United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

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

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

I begin by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that I spend a lot of my time defending the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I fear that the task is made more difficult on an almost daily, or perhaps weekly, basis by the fact that the Prime Minister appears to have little sensitivity to what is happening north of the Tweed.

Towards the end of his comprehensive speech at Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord True, described the position of the Government as being an acceptable one of balance between the union of the United Kingdom and the rule of law. With that analysis I profoundly disagree. The truth is that the Government’s position and their proposed legislation have had the effect of putting these two not into balance but into competition, one with the other.

I will begin by examining the purported balance that the Government claim to have struck. They claim that, to the extent allowed by Part 5 of the Bill, which removes otherwise incumbent obligations, the Government will have increased freedom to act in relation to the departure from the European Union and, in particular, will no longer be bound by legal instruments that they negotiated as of right and successfully recommended to Parliament. It is worth considering the motive for the adoption of this position. It lies in the allegation by the Prime Minister that the European Union has acted in bad faith and may continue to do so. But, just as President Trump has produced no evidence to support claims of a similar character about the presidential election in the United States, the Prime Minister also has signally failed to support his claims.

Two fundamental questions remain unanswered. Where is the evidence that the European Union has acted, or may continue to act, in bad faith? This question has been posed on several occasions since the Second Reading debate, and yet it has still brought no answer. The second question is: why are the available arbitration and dispute-resolution procedures simply to be discarded? What sort of confidence will any subsequent party to an agreement with the United Kingdom which contains similar powers of arbitration and dispute resolution have if we discard them in circumstances in which, so far as can be established, there is no good reason? If you are asked to judge on bad faith, who would you regard as being more or less subject to bad faith—those who set off with a unilateral legislative ambition or those who stick to the terms of an agreement, in particular involving arbitration?

The truth is that the Government’s reasons for departing from the cardinal observance of the rule of law and the provisions of the withdrawal agreement lack both substance and credibility. However, in assessing balance, it is not enough to look at the flawed motives of the Government’s position: we must have regard to the consequences, actual and potential. Without qualification, I say that a breach of international law by this country weakens, at large, the rules system on which this country has steadfastly based its policies, both internal and external. We are justifiably renowned for our adherence to the principle of pacta sunt servanda, or “promises must be kept”, although I confess that, on some occasions in present circumstances, ignorantia juris neminem excusat, or “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, might be a more appropriate way to describe those in the Cabinet Office who are apparently the authors of the legislation that is so controversial in our debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, has dealt with the contribution of the noble Lord, Lilley, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, also did. I will add two observations. First, both Germany and the European Union have written constitutions; we have a partly written one with more flexibility. Therefore, what happens in Germany or the European Union does not necessarily form an impressive precedent.

Of course, at the back of these two decisions, to which reference was made, was the question of necessity. Where is this question of necessity in the circumstances that we are discussing in this debate? A breach of international law, even if only in contemplation, damages our reputation and, more to the point, undermines our ability to hold others to account. It also damages our relations with our allies, damages our wider interests and divides Parliament but, perhaps more fundamentally in this case, divides the party of government.

In response to Part 5, the European Union has taken the United Kingdom to law. Who believes that the action of our Government in respect of the controversial legislation and the response of taking the United Kingdom to law will make negotiations easier for the trade deal that is absolutely fundamental to the economic and trade policy of the present Government? We are not trying to please the President-elect of the United States but to ensure that he and, indeed, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who have already voiced adverse criticism, may be persuaded to grant the trade deal that forms such an important part of the Government’s trade policy. Not to accommodate their anxieties or understand the importance of the Irish question in domestic American politics is foolhardy, in my view. A breach of international law, even if only in contemplation, that imperils that trade deal is wholly contrary to the interests of the United Kingdom.

However, the truth is that the weight of the argument in this matter is wholly against the Government because there is no equivalence between what they seek to claim by way of legislation and the consequences of such a claim being allowed. The noble Lord, Lord McCrea, who is no longer in his place, referred us to scripture. If we are talking about balance, I refer the House to Daniel, chapter 5, verse 25: “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin”—or, “You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting”. That is the right epitaph for this piece of legislation.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I concede that I am new here, but I will issue a warning: outside this place and the Westminster bubble this row over Part 5 is seen as a last-ditch battle in the Brexit wars—yet another attempt at using legalese to delay the realisation of finally being free of the EU’s jurisdiction.

I beg to differ with the noble Lord, Lord Howard, because a certain type of remain supporter, having lost at the polls, seems keen to use this House to kill the Bill. Again and again, I have heard noble Lords say that this House must block, block, block. Whether or not Brexit is the reason for that, more humility is required in this House. Its job is not to act as a block to democratic decisions, and it does so at its peril.

Surely, an important lesson from the referendum result is that British voters rejected interference by the unelected in their decision-making powers. After all, the demand for more sovereignty and democracy was the decisive driver behind the revolt of 17.4 million leave voters. This Bill should be seen as a perfectly moral and good-faith attempt to temper a treaty that threatens the UK’s geographic integrity as an internal market, and as a democratic mechanism to ensure that political sovereignty is safeguarded.

The controversial part of the Bill is posed in the most dramatic terms around the morality of abiding by international law. At its heart, however, as in everything to do with Brexit, it is about who rules—who has the power to make decisions in a sovereign country. Yet opponents here today seem to believe that national sovereignty and democracy can legitimately be constrained by simply repeating the mantra about upholding international law. That phrase should not, however, be deployed as a counter to national law made by our elected Parliament. This is not a technical, or even a legalistic, question: it is one of principle.

The key question is what should take precedence in a democratic nation state: international law or the will of the democratically elected Government? To those of us who believe in democracy, the answer is clear: democratic will trumps international treaties every time. If we are to live in a democracy, national Parliaments that are elected by, and accountable to, their peoples must have the power to make national law and to seek to amend or override any external rule that might compromise that.

On the broader question, I have heard lots of fine speeches about the ideals of international law; it is talked about with reverence, as if it was a secular form of God’s law, a power above and beyond the grasp of mere mortals such as the voters. In reality, it is often—to quote one commentator—“Cooked up by diplomats in secret, smoke-free rooms and enforced by unaccountable judges”. Regardless of that, international law should never be used to supersede the process of democratic national law-making. Too often, however, it is turned into a supranational instrument for undermining national sovereignty. We cannot let this place endorse that approach.

Noble Lords must not get me wrong: Prime Minister Boris Johnson got himself into this pickle last year, by endorsing the shoddy withdrawal agreement—enthusiastically selling it as “oven-ready” and signing it, warts and all. At that time, and since, many on both sides of the argument have pointed out that it contains intolerable restraints on the exercise of sovereign decision-making. I myself favour repudiation, but the Government have opted for a legislative approach to the conundrum because, importantly—this is a key point—under pressure from Brexiteers, Boris Johnson eventually contested and won the December 2019 general election on a manifesto that effectively repudiated part of the withdrawal agreement. He pledged that the UK would not be tied to EU rules. The Government are now trying to keep that promise to the electorate, and that, at least, is honourable.

Today, great play has been made of a binding promise to the EU. The main binding promise that should concern us, however, is the one made to the electorate. The aim of this part of the internal market Bill, therefore, is to give the UK Government the power to override those aspects of an international treaty that might, for example, bind Northern Ireland to a range of EU rules that could, if not tempered, hand arbitration of disputes to the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is essential that the Government have the power to counter such egregious limits to UK sovereignty.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly. I listened carefully to the eloquent contributions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and others on these issues of international law, although I am struck that, over the years, there have been examples of Governments backing away from commitments in international treaties. It happened under a Labour Government and during the coalition Government, so it was nothing particularly new. What was new was the stark way in which the Minister outlined it at the Dispatch Box. I only wish that Ministers in the Lib Dem/Conservative coalition and past Labour Governments had been equally free and open and admitted honestly that they had done it.

What was behind the Government’s efforts in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill? It was to deal with the state-aid point, as we heard, but also to guarantee unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods to the rest of the United Kingdom. That is hardly, in itself, terribly contentious, since it is to the benefit of everyone in Northern Ireland that business should flow free and unfettered. It is to the economic benefit of business, all communities, employment and the creation of jobs, all of which add to the stability and prosperity of Northern Ireland going forward. It was agreed by the EU itself in the joint report of December 2017, and by the parties in Northern Ireland that signed up to the New Decade, New Approach document. All the parties agreed: nobody reneged from it. It was in the Conservative Party manifesto, as the Minister has mentioned. So, there should not be anything contentious about that principle, which was well outlined, clear and supported—indeed, in amendments put down in the other place—by parties other than unionist parties as well.

Section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, passed by more than 120 votes in the other place, allows for “notwithstanding” arrangements. Article 16 of the Northern Ireland Protocol itself makes it clear that where the protocol would do serious economic, societal or environmental damage to Northern Ireland, the Government have the right to act unilaterally. I can think of nothing more designed to cause serious economic damage than putting extra, multiple costs, restrictions and administrative burdens on businesses in Northern Ireland, the vast bulk of which do their trade with the rest of the United Kingdom, thereby causing economic damage, job losses and the rest of it.

I appeal to noble Lords as they consider these matters to think of the practical consequences of some of the arguments being put forward. Think of the effect on people’s businesses in Northern Ireland, most of which are small or medium-sized. Think of the people working there, who will lose their jobs if unfettered access is not guaranteed or if some of the other restrictions, from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, are not dealt with. The protocol, as noble Lords know and as the Government know all too well, was opposed by these Benches and by many in Northern Ireland for the reasons set out, passionately and rightly, by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. It creates differences within the internal market of the United Kingdom, with economic and constitutional implications.

People have pointed to the Belfast agreement, but I hear very little reference among noble Lords and commentators to the St Andrews agreement, the Stormont House agreement and so on. I urge people to refresh their memories of all those agreements which, taken in the round, are about a consensus in Northern Ireland of unionists and nationalists. If border restrictions, a presence and north-south tariffs on the island of Ireland are utterly unacceptable because they might breach the Belfast agreement, then likewise, it is unacceptable for many people in Northern Ireland that such restrictions—tariffs et cetera—should be imposed between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. That is a simple principle that should not be contentious. We hear people saying that Part 5 of the Bill drives a coach and horses through not just international law but the Belfast agreement, but they have no regard, it seems, to the serious concerns that many people have voiced, including many who were instrumental in drawing up the Belfast agreement.

This does serious damage to the agreement in Northern Ireland and importantly, it destabilises the Executive. I am a believer in devolution and I want to see it succeed, but it will not succeed if we have a one-sided approach to the Belfast agreement. It has to be a rounded approach. The Government have said that they are withdrawing certain clauses in the Bill and standing by others. I welcome the clauses they are putting in and those they are standing by; they are important statements of principle. But we will now have to wait and see how the Statement made in the other place today is actually implemented.

The noble Lord, Lord Howard, talked about matters being resolved. Some have been, perhaps, but others have deliberately been put on hold and are not resolved. It will therefore be important to see how this works out in practice, but the Government must keep under review how these measures, taken under the provision I mentioned at the start of my speech, help to preserve stable government and economic prosperity and uphold the agreements made in Northern Ireland by both unionists and nationalists, and those of neither persuasion.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I would like to remind noble Lords, especially on the Government side, that the clauses being removed were themselves argued for as a necessary legal shield for the internal integrity of the United Kingdom and its sovereignty. I am told now that the Government are content with assurances. I am not sure that many leave voters are content simply to be assured. Goodness knows, he might be surprised when I say this, but the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, made a very important point when he said that at the beginning of the week, he did not anticipate this debate. Many in the House did not expect these clauses to be removed, and now we are told to be assured; yet they were crucial clauses only last week. I therefore at least want to raise the question of trust and whether we should be expected simply to trust. It sometimes feels as though some of us have been marched up a hill and marched down it again.

[Noble Lords]

By whom?

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

We know by whom. As an aside, I rather like a heckling atmosphere, but I would prefer it if it happened not just when I am speaking.

With absolute due respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who speaks so eloquently about constitutional and unconstitutional principles—I have listened very carefully to him for many years, not simply in recent weeks—I would be rather disappointed, and I think it would tarnish those principles, if it was thought that the decision was made because of the strength of feeling in this House. I would rather think that it was because the Government were satisfied by the debates, not that this House, rather unconstitutionally, might have got in the way of parliamentary sovereignty. There is a danger that some of the comments being made are self-aggrandising and self-congratulatory.

However, the main point for me—made clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds—is that Northern Ireland is being treated separately, as a different entity. I am afraid that some seem to relish this: in many debates that I have sat through in this House, I have felt as though the 2016 referendum of the whole United Kingdom was being used as an excuse to interpret devolution as some kind of federalisation of the United Kingdom. Interestingly, even today, one noble Lord noted that 56% of Northern Ireland voted to remain in the European Union—that is of no matter, indeed no interest, if you believe in the United Kingdom.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Here we go. There will be those who would say that the debate about the unity of the United Kingdom and the status of Northern Ireland might be contentious. That is a different debate; a different referendum would need to be called. In 2016, the United Kingdom was asked whether it wanted to leave the EU; all of it voted to do so, and yet one part of it is now to be held in thrall, to a certain extent, to the EU—a body that I do not entirely trust to respect the integrity of the sovereign rights of the United Kingdom, I am afraid. Therefore, I am not content.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

I am not sure how far I should follow the noble Baroness except by making a few obvious points. First, the Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol were warmly welcomed in Northern Ireland; this is not being done to Northern Ireland against its will. These provisions are very warmly welcomed because the people of Northern Ireland see them as a guarantor of peace and stability there; this requires an open border with the Republic of Ireland, so I do not follow the noble Baroness on that point.

I also did not follow the noble Baroness when she said that the House of Lords was standing “in the way” of parliamentary sovereignty. We are part of Parliament and performing our functions as a part of it. In that respect, I pay great tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and—I never thought I would hear myself saying this—the noble Lord, Lord Howard, who have played an absolutely central part in the ability of this House to perform its proper constitutional role to see that the House of Commons is invited to reflect further on provisions that it believes are injurious to the public interest.

We have reached this point in a very convoluted way, because the Government changed their mind mid-way through the parliamentary process. However, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, likened the noble Lord, Lord True, to the prodigal son, and we welcome all those who have seen the error of their ways and repented. The process by which they do so is not significant; what is significant is the opportunity that this House gives to Parliament at large—including the Government, which operate as a part of Parliament—to consider its view on these big and important matters that are of concern to us. We have reached the right decision on this matter.

The only point I want to make is about the consequences because, as we now move forward, they are significant. To understand them, we need to understand why the Government did what they did. It was never my view that they intended these provisions to become law; they knew that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and a whole galaxy of the most heavyweight Members of your Lordships’ House would object to them—they knew that.