UK-African Investment Summit

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. There is the world’s largest free-trade area initiative, the African Continental Free Trade Area, with 54 signatures. There is abundant potential for renewable energy and resources critical to the economies and energies of the future. For example, the DRC has almost 70% of global cobalt resources, and will benefit from the investment that we have made in the Lobito corridor. My noble friend is right that it has to be a focus for government support to get businesses to trade. I am delighted to see a 6% increase in trade from the UK to Africa of £46 billion. That has been reflected in recent years and will continue in future years. This is an absolute priority for the UK Government. There are huge advantages, not least through our Commonwealth connections, and we want to build on those.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I was in Ghana at the time as the trade envoy when this was announced, and I have to say to the Minister and His Majesty’s Government that there was huge disappointment and indeed a bit of anger that this happened and at such short notice, with no real reason being given. I still have not found a real reason why it was done. Other countries have elections coming this year, including Ghana. Will the Minister try to answer exactly what the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, was asking: why was it cancelled and who made the decision? Presumably it was Downing Street.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

There has not been any suggestion that it is because elections are being held in any country. That was certainly not part of the communique at the time. This will be a major event involving up to 25 Heads of State and around 1,500 people, but it will not be the only show in town. There is continuous activity to increase the amount of trade from Britain and Africa and in reverse. We believe there is huge potential. We want to look to the future and make sure this event is a success and that the continuing activities we carry out will increase trade further between us.

Haiti

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, we have not had many questions. If I may say so, the Labour Party has had two questions, one of them one of the longest I have heard in this House, and I think we should hear from the noble Baroness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, does the Foreign Secretary agree that there is sometimes a limit to what His Majesty’s Government can do in different countries in turmoil—and there are many such countries all around the world—that actually we have to have priorities, and that other countries should be doing more, such as France? Does he agree that although we give diplomatic support, we should be very careful about tying ourselves up with putting lots and lots of extra money into a country such as Haiti?

[Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point; as they say, if everything is a priority then nothing is a priority. We should be frank, as I was in my answer to the noble Lord who asked the Question, about our capabilities here. We have a mission, but it is based inside the Canadian mission, and Canada has taken one of the leading roles in helping Haiti over the years. We have two country-based staff who are currently working from home rather than in that mission, because of the dangers in Haiti, and the other staff that we have work out of the Dominican Republic. We should be clear that in some countries we have a scale whereby we are able to act and scale up quite rapidly, but that is not the case in Haiti.

Taiwan: Elections

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I have already alluded to the importance of our relationship with Taiwan, the need to strengthen global trade and the role Taiwan plays in that regard. I will certainly take back my noble friend’s question on current live conversations and build in her suggestions.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, does the Minister share my disappointment that the Taoiseach of Ireland, a so-called neutral country, made a very strong statement yesterday in Davos that Taiwan was part of China?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, although we recognise Taiwan’s place and its relationship with China, we have always been very clear, while recognising issues of sovereignty, that the vibrancy of Taiwan’s democracy and its autonomy—we have seen it again in the vibrancy of its election—are important principles to protect. Therefore, in the important engagements we have with China on a whole raft of issues, we ensure that those points are raised directly with it. I cannot speak for the Taoiseach or indeed a Prime Minister or president of another country.

UK-EU Relationship

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Hoey]

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs what discussions he has had with the European Union about the future development of the UK-EU relationship.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton) (Con)]

My Lords, last week I met with Vice-President Šefčovič. We discussed issues including the Windsor Framework, and support for Ukraine and the Middle East. An important part of my role is to make the UK-EU relationship work to deliver on UK interests, including on migration, energy security and trade. The trade and co-operation agreement remains the basis of our relationship with the EU and we are committed to maximising its opportunities.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord very much, particularly because I know he is committed very strongly to the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He is also the only member of the Cabinet who has not had anything to do with either the protocol or the Windsor Framework, so he comes with clean hands. I hope that he understands the difficulties that the Windsor Framework is causing to people in Northern Ireland, with businesses not sending goods to Northern Ireland any more and the break-up of the internal UK market. Can he give a commitment to the people of Northern Ireland that, when he next meets with the European Union, he will actually talk about alternatives that could be brought forward, with modern technology, trust and common sense, that could do away with the Irish Sea border and not divide our country?

[Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. It is very nice to be reunited with her. My first job in politics was as the candidate’s researcher at the Vauxhall by-election, where she got elected and my office was picketed every day by local residents. At least we have ended up in the same place.

As the noble Baroness said, I had nothing to do with negotiating the Windsor Framework, so I can say with real feeling that I think it was a superb negotiation. The EU said it would never reopen the withdrawal agreement and it did; it said it would never give an emergency brake, yet it did when it came to Stormont; and it never really makes exceptions for single market access for non-single market countries, yet it has. I absolutely understand her concerns and worries about it, but I think it was a good negotiation. I think it can fulfil the seven tests that the Democratic Unionists have put forward. I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is working extremely hard to try to put the institutions back together again.

Zimbabwe: Election

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Hoey]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the result of the recent election in Zimbabwe, and whether it was free and fair.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, the United Kingdom commends the Zimbabwean voters for their peaceful participation in Zimbabwe’s recent elections. However, the UK shares the view expressed in international election observation mission preliminary statements that the pre-election period and election day fell short of regional and international standards. The UK is also concerned about the lack of transparency surrounding the compiling of results by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission and the severe disruption of domestic observation.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it was obvious to every independent observer that those elections were not free and fair. In the words of Nelson Chamisa himself, they were a “blatant and gigantic fraud”, but the hard-hitting SADC report questioned the credibility of the elections and the breaches of its own standards. The saddest thing is that, as the election observers left, the familiar pattern of widespread arrests, abductions and torture of grass-roots supporters of the opposition is taking place as we speak all over the country. There were even lawyers arrested last night in a hospital where they were representing tortured victims—the same kind of retribution that Mugabe did after 2008. Does the noble Lord agree that now is the time for full support by His Majesty’s Government for SADC’s efforts to resolve the crisis, and in particular for our newly arrived ambassador to re-evaluate all facets of our relationship with a Zimbabwean Government who flout their own laws through acts of violence and torture, and to give some hope even in the darkest days to the perseverance and courage of the Zimbabwean people?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness refers to the arrival of our new ambassador. He arrived today and brings both diplomatic and development experience. I am sure he will play an exemplary role in our relations with Zimbabwe, its communities and all parties in Zimbabwe as well. The noble Baroness mentioned the abduction and torture of opposition CCC members, which we have raised directly. I can report that we are relieved that they have been found and are receiving treatment for their injuries. We also note the arrest and subsequent bail of two lawyers acting on behalf of the alleged victims on 4 September.

Zimbabwe

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend raises a number of cases and I assure him that we are fully aware of them. We remain deeply concerned by the failure to address the allegations of abduction and abuse of opposition members. There are also the cases of Joana Mamombe—which he has raised—Cecilia Chimbiri and Netsai Marova. I assure noble Lords that we have raised our concerns with the Government and have publicly called for full investigation into these allegations. If Zimbabwe wishes to be counted among those countries that are recognised for progression not just bilaterally but, importantly, within multilateral organisations, it is vital that it stands up and ensures transparency of justice systems. It must also ensure that those who are taken and arrested are done so on transparent charges and that if they are not held on any substantial charges, they are released. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of protest are key parts of any progressive democracy.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, many of us warned for many years that Mnangagwa would be worse than Mugabe, particularly because of his years of repression and what happened in Matabeleland. He is clearly not going to change and, sadly, things such as an invitation to the Coronation do not help—they help him in Zimbabwe. Does the Minister accept that it is very unlikely that there will be genuinely free and fair elections in Zimbabwe in August? We saw just last night a very well-respected human rights lawyer, Obey Shava, being beaten almost to death by ZANU-PF thugs. Is it not time for us to stop pandering to Mnangagwa and to condemn what is happening right throughout the country loudly and clearly to the international world?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I also welcome the noble Baroness’s deep insights and expertise on Zimbabwe. I am aware of the case this morning—as I sat down, I got an update on the alleged attack on the lawyer. I am in the process of getting further information on that attack and will update the House and the noble Baroness accordingly. I agree with her that the actions we have seen from the President of Zimbabwe and his Government, particularly on areas of legislative change which they are also bringing into force, are of deep and alarming concern because they mean the suppression of civil society within Zimbabwe. As I said, these are key tenets of any democratic reform and an open and vibrant civil society is a key part of that. I assure noble Lords that we want to work very constructively on this agenda. There is a lot of expertise in your Lordships’ House and we want to leverage that to ensure that we can continue to make the case pertinently and forcefully and, one hopes, ensure progression on the ground.

Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol: Scrutiny of EU Legislative Proposals (European Affairs Committee Sub-Committee Report)

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Friday 20th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jay, has made some very sensible points on behalf of his Select Committee on improving the scrutiny of EU legislation applying to Northern Ireland and the democratic deficit. However, that all addresses the symptoms, not the problem.

What is the point of that scrutiny? We could sit for hours scrutinising everything that the EU wants to do to Northern Ireland if we cannot say no and change it. Millions of people voted to leave; many of us voted to get rid of the EU telling us what we had to do and what we could not get out of because of majority voting. This will not all be solved in any way, no matter how good some of the points on scrutiny are. We do not need the scrutiny—we should not need it—because we should not have the protocol.

The truth is that the Government should never have signed up to the protocol. I know that it is an international treaty, but it came after another international treaty—the Belfast/Good Friday agreement—and now, without doubt, the protocol is destroying that agreement and the hugely important principles of both cross-community consent and the democratic deficit. I wonder how long we in this House and in this country can allow a treaty to continue when it is working absolutely against the unity of its own country. The courts have said that it is subjugating the Act of Union and, when it is brought down, devolved government.

The Government may talk about taking back control, but, even last week they produced a statutory instrument to introduce the Official Controls (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023, which gives powers to UK Government Ministers to implement and supplement the protocol by building structures at the ports in Northern Ireland for customs and other checks. If Northern Ireland officials do not apply these laws, a foreign court will impose sanctions on the UK.

However, Article 64 of OCR 2017, the regulation that they seek to give effect to, requires border control posts at the entry into the EU. By building these posts in Northern Ireland, the Government are accepting the principle that Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the European Union. Pre-action legal proceedings have now been lodged, which will force the Government to finally take an honest position. Is Northern Ireland part of the UK customs union, as is boldly proclaimed in Article 4 of the protocol, or is it part of the EU, as per the statutory instrument, which treats Northern Ireland as part of the EU? I am sorry to say it but the Government are speaking in a kind of double-speak; it is as if they want to conceal their true intent and kid people in Northern Ireland that they are actually really going to sort the protocol, when they have no intention to do so.

I refer noble Lords to the recent publication of an excellent report from the Centre for the Union written by Ethan Thoburn, Jamie Bryson and James Bogle, which gives very clear views on how we can restore Northern Ireland’s place in the union. It is a paper analysing the impact of the protocol on Northern Ireland’s constitutional status. Many noble Lords have talked about the Assembly coming back. Really, the Government have to accept, realise and understand that, until Northern Ireland is fully back as an integral part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland devolution will not happen and the Northern Ireland Assembly will not come back. That needs radical change to the protocol, not tinkering.

If only the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would, rather than denigrating those parties that are sticking to their mandate of saying that they would not go back into devolution until the protocol was sorted, spend more time trying to convince Ministers, particularly in the Foreign Office, that the protocol has to go, and there has to be a restoration of Northern Ireland to its rightful place in the UK. It is only when that happens that we will get devolution back.

Commonwealth: Zimbabwe

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, this is a very timely debate—I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and congratulate him on securing it—because we are likely to see elections in Zimbabwe in the next six months. The rumours are getting stronger that the Commonwealth Secretary-General wants Zimbabwe back in before such elections. I am not sure legally that that could be done, but it seems to be the rumour and it comes from fairly senior people within other African countries. I hope that it is no more than a rumour, because the country has made no progress on human rights since it was suspended in 2003, with Mugabe then taking it right out. There has been no change. There has undoubtedly been a worsening of the situation. In the short five minutes I have, I shall not add to all the things that the noble Lord, Lord Oates, said, but there are many examples of what has been happening. Anyone stepping out of line is beaten up and arrested. It is an arbitrary situation, and the rule of law has gone—all the things that we believe are fundamental to a democracy. Today, we should show our solidarity with the people of Zimbabwe and those fighting back for justice; it is very difficult for them in a country such as Zimbabwe to show their opposition.

The coming year will be incredibly difficult in Zimbabwe. We will see a volatile social, political and economic situation. I do not see how anyone could think that getting Zimbabwe back into the Commonwealth before those elections would not be used by ZANU-PF simply to ensure that its election is carried through with the support of the international community and the Commonwealth. It would be a huge thing. It would give all that publicity to ZANU-PF and absolutely no help to the people of Zimbabwe.

We have had lots of new information recently about the lithium that has been discovered and has now been handed over to Chinese companies to look after. Some 3,000 commercial farms that were taken over and given to Zimbabweans have now been taken back to make a platinum mine. One looks at the land reforms and asks what on earth they actually achieved.

All this up-to-date information on the situation shows that the Zimbabwean Government, the police and armed forces are combining to plunder Zimbabwe’s resources with disregard for the rule of law and human rights, and it shows how the corrupt ZANU-PF elite is able ruthlessly to control every aspect of life in the country, including freedom of speech, movement and assembly, all of which are prerequisites to a free and fair election. Freedom from fear of retribution is also vital. Restoring that and rebuilding trust in the confidentiality of electoral processes take time, especially in rural areas, where even the distribution of food for subsistence has cunningly and methodically been placed in the hands of ZANU-PF loyalists and stooges.

I know that the United Kingdom cannot stop this happening if the majority of the Commonwealth countries decide that it should happen, but I hope that our Government will do all they can in diplomatic terms to ensure that other countries give support. I have heard from one or two noble Lords about the visit in November by the Commonwealth Secretariat. We saw a short press release about it. I wrote to the Commonwealth Secretariat and asked whether it could give me some more information. I asked whether there was a more detailed statement, as what I saw did not give a very detailed analysis of the real situation. I got a response which gave the impression that I would not understand how the situation worked. It said:

“The process of re-admission entails several rigorous steps and a Commonwealth member state that has withdrawn or been expelled … wishing to reapply … is expected to demonstrate that it upholds the principles and values of the Commonwealth.”


It said that a detailed report would later be submitted to the Commonwealth Secretary-General for review. I have written and asked whether we will see that report, because it is quite important that the Commonwealth itself gets serious about transparency and openness. We have seen nothing about who they saw when they were in Zimbabwe.

The report is made only to the Secretary-General and there is no opportunity for a wider assessment of the findings or to judge whether in any way it reflects the reality on the ground, or even addresses the concerns of those who have them for the rights and well-being of the people of Zimbabwe. It is not even possible to judge whether a suitably broad and representative range of people and institutions have been consulted. Who did they actually see? Let us see who it was. When the Commonwealth observer group is deployed, that is all open and can be seen.

Finally, we cannot go through all the Harare principles, but principle number 1 of the Harare Declaration is that the rule of international law be upheld. It is great to see Ben Freeth here in the Room, because the SADC tribunal proved that that was not being complied with. None of the things that the SADC tribunal said has been carried out. I say to the Minister: I know it is a difficult situation and that it might be embarrassing to be seen as out on a limb again, but we are not doing anything for the people of Zimbabwe if we support in any way Zimbabwe being allowed back in.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 7th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I take the point that he made about Clause 22(6). As a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly for many years, I know how much Members of the Assembly value their right to make laws in the areas that are devolved to it. However, I must say gently to your Lordships that, in recent times, there have been a number of examples of this House and the other place interfering in the devolved settlement in Northern Ireland. Although some of us have pointed that out, it has been with your Lordships’ positive assent and approval that the overriding of the devolved settlement in Northern Ireland has taken place in a number of areas. I would like to see a consistent approach to the devolved settlement in Northern Ireland, not this pick-and-choose approach where something being okay appears to depend on the issue of the day but, if you do not like what the Assembly has done, you can interfere—as seems to have happened on a number of recent occasions in this Parliament.

I want to highlight Clause 22(3). On the face of it, it appears—I am open to correction by those who are much more learned and have more legal expertise in these matters than me—to put some kind of restriction on the wide Henry VIII powers that are given under this particular clause. The one thing that it is apparently not possible for regulations under the Bill to do is

“create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland which feature at the border … physical infrastructure (including border posts), or … checks and controls, which did not exist before exit day.”

Having listened to the debate, I think that may well be able to be swept aside at any point. However, why is emphasis put on the one thing that is mentioned? I look to the Government Front Bench as to why it is mentioned, given that it really has no effect. Of course, we do not want any extra infrastructure at the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic and it has never been the desire or wish of anyone in the Northern Ireland political parties, or the Irish Government, the British Government or the EU, to have such infrastructure. But it would be quite helpful and an acknowledgement of unionist concerns if there were a similar provision which acknowledged—under strand 2, the north-south approach in the Belfast agreement and the importance of that relationship, but also strand 3, the east-west dimension—that regulations may not create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I am following the noble Lord closely on this point. Does he realise that today Maroš Šefčovič talked about the need for fewer border checks and, in fact, that they could be invisible on the Irish Sea border. Does the noble Lord agree that if they can be invisible on the Irish Sea border, they can be invisible at the frontier, where of course checks should happen between one country and another independent country?

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

Of course. It appears that things may have moved on, because once all these ideas were dismissed as completely fanciful. Indeed, “unicorns” were brought into play and all sorts of dismissive language was used. I am glad that now there is at least an acknowledgement that some of these checks can be done in the way that the noble Baroness has described Maroš Šefčovič as talking about.

The important point here is that we have been told throughout the Brexit process that there cannot be a single check or single piece of infrastructure on the Irish border because otherwise that will lead to violence—it will be attacked and that will undermine the Belfast agreement—without anyone, hardly, making the obvious point that, if that is unacceptable north-south, then it is doubly unacceptable between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. What does that say to the unionist population?

One of the reasons we have the alienation of people in Northern Ireland is the one-sided approach and interpretation of the Belfast agreement. I would just like an explanation. Whatever its actual import or ability to be enforced, or the fact that it can be superseded by a ministerial direction, why do the Government highlight that issue and not the fact that the reason why we have such a problem in Northern Ireland with the political institutions is that we have this similar kind of infrastructure and checks between one part of the United Kingdom and the other?

On the point that has been raised very powerfully by noble Lords on the legal issue, I fully understand why they take the position they do and, as has been said, it has been raised in relation to other Bills and Acts. I would love to see the same outrage and anger expressed more widely; it may well have been during the passage of the then Bill, before my time in your Lordships’ House.

You can imagine therefore that if there is such outrage about powers being given by Parliament to the Executive and UK Ministers, how citizens of Northern Ireland—British citizens, fully part of the United Kingdom—feel about powers being not just taken from Parliament and given to Ministers but given to foreign officials of the European Commission to propose law. They are totally unaccountable to anyone in the United Kingdom. They do not have to answer to anyone or answer any questions. There is no parliamentary process whatever within the United Kingdom that can even challenge the directives and regulations that cover 300 areas of law affecting the economy of Northern Ireland. Therefore, while accepting entirely the points made about delegated legislation and Henry VIII powers, I would like to see reflected some of the same concerns about how we in Northern Ireland feel about the way that laws are now made by a foreign polity in its own interest. It is not in our interest; it is made in its own interest.

The Bill is part of an effort to try to remedy that problem. People have said we will have negotiations. But given that we have already had communicated to us that the EU is not open at this stage to changing the mandate of its main negotiator, certainly, how else are we going to get to a situation where that outrageous situation in Northern Ireland is remedied?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hoey]

45: Clause 22, page 11, line 16, at end insert “, but may not amend, repeal, or create an incompatibility with, the Act of Union (Ireland) 1800 or the Union with Ireland Act 1800.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment prevents a Minister of the Crown making provision by regulation which has the effect of repealing, subordinating or otherwise interfering with the United Kingdom’s foundational constitutional statutory framework.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in moving this amendment I will also, in some detail—I apologise, but I have not spoken very much in Committee—make a constitutional plea to the Government on behalf of British citizens in Northern Ireland.

This amendment is very simple. It seeks to remedy an important gap at the heart of the Bill. I believe the Bill is good. It creates the framework for a fair and balanced solution and, if the powers it confers are used appropriately, will restore Northern Ireland’s place within the union. Clause 1(c) is clear that one of the Bill’s primary purposes is to remedy the present subjugation of the Union with Ireland Act 1800 and the Act of Union (Ireland) 1800, which together are known as the Acts of Union.

The Prime Minister before the previous Prime Minister, speaking in the House of Commons, claimed that the withdrawal Act was not intended to affect the Acts of Union, yet a few months later senior counsel, on behalf of the then Government, went to court in our protocol case in Belfast and argued exactly the opposite. As the late Lord Trimble simply put it:

“The Act of Union is the union.”


That is undeniably true. In Halsbury’s Laws, the Acts of Union are described as

“the statutory warrant for the continued incorporation of Northern Ireland with the United Kingdom”.

The High Court and Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland have been clear—we should not really need a court to tell us this—that the Acts of Union remain in force and together have the status of constitutional statutes.

There has been some commentary suggesting that the Acts of Union were somehow repealed or overridden by the Government of Ireland Act 1920 or later statutory provisions, but that is simply not so. The 1920 Act simply made provision for separate devolved arrangements in two parts of Ireland, each of which remained fully part of the United Kingdom and subject to the United Kingdom Parliament. There was and is nothing in the Acts of Union to prevent the creation of subordinate legislatures, provided that the King in Parliament remains sovereign.

Section 1(2) of the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act 1922 provided that the southern parliament be dissolved, and the Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act 1922 provided that the 1920 Act no longer had effect beyond Northern Ireland. This has the effect of a non-textual amendment to Section 75 of the 1920 Act, maintaining the untrammelled authority of Parliament over Northern Ireland. In consequence, southern Ireland no longer remained within the UK but Northern Ireland did, and therefore remained firmly under the constitutional protections of the Acts of Union. These legislative events in 1922 at most altered the territorial extent of the Acts of Union but did not alter the fundamental constitutional foundation of the union itself.

Here is the simple question I pose to noble Lords. Article 3 of the Acts of Union creates our Parliament, and Article 6 prescribes the economic constitutional framework—essentially, the UK internal market. Could a majority in Parliament constitutionally abolish Parliament, and thus our democratic constitutional system itself, and in its place usher in new authoritarian arrangements? If noble Lords think not, because Parliament is a constitutional fundamental, then that constitutional fundamental is derived from Article 3 of the Acts of Union. If Article 3 of the Acts of Union is a constitutional fundamental, as a matter of simple logic there is no reason to give some lesser status to Article 6. Why should one receive greater constitutional deference or protection than the other?

In our largely unwritten constitution, something may be unconstitutional—that is, offensive to or subversive of our constitutional order—without being necessarily unlawful. Our constitution, however, is entrusted primarily to us and our colleagues in another place. We are here as guardians of the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom as much as we must be guardians of the rule of law. But if a law, even one made by Parliament, is unconstitutional, it is our duty to stand against that in discharge of our functions in this House. In my view and that of many others, Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which brings the protocol into domestic law, is unconstitutional, given that its effect is the subjugation of the Acts of Union and thus the fundamental constitutional basis of the union itself.

While this Bill may well conflict with international obligations under the protocol—although I think that Article 16 of the protocol itself makes any such claim doubtful—any such obligations must yield for two reasons. The first is the doctrine of necessity, which has been set out by the Government and dealt with expertly by many Members of this House, including the noble Lord, Lord Bew. I need not repeat those contributions but, in so far as I have heard them relate to international law, I support them.

The second, which I think needs to be gone into a little more fully, is that the protocol subjugates the fundamental constitutional foundation of the United Kingdom. The Government have an overriding constitutional obligation to remedy that and, if that requires acting against a previous treaty, so be it. The Bill as it stands would remedy the present breach of the Acts of Union if Clause 4 were brought into force via commencement order. However, there still seems to be a hole. Although the Bill, in line with its intent in Clause 1, would remedy the present breach of the Acts of Union by removing the most offensive elements of Article 5 of the protocol from having effect in domestic law, it does not prevent a Minister of a Crown using the Henry VIII powers that we have heard so much about to replace the current arrangements with new arrangements that would again breach the Acts of Union. The superficially attractive answer to that point is to say that Parliament could legislate again to subjugate the Acts of Union if it so wished. As a matter of parliamentary sovereignty, it could—notwithstanding the validity of my point around how it is constitutionally improper.

The distinction here is that Parliament, with all the checks and balances, could do it or try to do it. As it stands, Clause 22 permits—or, to put it another way, does not prevent—a Minister of the Crown by regulation to alter the foundational constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom. If it were to stand, it would mean that a Minister of the Crown, in exercising powers as specified in Clause 22, could again subjugate the Acts of Union and thus act in a manner contrary to what is, superficially at least, a fundamental aim of the Bill, which is to restore the Acts of Union.

It is notable that Clause 22 prevents a Minister of the Crown doing anything by regulation that would create a north/south border. This inherent imbalance, which my amendment seeks to remedy, once again eliminates the entirely one-sided nature of the so-called “peace process” in Northern Ireland. A Minister of the Crown, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, earlier, is prohibited in exercise of these powers from doing anything to facilitate or create a land border where it should be, but there is no such constraint on creating a border in our own country and subjugating the Acts of Union. That simply is an absurdity. I know that the Minister could not really give a reason why this had not gone in but I trust—being very naive, perhaps—that it was simply an oversight on the part of the drafters.

There is no reason why the Government could not adopt this amendment. In answer to a question posed in the House of Commons by Sir Jeffrey Donaldson MP, the then Secretary of State—the previous Secretary of State, not the current Secretary of State; it gets a bit confusing—gave an assurance that the exercise of powers under the Bill would have to be in a manner compatible with the Acts of Union. He made that assurance in the House. If that assurance, given to Parliament, is to be worth while, why would the Government not give effect to it by way of a straightforward clause in this Bill?

I therefore ask again for clarity from the Government. I know the Minister may well need to go back and discuss whether they will perhaps be able to adopt this amendment, so I do not expect an answer right now, but I do pose a question—and, if possible, I would like a response in the wind-up—about the commitment made by Brandon Lewis MP. Is the Minister willing to reaffirm to this House that any new arrangements to be made by regulation will have to be compatible with the Acts of Union?

This is fundamental. If the Government cannot do so, they will be saying to pro-union people, who the Conservative Government continue to urge to trust them, that the promises made to them about the restoration of the Acts of Union are in fact hollow and that once again they may well be being tricked. There seems to be little point in remedying the Acts of Union breach via the commencement of the relevant provision in this Bill and then replacing that which has been removed with another breach of the Acts of Union. It brings us back to the same place, because no self-respecting unionist will support arrangements which occasion a breach of the Acts of Union.

The fundamental issue for unionists—the clue is in the name—is that the Acts of Union must be restored, and the Acts of Union require equal footing in matters of trade. Let us be clear: the restoration means an end of EU law applying in Northern Ireland. If it continues to apply in Northern Ireland but not in the rest of the United Kingdom then the Acts of Union are breached. A breach of the Acts of Union is also a breach of the principle of consent because it fundamentally alters the constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the union.

That brings me to another pertinent point. Last week, after a lot of procrastination, the Northern Ireland Office ruled out lawmaking powers over Northern Ireland for Dublin. It did so correctly, on the basis that this would breach the principle of consent. Can the Government therefore explain how they reconcile the plainly correct position that lawmaking powers being handed to Dublin would breach the principle of consent with their continued entirely illogical claim that handing lawmaking and judicial powers to Brussels does not? What, tell me, is the difference between Brussels exercising lawmaking powers over Northern Ireland and Dublin doing the same? In truth, I do not think that there is any coherent answer to that.

This amendment would offer protection to the fundamental constitutional basis of the United Kingdom. We do not want any more trickery, clever footwork or compromising that ends up with Northern Ireland’s constitutional position not absolutely restored—not just in the present but protected in the future—to being an integral part of the United Kingdom. Amending Clause 22 would provide some measure of constitutional safeguard, which I am afraid is necessary. A little under two months ago, the Government again went before the court in Northern Ireland and argued that the territorial extent of the United Kingdom should be interpreted as meaning only Great Britain, with Northern Ireland instead treated as part of the EU’s territory. That was the Government’s case. Noble Lords can see why so many pro-union citizens in Northern Ireland have voted in huge numbers to give the DUP the mandate to take nothing on trust. I am really sad to say that this Government are increasingly losing the trust of those who cherish the union.

Over the years, unionists and loyalists in Northern Ireland have been betrayed by Conservative and Labour Governments, again and again. They had courage in times of war, fighting for the UK, and through 40 years of terrible terrorism, and their loyalty has been rewarded by being treated like second-class citizens, with constant appeasement to the Irish Government and those who are dedicated to destroying the union and the very birthright of unionists to live as equal citizens under the protection of His Majesty’s Government. They were betrayed during the home rule crisis, betrayed after the First World War and betrayed in 1985, and, sadly, many in Northern Ireland now feel that, even in the 1998 agreement, the unionist community was deceived. That is partly why many of us are determined to get rid of those injustices and ensure that what was promised by the sovereign Government of this country to its British citizens in Northern Ireland is upheld.

Of course, the final betrayal was the Northern Ireland protocol. It was said that no British Prime Minister could allow a border in the Irish Sea—and yet we saw what happened. When such a border was put there, subjugating Northern Ireland and its citizens, it was an historic wrong. There is no justifying or explaining it. It plunged a knife into the back of British citizens in Northern Ireland, the part of the United Kingdom which I call my home. The historical record will show those who stood up for our country, the United Kingdom, and those who stood with the EU and a foreign Irish Government.

--- Later in debate ---

In response to the noble Baroness’s final point about taking these issues seriously, I assure her that we are. That is why we brought forward this legislation in the first place to enable us to fix the elements of the protocol that are not working, to facilitate a return to functioning devolved government in Northern Ireland and to protect the Belfast agreement in all its forms. On that basis, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, and particularly for his reassertion of the United Kingdom Government’s commitment to the union and to Northern Ireland’s integral place within the union. I do not accept his reason for not accepting this amendment. I will look at what he said and I hope he will reflect between now and Report.

I thank noble Lords who spoke. The noble Lords, Lord Bew and Lord Dodds, both gave a very serious warning about the situation in Northern Ireland. The comment of the noble Lord, Lord Bew, that this is no small matter is something we should all reflect on. I am actually very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, did not speak. I will take that as a sign, and hope that the Lib Dems will support this when it comes to Report. But I do not assume the same about the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who also did not speak on this amendment.

Seriously, this is an important issue and it is not going to go away. I hope that, at this stage, we have given everyone a bit of thinking to do before Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 45 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, brought about some cross-community consensus earlier when she said that she was glad that I had not spoken. As I am trying to ingratiate myself with all colleagues, it may assist if I speak to the last two groups together, if that is acceptable to the Minister and the Committee, just for efficiency’s sake.

I found it curious earlier when the Minister said that he rejected an earlier amendment because it might give the impression that agreement was in reach and talks would go on. That does seem to be the Government’s approach and, at some stage, we will need much greater clarity about not only the status of the talks—or negotiations, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, indicated —but what they are about. We know what the mandate of the EU is, but we still do not know what the position of the UK is. The purpose of Amendment 72 is to indicate that, before any regulations come into force, we would need to know exactly what is likely to be agreed.

Amendment 73, the final amendment in Committee, relates to the points that were very well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, regarding the fact that there will be a stage when we need to see the regulations, and I need not rehearse that argument again. We cannot do our job without seeing drafts or indications before Report, and it really should be impossible to commence the legislation unless we have seen the regulations. That is the purpose behind Amendment 73, but I beg to move Amendment 72.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I want to make it very clear to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that I love listening to him speak and I have no aspersions against him whatever. I was just pleased that perhaps he felt that my amendment was worth considering enough to not contribute.

On this, I know it is extremely difficult for the Minister to do so, but could he give us some idea of how long he visualises—he is smiling, so I think he knows what I am going to ask—the negotiations going on before someone actually says that this is not going to work? One of the reasons I am very keen to get this Bill through as quickly as possible is so that we have it there as a safeguard. It would be helpful to know if there are any discussions going on behind the scenes on timing and just how long we can keep negotiating if we are not getting anywhere.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, because I think I heard him say earlier that he returned from Buenos Aires this morning and then went straight into this debate on the Northern Ireland protocol. It is very appropriate that he is the proposer of the last two amendments. I commend him on his stamina. I agree with the idea that regulations should be published as quickly as possible.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I keep hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, will say something with which I can disagree—but he keeps on letting me down. I strongly support Amendment 20, of course, for the obvious reasons that I need not repeat. I also support Amendment 21B, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and strongly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Deben.

I ought to declare an ex-interest. I used to be a director of a power company and, if I remember right, Northern Ireland is a net importer of electricity but a large net exporter to the Republic. The trade with the Republic is less than the trade that comes in from Scotland on the interconnector. It follows that, if the Bill goes through in the form it is in now, unamended by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, the collapse of the common electricity market will do very grave damage to the Republic as well as to Northern Ireland. For Northern Ireland, it is important for security of supply and to keep costs down; in the Republic, it is much more important because the Republic is a net importer; it is very short of generating capacity.

So I say to the Minister that I really hope he will buy Amendment 21B from the noble Lord, Lord Hain —I cannot see any reason why he should not. If he does not buy it, would the Government please produce before Report a clear statement of the discussions they will by then have had, if they have not already had them, with the Government in Dublin about how the crisis that this would create for the Government in Dublin is to be avoided or mitigated.

I will also add a word on the very important point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. He made it very gently. There is no doubt that the European Union means what it says when it says that, if we put this Bill in its present form on our statute book, the TCA bets are off. We are heading for a trade war if we do this. I hope the DUP will bear that point in mind because, although the trade war would be acutely damaging to the whole United Kingdom, it would do particular damage to the economy of Northern Ireland.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I understand what the noble Lord is saying—that the European Union would likely invoke some kind of trade war—but does he understand that, for many people in Northern Ireland, this Bill is the only thing that is giving them some hope that there will be real change? A trade war is very worrying, but there are also very worrying signs in Northern Ireland of deep unrest, concern and instability. That is why the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that we should get rid of this Bill would be deeply damaging to relations in Northern Ireland.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

With great respect to the noble Baroness, that is not what the public opinion polls are telling us. At present, they seem to be telling us that what a majority of people in Northern Ireland, and a great majority of younger people in Northern Ireland, are looking for is certainty, and they are reasonably content with the protocol.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

The opinion polls told us that remain was going to win the referendum—they were very wrong.