-faire approach—and it does need to be constrained—we must be careful lest we do more damage than we prevent. Our constraints need to be carefully balanced and well targeted, which of course begs the question of how we decide on that balance and on the appropriate targets.

Key to that is our definition of national security and our judgment of how far it needs to be applied to business questions. In thinking about this, we should realise that in our world, there is no such thing as perfect protection. We cannot foresee, let alone protect against, all eventualities. We will make mistakes, since error is a fundamental part of the human condition, and these will undoubtedly come back to haunt us. With that in mind, we should take as our aim not the complete elimination of danger but the creation of resilience.

Resilience depends, in part, upon redundancy. In order to provide such redundancy within critical sectors of our society, we may well need to broaden, rather than narrow, the involvement of overseas companies and inward investors. We must be careful that, in seeking to exclude potentially malign actors, we do not also deter those whose involvement would actually improve our national security. Resilience also depends upon agility, the ability to react swiftly and decisively to changing circumstances, or to challenges that we did not or could not foresee. The potential danger lurking within the Bill is that it could create a rather sclerotic bureaucratic process. Taken together, the mandatory and voluntary schemes are likely to result in a flood of applications. If the mechanisms set up to implement the measures in the Bill become clogged with endless paperwork and ponderous deliberations, we risk a situation where the focus is on process rather than results. Nothing could be further removed from the kind of agile, responsive system that we need. We would not only hamper innovation and flexibility within business, we would also increase, rather than reduce, the risk of a successful attack by a potential and perceptive enemy.

For me, the Bill is not about principle but about practice. How will applications be triaged so that effort is focused on the true risks? How will judgments be reached that strike the appropriate balance? How will they be monitored in a rapidly changing world, and how will they be adapted to take account of such changes? My concern is that government departments are not traditionally good at responsiveness and agility. It seems to me that the composition of the investment security unit within the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will be an important factor in this regard. If it operates as a fairly standard departmental committee, I fear we will not see the outcome intended in the Bill. To what extent will the new unit draw in external expertise from both the business and security sides of the equation? To what extent will it be able to maintain a long-term view of issues? Will it be able to form a cumulative picture of risk, rather than just looking at each matter on an individual basis? How will its work be audited, assessed and reported?

I support the Bill, but before it is passed into law, I believe we need some firm assurances that the mechanisms and processes set up to give it effect will be fit for purpose in this complex and dynamic world.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Stirrup Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 9th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I rise to support all the clauses that deal with the Northern Ireland protocol. I am very much aware that this House is full of lawyers; I declare an interest in that I am not a lawyer—perhaps that is a good thing sometimes. Over the four years since the referendum, I have been surprised and shocked by some of the ignorance spoken about the Belfast agreement. I sometimes wonder whether people have actually read it. It is a fact that many who disliked the referendum result used the Belfast agreement to try to make it more difficult for the Government by continually promoting the idea that the agreement said that there could be no trade checks at the border. Of course, this was wrong; the agreement made no mention of trade borders.

Unfortunately, whether by accident or design, or because of the pressure from the Irish Government, the people of Northern Ireland have, in plain words, been sold out. I believe that the way in which the fears of a hard border were deliberately escalated meant that the EU was delighted. Michel Barnier himself was seen on camera and quoted as saying that the border argument was a good way of punishing the United Kingdom for leaving.

How can any of your Lordships think that creating a trade border down the Irish Sea between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom is protecting the Belfast agreement when the one border—the key and crucial border—recognised in the agreement is that between Northern Ireland, as part of the UK, and the Republic of Ireland, as a foreign country? How can one go against the Belfast agreement while we all have to accept the other and say that it is wonderful?

Creating a new border, cutting Northern Ireland off from the rest of the UK, is already breaking the Belfast agreement, unless Northern Ireland consents to being cut off. The principle of consent, which we hear very little about in the Belfast agreement discussions now, is central to the agreement, and it is shattered by this protocol, which I did not support in the House of Commons. It is worth stating that the “Constitutional Issues” section of the Belfast agreement says that, as

“the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland … is to maintain the Union … it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people”.

However, this is precisely what is happening. The protocol itself is a blatant breach of the Belfast agreement and international law.

I believe that the Bill is trying to improve this in some way, and, clearly, I have no trust whatever in the good faith of the European Union on this issue. Quite rightly, Her Majesty’s Government need to be one step ahead, and this is what the clauses that some noble Lords seek to remove are doing. They do not violate any laws but merely create a mechanism to be used in trying to make less damage come from parts of the protocol if the European Union decides to play games.

If parliamentary sovereignty means anything, it must mean that Parliament can enact legislation that breaches international law on some occasions. Ministers must be free to recommend this to Parliament. I know that lawyers hate this, but the sovereignty of Parliament is supreme, and no country can be bound for ever by an international law. Political judgment has to be used as to when it might be necessary, but I would have thought that standing up for part of the United Kingdom when an action is going to harm it is such a necessity.

The protocol sets out the principle that:

“Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom”.


Therefore, goods should be able to flow freely, but the EU judging the risk of goods crossing into the Republic is worrying, as there are strong incentives to insist on a very wide definition of “goods at risk”. Let us be honest, it has a strong economic incentive to make life as difficult as possible for British-based exporters of goods into Northern Ireland to give an advantage over them to the EU’s own exporters in the Republic and elsewhere.

The problem is that, if the UK refuses to agree a wide definition and insists on a more limited class of goods genuinely at risk of onward sale into the EU, the default position, if there is no agreement, appears to be that all goods passing from GB to Northern Ireland would be subject to duties. This would create huge extra administrative costs and bureaucracy to move goods from one part of our country to another. I do not believe that that can be allowed. I feel that my duty here is to speak for those who just want to see your Lordships’ House stand up for our country against the bad faith, or the likely bad faith, of the European Union. Arbitration would take a long time and, in the meantime, the people of Northern Ireland suffer.

To take out these clauses now would be a further stab in the back of the people of Northern Ireland. To say, as some noble Lords have, that we must remove them to please the new US President is something I believe will shock decent people in the real world outside this House. First and foremost, we must stand up for our own country. Noble Lords can show today that they genuinely care for Northern Ireland and the union, and that they have read the Belfast agreement. I am not surprised about the position of the opposition Benches on this, as the Opposition do not even allow people in Northern Ireland to vote for their party. To noble Lords on the government side, I say: remember those true unionists of your party over the years who gave their lives—Ian Gow, Airey Neave—and do the right thing. I hope tonight that noble Lords will show that they really care about Northern Ireland and will leave these important clauses where they should be.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, the Good Friday agreement was made possible, at least in part, by the fact both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland were members of the EU. The common rules and procedures under which we both operated, enabled unionists and republicans to claim that the agreement went some way to advancing their political agenda. It was in many ways a classic deal—fully satisfactory to neither party but acceptable enough to allow agreement. The UK then voted to leave the EU. It was not the option I preferred, but I accepted the result. Having accepted it, I was clear that the best course for us was to leave the single market and the customs union as well. Anything else might well have had some economic advantages but would have left us in the worst of all worlds politically.

That meant that there would need to be border of some kind between the UK and the EU. The nature of the border would depend on the future relationship between the two parties, but a border there would be. This was foreseen and foretold. However, a border that separated Northern Ireland from the Republic to the south, might well have implications, both practical and political, for the Good Friday agreement. The protocol for the EU withdrawal agreement was designed to deal with this and the Government were content with it when the agreement was approved by the UK Parliament. The Government now say the EU might apply the protocol in a way that was never intended, and that Part 5 of the Bill is necessary to protect the position of the UK.

Quite why we should assume the EU would behave in such a way, no matter what ill-advised comments might have been made in the heat of argument, is not clear to me. In any event, a dispute resolution mechanism already exists to tackle any problems of interpretation and application that might arise. If this were tried and found wanting, and the Government believed the UK’s national interests were seriously at stake, they could introduce emergency legislation to Parliament at that point. They would then be responding to a breach of faith, not creating one. This would place us in a position far preferable to that which would result from accepting the provisions in Part 5. Acting in self-defence—it seems to me and, I suspect, to many others—is entirely different from getting one’s retaliation in first.

There is no reason why the Government could not have an oven-ready Bill sitting in their political refrigerator for this purpose. If it were appropriate, and proportionate, we would, I suspect, have a great deal of international sympathy and I would certainly support it. What I cannot support, however, is a Bill that authorises Ministers to break the law based on some hypothetical event and damages our power to exercise strategic influence in the wider world. I am persuaded by many of my noble and learned friends that to do so would be wrong in law. I am quite certain in my own mind that it would be wrong in principle, for all the reasons I set out in my speech on Second Reading and that I need not repeat this evening. This is not a disagreement on matters of policy; it is a question of law and principle, which we have a duty to uphold.

I am not a remoaner. I have said that I accepted the result of the EU referendum. Indeed, as I said, having accepted it, I argued for our withdrawal from the single market and the customs union. If my voting record were to be checked, it would be found that I support the Government in the Division Lobby far more often than I oppose them. I do not believe I am what the Government might regard as one of the usual suspects. However, I oppose Part 5 of the Bill and will vote accordingly in any Divisions on its clauses standing part.

I acknowledge that the Government have a difficult task in reconciling the potentially contradictory aspects of the withdrawal protocol and the Good Friday agreement. That perhaps became inevitable once we left the EU but, given the breadth and depth of the dissatisfaction with Part 5 that is evident across this House, I urge Ministers to think again about the course that they are following. It is not too late for them to adopt an approach that can command support across the United Kingdom but that maintains our hitherto exemplary status as a law-abiding and trustworthy member of the community of nations.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Stirrup Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 19th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

Like other noble Lords, I wish to focus today not on the broader provisions of this Bill but on Part 5. Giving Ministers the power to break the law seems to me an astonishing thing for Parliament even to contemplate, let alone agree to. I quite understand that there are situations where there may be argument about what the law is or whether particular matters fall within the provisions of a given law, but that does not appear to be the case here. The Government have acknowledged that they wish Ministers to be able to break a law. The fact that it would be in a “limited and specific way” seems to me to be irrelevant. Why should the residents of Greater Manchester not now feel that they can break the law in a “limited and specific way”?

The Government have advanced the argument that this is a provision that would only be applied if the EU had previously acted in an “unreasonable” way in implementing the withdrawal agreement. However, as we have heard many times, there is already a dispute resolution mechanism in place to deal with this situation, and, if this is deemed insufficient and the Government see the need for new primary legislation, why not enact it once the other party has patently broken faith? Emergency legislation could then be made specific and passed swiftly, and the UK would be reacting to a breach of trust rather than creating one.

However, I wish to make another, broader point about power this evening. In setting and carrying out its foreign policy, the UK is essentially seeking to persuade countries to do things they would otherwise not do or to dissuade them from doing what they otherwise would. Such persuasion rests upon the ability to convince or to compel, which, in turn, is based upon the power that we wield in the international arena. The underlying foundation of that power is undoubtedly our economic strength, but it also depends upon a degree of moral authority.

If we are to convince others of the force of our arguments, they need to know whether they can rely upon what we say, whether we deliver on our obligations, whether we are steadfast or blown by the latest wind— whether they would be prepared to buy a used car from us. Even when we seek to compel rather than convince, both our hard and soft power are most effective when arrayed alongside that of our partners, who know the quality of our contribution, who know that we can be relied upon to fulfil our undertakings and who trust us.

It is clear that certain clauses within Part 5 of this Bill have already undermined international trust in the United Kingdom. EU leaders are looking for harder and more specific conditions in any new agreement with the UK because they now view us as untrustworthy. Our power in the world has been diminished by this Bill and will be diminished further if it is passed unamended. This seems a strange way to advance the cause of global Britain.

Therefore, there are very clear practical reasons for doing something about Part 5, but, above all, there is the fundamental issue of principle. The Government exercise authority through the law; if they undermine respect for the law, they undermine both themselves and the stability of our society. This is surely not the path we, as a nation, wish to follow. I urge the Government to think again, and I shall certainly support the amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Judge.