Ballymurphy Inquest Findings

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

Thursday 13th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Secretary of State says that the British Army made terrible errors in Northern Ireland. Joan Connolly was a mother of eight. She was shot four times by the British Army and was left lying on the ground for hours to die. That is not an error; that is sheer bloody murder. Will the Secretary of State ask the Prime Minister to come out of hiding, come with me to meet the Ballymurphy families and tell them to their faces why he wants to protect their killers?

[Brandon Lewis]

As I have outlined already today, the Prime Minister is contacting the families directly. There is his public apology on behalf of the state and he has had conversations with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, in which I joined him yesterday. Obviously, Members and colleagues will be aware that the report was published on Tuesday, which was the first full sight we had of it. We received it on Tuesday, and we put out a statement on the same day. Having had an opportunity for us to reflect on that report, I am now making a statement to the House of Commons. But, obviously, we will be considering it in more detail in the period ahead in order to ensure that we are able to reflect properly on it. As I said in my statement, it is right that we take accountability for the actions that were unacceptable, as the coroner’s court highlighted, but also that we are taking the time and opportunity to make sure we learn from the experiences of the past and also, coming back to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) a few moments ago, take account of what we have learned since 2014 about how we can move forward in a more efficient and effective manner that delivers for families and victims so that we get to the truth.

Northern Ireland

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

Tuesday 13th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman has a long-held and strong passion for Northern Ireland and has always worked in a collegiate way to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland are well supported. He is absolutely right about bringing people together, which is what we have been doing. As I have outlined, it is important that we encourage our friends and partners around the world, including the EU, to do that. The Prime Minister has been integrally involved in Northern Ireland and was actually there just a couple of weeks ago.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, but I have to say that I am disappointed by the lack of any acceptance of culpability from his Government in respect of how they have dealt with the Brexit issue from the start and how they have not been honest with the Unionist population in Northern Ireland. Church leaders have asked us to come together to deal with this crisis in our peace process. Despite what the Secretary of State has said, policing may be devolved but peace is not devolved. We all have a responsibility to deal with this situation. Why will the Secretary of State and his Government not convene the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference?

[Brandon Lewis]

On the hon. Gentleman’s last comment, he might want to have a look through Hansard later and reread my remarks, because that is not what I said. It is actually quite the opposite—I have spoken to the Irish Government—so I suggest he has a look at what I actually said.

It is very misleading to try, as I said earlier, to legitimise or even to simplify—I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is not legitimising it, to be fair—what we have seen over the past few weeks and the tensions around Brexit. As many of us know—I know the hon. Gentleman knows this because it was outlined to him and me by the Chief Constable at the end of last week—there is a multifaceted set of issues, not least some of the brilliant work that the PSNI has done to crack down on crime. Some of that has been rehearsed today.

I have faith in the Northern Ireland Executive and Ministers, one of whom is a member of the hon. Gentleman’s party, to do their work to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. The Executive came together just a few weeks before covid came upon us all last year. The way in which they have worked through the last year—staying together and working together for the people of Northern Ireland—has been a phenomenal achievement and huge credit goes to all those involved. I have faith in them to do the work that is devolved to them. I will continue to support them in that and to support the PSNI to do the job that it is focused on doing: keeping everybody in Northern Ireland safe.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

Wednesday 10th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point, and I am determined, as the Prime Minister is, to ensure that the great British banger—the great Norfolk sausage—will continue to be enjoyed by those who wish to do so across the counties of Northern Ireland in perpetuity. However, it is important—this is why the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) was absolutely right—that we use these grace periods to get long-term solutions.

My hon. Friend is also absolutely right that our commitment to the Good Friday/Belfast agreement is steadfast. That is why all the actions we have taken, both last year and recently, have been about ensuring that we do not have borders, and that we respect the north-south and east-west dimensions. There is another important point here, which I hope has come through in the conversations we have been able to organise with Vice-President Šefčovič recently: it is important to understand the effect on the sense of identity that people in the Unionist community in Northern Ireland have. After the actions of that Friday a few weeks ago, it is important to repair that.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

It really is a new experience to be lectured by the European Research Group about the Good Friday agreement. Last week, the Secretary of State rushed out—sneaked out—an announcement unilaterally on Budget day that his Government would once again break international law. Given that Governments across Europe and politicians on Capitol Hill and in the White House are furious about this move, is the Secretary of State at all concerned that this Government’s reputation is in tatters across the world?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am afraid that I have to contradict the hon. Gentleman on pretty much every point he has just made. First of all, I do not think it is sneaking out of the House to stand here and make these points at oral questions, as we did last week. I outlined at oral questions the measures that we were taking, and obviously colleagues asked questions on them. We published the written ministerial statement, as well as, obviously, publishing guidance and other matters more publicly after that. So I do not think that really qualifies for that.

In terms of lawfulness, these are lawful actions, as I outlined last week and I have outlined already this afternoon in answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley. They are about implementing the protocol and they fit with our obligations under the protocol. We will continue to make sure that we deliver on that in a pragmatic and flexible way to work for the people of Northern Ireland. It is indeed international, but this is a lawful action.

I would just say that, bearing in mind that the Irish Government took similar action themselves just a few weeks ago and that these are temporary, pragmatic operational things to ensure that the protocol can work and to avoid further tensions and problems for people across communities in Northern Ireland, I would hope that people across the EU and our friends in the US will see that this is an important piece of work that we have done to ensure that we can deliver on the protocol, respecting the Good Friday agreement in all its strands—not just north-south but, importantly, east-west as well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

In classic House of Commons terms, I refer the hon. Gentleman to an answer I gave a few moments ago: he will see our position in a written ministerial statement later today that deals with that very issue.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

As the Secretary of State knows, we did not want Brexit, but we do have the protocol and the protocol is here to stay, despite what anybody else might say. It does give us a competitive advantage. Will he work with me to make the most of that competitive advantage by getting rid of the maximum student numbers cap and the historical under-provision of university places for Northern Ireland?

Oral Answers to Questions

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

If only the hon. Lady was talking to Northern Ireland businesses directly, as my team and I do regularly, most weeks. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), also engages with businesses in Northern Ireland, as we have been doing consistently throughout this process—including Stephen Kelly, who I do know. It is the information from businesses that fed into the Command Paper that we issued earlier in the year, as well as the guidance that we issued and the work that we are doing to ensure not just that we have unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to mainland Great Britain—I hope that she and other colleagues will support us in ensuring that it is in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill to deliver unfettered access, which she claims in her question to support—but also that we get a good free flow of access to ensure that the whole UK internal market can work together, including Great Britain to Northern Ireland.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP) [V]]

Given the fact that the Secretary of State has already admitted that the clauses removed by the Lords from the UK Internal Market Bill will break international law, and that the Irish Government, the new US President-elect and the people of Northern Ireland believe that those clauses breach the Northern Ireland protocol, will he commit today to not reinstating them in the Bill next week?

[Brandon Lewis]

Actually, what those clauses have been about is ensuring that we have unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to Great Britain. That is something inherent in the protocol. It plays a part in delivering on one of the key sentences in the first few paragraphs in the Northern Ireland protocol that says we will ensure that we do not disrupt the everyday lives of people in their communities. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would support us in ensuring the Northern Ireland businesses can trade in mainland Great Britain as part of the United Kingdom. That is what those clauses are about, as an insurance policy, but obviously our main focus and aim is to secure the right agreement for a wider free trade agreement with the EU, and, indeed, to work with the specialist Joint Committee.

Patrick Finucane: Supreme Court Judgment

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

My right hon. Friend makes a strong point. I know how much time and effort she put into these issues when she was in my role as Secretary of State. She is absolutely right. As I have said, and as she and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) and former Prime Minister David Cameron have said, this case is an example of completely unacceptable behaviour that fell way below not just what we expect today but what we should have expected at any time. There is no escaping that fact, but this should equally not distract us from the fact that so many people so often give so much in the defence of our freedom, our safety and our security across the United Kingdom and have also done so in Northern Ireland, across the armed forces and through our services as well.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP) [V]]

I absolutely do not thank the Secretary of State for that statement. The British state murdered Pat Finucane, and the Secretary of State has failed miserably to do right by his family today. Does he not realise that he is sending out a clear message to all victims? That message is: “If you want the truth about what happened to your loved ones, don’t come looking for it here.”

[Brandon Lewis]

I am afraid that I would say quite the opposite. I am saying clearly that there is a process that we will go through and that we want to ensure that we abide by and meet our article 2 obligations. We will assess this again following the PSNI investigation and the police ombudsman’s work. That is a clear message about following proper due process and letting those investigations work through to see what information we can bring out. Ultimately, the aim of all the work we should be doing on the legacy is to ensure that we secure information for families who have been waiting for it for far too long.

Northern Ireland Protocol: Implementation Proposals

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion that I will happily take away and consider. Progress so far with 7,000 businesses having signed up is good, but of course we want to see more. She is right to say it is important that all businesses in Northern Ireland, particularly the many small businesses that form the backbone of the economy, are aware of this scheme, and we should continue to encourage them to sign up.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

If there is no deal on data sharing with the EU by the end of the transition period, there is a real risk that health services in Ireland will not be able to carry out cross-border contact tracing. Brexit is a total mess of this Government’s making. The pandemic—covid—is a mess and a crisis made worse by this Government’s handling of it. Lives and livelihoods are at real risk because of the ineptitude of this Government. When will people in Northern Ireland have some confidence that contact tracing will be able to continue across the border?

[Mr Walker]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the importance of north-south co-operation, and east-west co-operation, with the Republic of Ireland in dealing with the covid pandemic, and we should continue to support that. The UK Government are clear that we will give data adequacy to the EU, and given that all the legal instruments are in place to meet its requirements, we think there is no reason for there not to be a joint agreement on data adequacy. I hope that will be achieved in the weeks to come.

Pat Finucane

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a public inquiry into the death of Pat Finucane.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell.

I want at the outset to recognise Geraldine Finucane and her family. I also want to recognise John Finucane, who is a Member of this House. That family have been put through the wringer for decades. They make it clear that they do not believe that this murder is any more special or deserving of truth and justice than another, but there is a particular point about Pat Finucane’s murder that goes right to the heart of the British involvement in Northern Ireland. Let us just take a moment to remember, in all the conversation, debate and politics around the issue, what actually happened to Pat Finucane, a human rights solicitor from Belfast.

On 12 February 1989 Pat was with his wife and three children having dinner one Sunday afternoon. Loyalist paramilitaries used a sledgehammer to beat his front door in. They went to the kitchen and they murdered him. They shot him with 14 bullets, in front of his children. Mr Finucane’s now adult son Michael said that the image of the attack is

“seared into my mind. The thing I remember most vividly is the noise; the reports of each bullet reverberating in the kitchen, how my grip on my younger brother and sister tightened with every shot.”

What happened on that night? Here is what we know. Brian Nelson was a force research unit agent linked to the Ulster Defence Association—an agent of an organ of the British Army, which, of course, told John Stevens when he investigated this case and others that it never had any agents in Northern Ireland. We now know irrefutably that that was total and utter balderdash.

We know that two gunmen entered that house and murdered Pat Finucane. We know that one of them, Ken Barrett, was a Royal Ulster Constabulary agent, and that William Stobie, who supplied the gun, was also an RUC agent. So three agents of the British state were involved in the fingering of Pat Finucane, the planning of his murder, the supplying of the gun and the pulling of the trigger.

We also know that David Cameron, the former British Prime Minister, said that there were “shocking levels of…collusion” involved in what happened to Pat Finucane. We know that the offices of Lord Stevens, an eminent former police officer in this country, were firebombed when he investigated the case—I wonder who did that. He also said as recently as last year that the state held back oceans of information on Pat Finucane’s case.

A few weeks before Pat’s murder, Minister Douglas Hogg stated in the House of Commons that a number of lawyers in Northern Ireland were

“unduly sympathetic to the IRA”.

What did they expect to happen after that statement?

We know that in 2001, at the Weston Park negotiations, the two Governments—the Irish and British Governments —and all the political parties in Northern Ireland agreed to set up a number of public inquiries. The British Government prevaricated. In 2004, Judge Cory recommended that there was sufficient evidence in the case of Pat Finucane to allow a public inquiry, because of the “sufficient evidence of collusion” that he found. All the other inquiries that he recommended have happened and have reported, apart from this one; this is the only one outstanding.

Over an 18-month period in 2010-11, the family were in long conversation with the British Government and Downing Street. The conversation was not about whether there should be a public inquiry, but about the nature of that public inquiry. We then had the de Silva review and, more recently, the Supreme Court ruling that the British Government had not delivered their international obligation to have an article 2 compliant investigation.

There is absolute clarity that there were “shocking levels” of collusion, in David Cameron’s words. Let us think for a second about what that means. It means that a previous British Government murdered a human rights lawyer in Belfast in front of his family and that they have denied every single opportunity to give the family what they absolutely deserve, which is the full truth in the matter.

It would take a long time for anybody in this Chamber to convince me of the righteousness of the British Government, the British state or the British Army. But British MPs should ask themselves a simple question: “What would you do?” What would the Minister do if he had a family in his constituency whose father was murdered in front of their eyes for no crime other than being a human rights lawyer?

I believe in a different kind of constitutional settlement for Northern Ireland, but I recognise the reality that the British Government have jurisdiction in Northern Ireland as it stands. The British Government have a responsibility to the citizens of Northern Ireland. They have a responsibility not to murder them. They have a responsibility not to cover up their murder and they have a responsibility to do everything in their power to get to the truth of what happens when something like that is done.

I have very little faith that this British Government will do the right thing in this case. They absolutely should, but this is the same British Government, of course, that put out a statement on 18 March, moving themselves as far away as possible from the Stormont House agreement—another international agreement that they are prepared to break, it seems. They are seemingly prepared to sacrifice victims at the altar of political expediency, to throw some red meat to the Back Benches of the Tory party, and to abandon the opportunity for all of the victims of our terrible conflict to have the full truth of what happened.

In my view, there is no chance whatsoever for my community to move forward in the spirit of reconciliation unless we get to the full truth of what happened during the conflict. I implore the Government, once and for all, to live up to their commitments in Weston Park, to live up to the promises that were made to Pat Finucane’s family and to live up to the needs of the community of Northern Ireland, who need to be able to move forward.

We do not want to live in the past anymore. We want to move forward, but we have to do that on the basis of truth, justice and democracy. It cannot be held back any longer.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Colum Eastwood]

I thank all hon. Members who took part in the debate, and I particularly thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his words and for his attitude. Seamus Mallon once told me that every single death diminishes us all, and I stand by that principle today. I want truth for everybody: no matter where you came from, no matter who murdered you, you and your family deserve truth. I believe that our society deserves truth, and needs truth, because we cannot move forward in a spirit of reconciliation and partnership unless we take away the dark clouds and dark corners where this information is held.

I am also very grateful to the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) for righting a wrong today. A former Member for North Antrim made a scurrilous accusation in this place about Eugene Reavey. Eugene Reavey is one of the most decent, upstanding people I know, and what was said about him was absolutely wrong and totally hurtful. Why anybody would think that piling more pain on to a family—one of many such families—would have some sort of value, I just do not understand.

This is about all of us. Pat Finucane’s family are not trying to tell anybody that their pain is worse than anybody else’s or that their truth is more deserving than anybody else’s, but this case, as I and others have already said, goes right to the heart of the British Government’s involvement in Northern Ireland. The act of the murder, the cover-up of how it occurred and the denial of truth tell us a very clear story about the UK’s intervention in Northern Ireland.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman; I had shadow Front-Bench duties, which meant I could not take part in this debate earlier. I thank him for allowing me to make an intervention. I was a witness to the Macpherson inquiry on Stephen Lawrence. That single murder and that inquiry shone such a light on police practice in the UK that they fundamentally changed it. The hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent winding-up speech. The same light, shone on the case of Pat Finucane, in terms of the police and Northern Ireland security services and their practices, such as the wiping of hard drives, could transform things in the way they were transformed post Stephen Lawrence. That is why I think this is such an important case, and the hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent case for it.

[Colum Eastwood]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; that gets to the core of it. I just do not believe that our society will properly move forward unless we know the truth of what happened. I know the Minister says that legacy issues are complex—well, they are difficult, they are painful, but they are pretty straightforward. What people want is the truth. What is complex about that? We know how hard this is—we live it every single day. Pat Finucane’s family live it, the O’Dowds live it, the Reaveys live it and all the victims of our terrible, terrible conflict are living it still today, and our society is sick because of it.

The Minister has an opportunity to take some of that pain away, to shine some light into dark corners. The Government made this promise—20 years ago, a promise was made to a family and it has not been kept, and this Government have a responsibility to keep that promise. A full, public, independent judicial inquiry is all now that will suffice. The case has been made. The promises have been made. It is time now to deliver.

If we want to deliver on all of the truth and if we want to get right to the heart of it, to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford, there is a process. It is agreed. It is another international agreement. It is called the Stormont House agreement. If we want to sort all these issues out, we must implement that, bring the victims in from the cold and deliver the truth that they require. That is what we need to move forward as a society, and I fundamentally believe that we will not do so unless this issue is dealt with.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a public inquiry into the death of Pat Finucane.

4.25 pm

Sitting adjourned.

Oral Answers to Questions

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

Wednesday 30th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

Yes, as I outlined at the time of the written ministerial statement, we absolutely do follow through and we intend to follow through on the principles of Stormont House. It is hugely important that we are all working with all communities, and particularly the families and the victims who suffered so much through the troubles. I was so pleased that we are finally seeing the victims’ payment scheme going forward. It is a hugely important step for all those people in Northern Ireland.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Some Members of this House want an amnesty for veterans who served in Northern Ireland. In 1976, Majella O’Hare, who was 12 years old, was walking with her friends to church. She was shot twice in the back, and killed, by a British paratrooper. Does the Secretary of State believe that that paratrooper should be immune from prosecution?

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman will know that I am unable to comment on any particular cases, but we all recognise the sensitivities, difficulties and complexity of all the issues that come through the troubles, which people in Northern Ireland have been dealing with for a very long time. We have made a commitment through NDNA, and as I did in the written ministerial statement earlier this year, to find a way to work through this, working with all parties and all communities in Northern Ireland, and we are still determined to deliver on that.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

Monday 21st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

I absolutely hear the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I have made the point about what we have said in the Command Paper and what the Prime Minister has referred to in respect of the Finance Bill.

Amendment 69 seeks to ensure that there would be no new costs for a Northern Ireland business to access or sell in the market. The UK Government have already committed in legislation to delivering unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses, including through the Bill, which will apply the principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination to qualifying Northern Ireland goods, thereby ensuring that they can continue to be sold in the Great Britain market in the same way as now. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.

Amendment 70 seeks to ensure that goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain through Ireland will benefit from unfettered access. I reassure Members that we recognise the importance of trade from Northern Ireland to Great Britain that moves via Dublin to Holyhead. We are currently engaging with businesses and the Northern Ireland Executive on the long-term means for delivering qualifying status for unfettered access. It would be wrong to pre-empt the outcome of that consultation, so the Government cannot accept the amendment.

On amendment 71, the Government have been working and will continue to work closely with the Northern Ireland Executive on the implementation of the protocol, including on unfettered access, but we do not agree that a restriction on the Government’s powers to make regulations effectively would be justified.

We resist amendment 72 on the basis that it is legally unnecessary. The current wording already encompasses distortions of competition between persons supplying goods or services in the course of a business within the UK internal market. Such wording is already sufficient to cover the regulation of subsidies that would have the effect of making Northern Ireland businesses less competitive in the Great Britain market.

Although the Government agree with the spirit of amendment 78, the whole Government are acutely aware of the need to maintain Northern Ireland’s integral place in the UK internal market, which is already referenced many times elsewhere in the Bill, so we do not believe the amendment is necessary.

On amendment 79, I understand Members’ concerns and support mutual recognition and the non-discrimination principle, but the exception to mutual recognition that we have introduced for chemicals is there to allow the relevant authorities to respond to local factors. Authorisations granted by the EU after the end of the transition period will not take local conditions into consideration. I emphasise that the authorisations relate to the use of substances of very high concern. It is important that the Government and devolved Administrations can take local factors into account when they decide how to protect human health or the environment from the significant risks posed by such chemicals. I therefore urge Members to withdraw or vote against the amendment.

On new clause 7 and amendment 45, I want to reassure Members that the Bill includes provisions that are there precisely to protect the essential basis of the peace process, by ensuring that, regardless of whether further agreement is reached in the negotiations, there will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and that Northern Ireland businesses will continue to benefit from unfettered access to the rest of the UK market when the transition period ends.

I can also reassure hon. Members that our commitment to protecting the Belfast/ Good Friday agreement of course includes protecting north-south co-operation in areas specified under that agreement, and the protocol is clear on that. That commitment is already enshrined in UK legislation: in section 10 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and through our continued support for this strand of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement throughout the process of exiting the European Union.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Can the Minister explain how people in Northern Ireland can have any confidence that this Government, who said only the week before last that they would break international law, will not break or undermine the Good Friday agreement, which of course is an international treaty?

[Mr Walker]

As I have said repeatedly, we are absolutely committed to the Good Friday agreement, and I can give the hon. Gentleman an illustration of that in UK law on the very next clause. I can assure him that amendment 48 is simply unnecessary. The protocol guarantees that there will be no hard border on the island of Ireland under any circumstances. We are fully committed to delivering on that and no power in the Bill makes any change to that. We have already included in law our commitment not to

“create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU.”

That is set out in section 10(2)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, which I was pleased to take through the House. For those reasons, the hon. Gentleman’s amendments are unnecessary and I urge him not to press them.

On amendments 43 and 47, I can offer hon. Members an assurance that the recognition and protection of rights are fundamental values of the UK. Our human rights framework offers comprehensive, well-established and effective protections within a clear constitutional and legal system. The Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights, and the Minister who presented the Bill has given a certificate of compatibility, pursuant to section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998, in the usual way. We remain committed to the ECHR, as we have made clear time and again.

Further on amendment 47, the Government do not envisage any circumstances in which the powers set out in clauses 42 and 43 could be used to amend the Northern Ireland Acts of 1998 and 2006. That renders the amendment unnecessary. For this reason, the Government are not willing to accept the amendment. I hope that hon. Members will be reassured by our commitment on this very serious matter and will not press them.

New clause 6 would require the Government to

“use their best endeavours to seek through the Joint Committee…the disapplication of export declarations and other exit procedures”.

I appreciate the thought and sentiment behind the new clause, but I am happy to say that there is no need for it because, as I have already set out, the Government are committed to implementing the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol. We are continuing to work with the EU in the Joint Committee to resolve outstanding issues with the protocol, including export declarations. Although well intentioned, the new clause is unnecessary and I urge hon. Members to reject it.

I will now turn to the other amendments on our safety net clauses pertaining to subsidy control. Now that we have left the EU, we have the opportunity to design our own subsidy control regime in a way that works for the UK economy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy set out the Government’s plans in this regard in a written statement to the House on 9 September. Clauses 43 and 44 seek to mitigate the risks that stem from the European Commission imposing a broad interpretation of article 10. Ministers will still have respect for the rule of law and human rights when making regulations using these provisions, which is why amendment 56 is unnecessary. I remind the Committee that the purpose of the provisions in clause 43 is to strengthen our legal safety net and ensure that it is the Government’s interpretation of article 10 that UK public authorities must follow. That is why we must reject amendment 58.

Amendment 60 would amend clause 44 by limiting the scope of the Secretary of State’s interpretation of article 10 when notifying possible state aid to the European Commission. Given the complex and novel nature of the application of EU state aid law through the Northern Ireland protocol, it is the Secretary of State who is best placed to interpret and then make any possible state aid notification to the European Commission. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to ignore the safety net that the Government have proposed when making such a notification.

I will deal briefly with amendments 31 and 32. I recognise the spirit of the amendments, but I have to say that they are simply not necessary. An assessment of the legal implications of the clauses has already been provided in the Government’s statements of 10 and 17 September. Nor is there any need to make regulations defining “incompatible” or “inconsistent”, because these are self-explanatory terms. There can be no serious doubt what they mean and no further definition is required. The true intention of the amendments may be to seek to provide another point for parliamentary debate. If that is the case, I trust that the hon. Members who have tabled them will support Government amendment 66. On that basis, I urge them not to press the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsten Oswald]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. The short answer is no. Regrettably, I do not believe the Prime Minister, on this or other matters.

The Prime Minister said at that point:

“We have to protect the U.K. from that disaster”:

a disaster—and that is his word, not mine—that was negotiated by him and the same adviser as he has now. The Prime Minister visited Northern Ireland last month and talked of close co-operation between central and devolved Governments, but in the least surprising news of the day, certainly to viewers in Scotland, he did not engage with anyone outside Westminster in the development of his Bill. He excluded all of the devolved Administrations from the process of developing a so-called single market through the United Kingdom—plus ça change. Despite the clear relationship between this Bill and the peace process, as well as not engaging with the Northern Irish Executive, the Prime Minister failed to engage with the Irish Government. Despite the clear importance of doing so, he just breenged on regardless. We know why there was no engagement. It is because this shabby Bill—his shabby Bill—had to be put together out of sight of people that the Prime Minister could not control, people with respect for the rule of law and for accountability.

The SNP amendments would ensure that this Parliament would receive an assessment of the impact of any future action on these matters on the UK Government’s obligations under international law—a proper assessment, not the usual triumph of blustering bombast over good judgment by the Prime Minister. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better from the Conservative party, and our amendments recognise that. How can businesses and communities plan with any confidence when their future depends on the internal battles of a party that shows such scant regard for the rule of law?

[Colum Eastwood]

There has been a lot of talk in recent weeks about consent. The hon. Member rightly says that the devolved Administrations were not spoken to at all about this Bill. With all the talk about consent, it might be useful for the House to know that the Northern Ireland Assembly has just voted in favour of the withdrawal agreement—in favour of sticking to the agreement that the British Government have made with the European Union, and that includes the Northern Ireland protocol. It is the voice of Northern Ireland and it is saying very clearly that this Bill is wrong.

[Kirsten Oswald]

I thank my hon. Friend that intervention. That is a key point for us. How can anyone trust a Government who do not stand behind the agreements they negotiate—a Government who cannot even agree with themselves?

The Prime Minister’s approach has led to several senior legal figures making a sharp exit. Sir Jonathan Jones, the head of the Government’s legal department; Lord Keen, the UK Government’s most senior adviser on Scots law; and David Melding, Shadow Counsel General in the Welsh Senedd, have all walked away. We have heard about Lord Keen’s letter of resignation, but it was particularly telling in respect of the matters that are before us today. He said:

“I have endeavoured to identify a respectable argument for the provisions at clauses 42 to 45 of the bill, but it is now clear that this will not meet your policy intentions.”

That is a damning condemnation from a former chair of the Conservative party in Scotland. No Member representing a Scottish constituency can defend these clauses—or, in fact, this Bill—and expect to be taken seriously when they claim to stand up for Scotland in this place.

We have also heard that the Sir Declan Morgan, the Lord Chief Justice—Northern Ireland’s top judge—warned that when Governments break international law, that

“might undermine…the administration of justice.”

That should concern us all. Even the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), who is a barrister, felt the need to resign as the Prime Minister’s special envoy on freedom of religion. These are telling actions and words that should give the Prime Minister pause for thought and reflection. This Bill is a grubby power grab that we cannot and will not support, and this part, as it stands, hangs like a badge of dishonour around this Prime Minister’s term of office—however long or short that might be.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister’s approach is being propped up by those with somewhat flexible standards. The Attorney General’s take could most charitably be described as mince, and the Lord Chancellor says he will resign only if the Government break the rule of law in a way that is “unacceptable”, which obviously, for a Law Officer, prompts the question: what is an acceptable way to break the law?

What of the effect of the Bill on the UK and Northern Ireland? In October last year, when he was still trying to convince us that he had negotiated a great deal, the Prime Minister said of his withdrawal agreement Bill:

“For those who share my belief in the transformative power of free trade…a new deal, enabled by this Bill, will allow us to sign free trade agreements around the world.”—[Official Report, 22 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 830.]

By using this Bill to trash that deal, the Prime Minister has again exposed the ethical vacuum at the heart of his Government and undermined trust around the world—and all the time he has singularly failed to deliver what is needed by Northern Ireland. As Professor Katy Hayward of Queen’s University Belfast put it,

“the one thing most hoped for from this bill—certainty—has become an even more distant prospect.”