Oral Answers to Questions
David Warburton Excerpts(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My only question is, why is it only National Cheese Toastie Day? Why is it not International Cheese Toastie Day? I hope very much that among its many other achievements, the COP26 summit will bring the entire global community to a better understanding of the Wyke Farms carbon-neutral cheese toastie.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill
David Warburton Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I will to try to keep within the five minutes, to give time to others. I never intervene in debates on the European Union, and I do not intervene in debates on Northern Ireland, but I felt I had to intervene today on a debate that concerns the rule of law, because I consider it fundamental to the health of our democracy.
I have been an MP for many years. I have sat here feeling pride, joy, uncertainty and anger as we have considered and debated new laws, but never have I felt the shame that I feel today, when we are being asked by our Government to support a proposition that entails Britain deliberately and intentionally breaking international law. The plea of mitigation from some Members today and from the Prime Minister that this is merely a safety net and an insurance policy; the false assertion from the Law Officers that the ministerial code, under which Ministers swear on oath to comply with the law, applies only to domestic legislation; and the fabricated claim by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that this proposed law
“protects, enhances and strengthens our Union and the prosperity of all our people”—[Official Report, 14 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 127.]
—all those statements are simply plain wrong, and those who made them know that.
We are being asked tonight to support Great Britain breaking the law. The Vienna convention clearly states:
“A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.”
I put it to the Committee that it is the patriotic duty of each and every one of us to vote down this proposal. Great Britain’s global influence, our ability to hold our head up high and even our naked self-interest will all be wrecked by this disastrous proposal to deliberately flout international law. Our post-Brexit ambition to establish our country as global Britain, so that we can be an influential player in world affairs, would be fatally undermined. How could we challenge a corrupt Government or stand up to an aggressive dictatorship? Who would listen when we support the citizens of Hong Kong, challenge the Russians over the Skripal poisoning or defend the Rohingya people in Myanmar if we ourselves flout international law to suit the Prime Minister’s short-term whim?
Today’s FinCEN leaks show that the UK is at the heart of global money laundering and financial crime. How can Britain lead global efforts to combat that if we are not seen as an honest broker or a country that will uphold international agreements? The farce of doing this when it threatens our relationship with the USA, as we see if we read Joe Biden’s tweet or listen to Nancy Pelosi’s comments, beggars belief. To deliberately put this key friendship at risk and deliberately jeopardise a trade deal with the USA is utterly irresponsible and unpatriotic. I say to those on the Government Benches who were brave enough to voice their opposition last week, “Don’t be bought off by a shabby and dishonest compromise. Don’t stand on the head of a pin and be beguiled into thinking that a vote for the amendment means that we’re not actually legislating to break our international legal obligations.”
Once the power to break the law is on the statute book, it is there—no nuances, no ifs or buts, and no kicking the can down the road. Every MP who votes for these clauses will be voting against the rule of law. We are being sucked in as accomplices to the Government’s reckless bid to undermine the rule of law, and that goes for our Law Officers. They should hold their heads in shame at not resigning and speaking out against this irresponsible move. Yet this move is part of a consistent pattern of behaviour: disdain for the judiciary, contempt for us here in Parliament, animosity towards civil servants and loathing of the BBC.
This Government approach their work as if it were a game in which they attack the pillars of our democracy simply to gain a mendacious, populist headline. Their latest target is the rule of law, but it is Britain’s long-term future that is at stake tonight. There is nothing decent, honourable or patriotic about playing roulette with the rule of law. Breaking it will destroy our reputation, integrity, authority and influence on the world stage. I urge every hon. Member of Parliament to vote against this outrageous proposal.
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to contribute to a debate with such significant implications. I will be brief; I reckon I can be the first person to break precedent and stick within five minutes, because I know an enormous number of colleagues want to speak.
The Bill really is crucial in maintaining the integrity and the smooth operation of the UK’s internal market, and ensuring that they are underpinned by the principle of non-discrimination across the four constituent parts of our Union. I will focus on clause 45 and its constitutional ramifications, because the question that has been engrossing the Committee, and the public, is that of the notwith- standing powers and their potential breach of international law.
Even a potential breach of international law is to be treated with the utmost seriousness, but to suggest, as some have, that the provisions of the Bill place us in some sort of moral equivalence with China or Russia really is risible. Degree and proportion matter. Clause 45, as I hope it will be amended by amendment 66, equips democratically elected Members of this House to decide whether or not to protect the powers outlined in clauses 42 and 43 in the case of need. Should this House decide to, it would mitigate the risk of the UK’s internal market splintering, with all the potential consequences that would flow from that.
There is no equivalence there, and I do not believe that the Bill is symptomatic of some kind of collapse of British support for a rules-based international order. We have heard a lot of this before, but I must say that I do not remember the same level of outrage bursting forth when Germany or France violated treaty obligations on deficit and debt levels, when Canada broke international law to legalise cannabis, or in the Kadi and Barakaat case, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned, when the European Court of Justice ruled that the EU should ignore the UN charter—the highest source of international law—if it conflicted with the EU’s internal constitutional order. The ECJ then said:
“A treaty can never enjoy primacy over provisions…that form part of the constitutional foundations of the union.”
That cuts to the heart of the issue. When treaty obligations threatened to damage the constitutional coherence of the EU, it felt not only free but obligated to disregard them.
That is not to say, of course, that anyone should contemplate the EU using such powers lightly, but if, and only if, a situation arose where the movement of goods between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK was hampered and access to our internal markets was fettered, not only would it be essential but surely we, too, would be obliged to have powers in place to meet such a contingency. Like the EU, the UK has a Union to protect, and it is absolutely right that it equips itself to do so through the clauses we are currently considering. That is why I cannot support Opposition amendments that seek to de-fang clause 45.
I pay tribute to the hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), and I am reassured by Government amendment 66 that the exercise of these powers will require parliamentary approval. As I said, even a limited breach of international law is a serious matter and it is right that colleagues from across the House will have the opportunity to exercise their judgment in that respect. Of course, no one wants to see Ministers forced to come to this House seeking approval to use these powers, not least because that would suggest that the attempts of the EU and the UK to agree a trade deal had stalled or failed altogether.
Finally, it is worth restating that of course a trade deal is in the best interests of the EU and the UK, but if all efforts to secure such a deal fail and the EU then acts on its threat to damage the UK, it is essential that we have the necessary tools to protect our national coherence and the economic framework on which that depends.
Mr Alistair Carmichael
I am sure, Dame Rosie, that over the years, you and I have both sat through many debates where it was obvious eventually that everything had been said but that not yet everybody had said it. I fear that we may be into that territory today, but uniquely, I think we got to that point after the first contribution from a Back Bencher. The contribution from the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) was quite one of the most remarkable and clinical deconstructions of the Government’s argument that it was possible to imagine. She spoke with total conviction and clarity, which together were absolutely irresistible. In fact, I think it is worth recording for the benefit of Hansard that no one on the Treasury Bench did resist her. The Minister and the Secretary of State could have intervened and sought to put her right if they thought they were able to do so, but of course they did not. They sat there and squirmed, and it was a joy for many Opposition Members to watch. It took me back to another similar moment in March 2003, when the late Robin Cook delivered his resignation statement from the Government Back Benches. Again, there was the same conviction and clarity delivered at a moment of existential significance and in relation to a matter that will inevitably bring this country into conflict with the rule of law.
It is worth recalling why we have a protocol to the withdrawal agreement in the first place. It is essentially as a result of the Prime Minister’s determination to remove us from the customs union. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead understood that, and when she sought to negotiate the withdrawal agreement, she came forward with the backstop. It was that backstop that the now Prime Minister resigned over, eventually, and then proceeded to stick pins into the right hon. Lady until she too could stand it no longer. He eventually took her place, at which point he renegotiated the withdrawal agreement with the protocol attached to it. The essence of that renegotiation, of which he has boasted so many times since, was rooted in that backstop.
Tonight was always going to come, because the Government and the Prime Minister have insisted all along that they could do three things when at best they could only ever do two. They told us that they could leave the customs union, that they could avoid the placing of a hard border on the mainland of Ireland, and that they could avoid a border down the Irish sea. Once we come out of the customs union, we can only do one or other; we cannot do them both. And what we have seen tonight is these chickens coming home to roost. Goodness only knows they were warned often enough.