Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 20th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move amendment 38, page 7, line 27, leave out “the Minister considers appropriate” and insert “is necessary”.

This amendment changes the threshold for giving a Minister power to make regulations under this Clause. The threshold is amended to make it objective rather than subjective.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Amendment 39, in clause 14, page 8, line 22, leave out “the Minister considers appropriate” and insert “is necessary”.

This amendment changes the threshold for giving a Minister power to make regulations under this Clause. The threshold is amended to make it objective rather than subjective.

Clause 14 stand part.

Amendment 12, in clause 18, page 10, line 9, leave out subsection (1).

This amendment would remove the Minister’s power to engage in any conduct in relation to any matter dealt with in the Northern Ireland Protocol, not otherwise authorised by this Act, if the Minister considers it appropriate to do so.

Amendment 42, page 10, line 11, leave out

“the Minister of the Crown considers it appropriate”

and insert “it is necessary”.

This amendment changes the threshold for giving a Minister power to make regulations under this Clause. The threshold is amended to make it objective rather than subjective.

Amendment 48, page 10, line 12, after “this Act” insert

“and a motion approving the conduct has been passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly.”

This amendment would subject the exercise of the Minister’s power to engage in conduct in relation to any matter dealt with in the Northern Ireland Protocol that is not otherwise authorised by the Act to a motion approving the conduct in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Amendment 49, page 10, line 15, at end insert—

“(3) Each Minister of the Crown must have due regard for the principle that the Belfast Agreement, including its subsequent implementation agreements and arrangements, should be protected in all its parts.”

This amendment is based on the fourth point in the Preamble to Northern Ireland Protocol.

Clause 18 stand part.

Amendment 46, in clause 20, page 10, line 32, at end insert—

“But this section may not be brought into force unless it has previously been approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”

This amendment would prevent the Bill’s proposed departure from the terms of the Northern Ireland Protocol, or from any related provision of the EU withdrawal agreement, in respect of the previously agreed role of the European Court (CJEU) unless clause 20 had first been approved by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Amendment 13, page 10, line 37, leave out subsection (2)(b).

This amendment would remove the prohibition on a court or tribunal referring any matter to the European Court, where the matter relates to the Northern Ireland Protocol or any related provision of the EU Withdrawal Agreement, or domestic law relating to the Northern Ireland Protocol or any related provision of the EU Withdrawal Agreement, given that subsection (4) would give ministers the power to make regulations regarding references on a question of interpretation of EU law to be made by Courts and Tribunals.

Amendment 43, page 10, line 38, leave out “the Minister considers appropriate” and insert “is necessary”.

This amendment changes the threshold for giving a Minister power to make regulations under this Clause. The threshold is amended to make it objective rather than subjective.

Clause 20 stand part.

[Stephen Doughty]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair today, Dame Eleanor, as we enter the third day of Committee on the Bill. As we do so, it is evident that instead of working to fix the genuine challenges that the protocol poses, the Government continue to push forward with a Bill that disregards the UK’s international legal obligations and threatens to throw Britain’s global reputation into disrepute, and which also—we shall discuss this today—gives them sweeping powers without restriction. Tearing up binding agreements, threatening to break international law and walking away from the table are not the composites of a good negotiating strategy; they are the hallmarks of a zombie Government, out of steam—a Government who have constantly put their own party squabbles and obsessions before the interests of the people of the UK, and indeed the people of Northern Ireland.

Tragically, they also risk dividing the UK and the European Union when we should be standing shoulder to shoulder in opposing Putin’s barbaric war in Ukraine, and in finding ways to make Brexit work in a spirit of trust and co-operation. This is not how a responsible Government should behave, and many Members across the House know that. What we need is cool heads, statesmanlike behaviour and a search for long-term solutions.

On the Opposition Benches, we feel that the Bill is counterproductive, but that solutions are there if the Government are prepared to seek them. That requires compromise, hard work, and flexibility on all sides, including of course the EU, not knee-jerk reactions. I have listened to the very many genuine concerns that have been voiced about the functioning of the protocol. I have the pleasure of being a member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly in addition to my shadow Front Bench role. I have listened to businesses. I have been in Dublin and Belfast. I have listened to people on all sides and have heard genuine concerns, including from those in the Unionist community.

For months, Labour has called on the Government to do the responsible thing—get back around the table to do what we have always done, and what any Government worth its salt would do, which is to negotiate, in the interests of finding workable, practical and technocratic solutions that command the consent and support of all communities in Northern Ireland, and have the means to bring back power sharing in a meaningful and lasting way. In that spirit, we have offered amendments to the Bill today in good faith, to begin to correct the issues that are manifest across this legislation—starting today with the Henry VIII clauses that we have heard about, and which the amendment that we have tabled in this group address.

As the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), set out during Second Reading, 15 of the 26 clauses included in the Bill confer powers directly on UK Ministers. Those include the power to use secondary legislation to amend or modify Acts of Parliament—Acts that have been subject to the full scrutiny of this House. As the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law sets out, the Henry VIII powers given to Ministers in the Bill

“are numerous, extensive and subject to very low hurdles before those powers may be exercised.”

Indeed, Professor Catherine Barnard of Cambridge University has called these powers “eye wateringly broad”. The Hansard Society, deeply respected on both sides of the House, describes them as “breath-taking”. And we should not just take their word for it. The Chair of the Justice Select Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), last week put it perfectly when he said,

“there are Henry VIII powers and Henry VIII powers; and this is Henry VIII, the six wives, Cardinal Wolsey and Thomas Cromwell all thrown in together.”

He went on to describe the Henry VIII powers as

“almost Shakespearean or Wagnerian in their scope and breadth.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2022; Vol. 718, c. 370.]

Awarding Ministers these enormous powers is not a strategy, and the people of Northern Ireland will see it for what it is—a blatant power grab.

The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst identified one of the key problems with these powers when he explained that the test that Ministers must meet before using these powers is “extraordinarily low”. I agree. As the Bill currently stands, in many cases Ministers may use these powers merely if they consider it “appropriate” to do so. That is simply not good enough. Not only is that a woefully low threshold, but it lacks any kind of objectivity. We cannot have a situation where Ministers can make sweeping changes that are not necessarily in the interests of all communities of Northern Ireland, and without proper scrutiny and process; and those of us on the Opposition Benches are extremely concerned about what Ministers may deem appropriate in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

The hon. Lady is shouting from a sedentary position, but I think I have made the position clear. [Interruption.]

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) knows she cannot shout like that while she is sitting down. If she wishes to intervene again she can try to intervene; I will not have this shouting.

[Michael Ellis]

Thank you, Dame Eleanor.

I simply reiterate to the hon. Lady and the whole Committee that our overriding priority is preserving peace and stability in Northern Ireland, and I make no apology for repeating that. The situation as it stands is undermining the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and it is undermining power-sharing, as proven by the very fact that we do not have an operating Northern Ireland Assembly—surely that is proof positive.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 19th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I beg to move amendment 37, page 7, line 10, leave out “the Minister considers appropriate” and insert “is necessary”.

This amendment changes the threshold for giving a Minister power to make regulations under this Clause. The threshold is amended to make it objective rather than subjective.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Clause stand part.

Amendment 41, in clause 17, page 9, line 40, leave out “they consider appropriate” and insert “is necessary”.

This amendment changes the threshold for giving a Minister power to make regulations under this Clause. The threshold is amended to make it objective rather than subjective.

Clause 17 stand part.

[Peter Kyle]

Thank you Dame Eleanor; it is a privilege to serve under your chairship this afternoon.

We are now covering clauses 12 and 17, which deal with subsidies and VAT. These are complex areas of the legislation that speak to a lack of detail in the Bill and about what the Government will actually do in these areas, should the Bill proceed to statute. Clause 12 excludes article 10 and annexes 5 and 6 of the protocol. These are the EU state aid rules relating to goods and wholesale electricity trade between Northern Ireland and the EU. We can immediately see that there is an added complexity to this part of the protocol due to the fact that the electricity industry operates a single wholesale market across the whole island of Ireland. I am not aware that the Government want to try to unpick that—I do not want to give them any ideas—but it illustrates the tangled web that Ministers are creating with this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Dame Eleanor, you will be pleased to know that my comments on this group are brief.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman how impressed I am by that.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I welcome the notion of measures that restore our control over VAT and subsidies in Northern Ireland. It is entirely within the spirit and the text of the protocol, which says that both parties will respect the internal market of the United Kingdom. How can we have a proper functioning internal market if we have to have rates of VAT in Northern Ireland that are different from the rest of our internal market? And how can we claim that our country’s sovereignty is respected by this part of the agreement, as the EU originally said it would be, if we are not sovereign to change VAT in an important part of the United Kingdom? It is right that we legislate on this issue, because we took back control and we wish to restore the sovereignty of this Parliament. How can we say that we have a sovereign Parliament properly restored if our Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot change VAT in part of the UK? It is right and it is legal that we legislate within the terms of the protocol and the agreement, and it is essential that we do so. Those who favour a negotiated solution with the EU should recognise that a huge amount of time and talent has been put into negotiating with the EU in recent years on these matters, and it has been unwilling to be reasonable or to respect the spirit and even the letter of the protocol itself. It is time to legislate.

I say to those who favour a negotiated solution and still have this idea that the EU will, in due course, negotiate properly over one that it is far more likely to negotiate in a more sympathetic and realistic spirit if it knows that we have the firm backstop of clear legislation, which means we will do the right thing by Northern Ireland and the whole UK if the EU cannot be bothered to meet us and understand what it means for the communities in Northern Ireland.

The EU should also take on board the good advice from the Democratic Unionist party and other members of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. The whole fabric of the Good Friday agreement rests upon the consent of both communities. The EU says it fully signs up to that and sees it as of prior importance to the protocol, so the EU has to understand that there is no cross-community consent for the current position. The sooner we legislate to sort that out, the better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

No, I would not agree at all with that, because the tariffs came long before the TCA and arise from the protocol. I heard the hon. Member’s suggestion that people were making a mountain out of molehill in relation to VAT on renewables; with respect to him, I think that was a bit of a stretch. I do not agree with him on that, but the tariffs on raw materials coming from one part of our country to another are unnecessary. They are a breach of article 6 of the Act of Union. That breach is constitutional harm arising from the practical application of a protocol that was, I recognise, agreed by this Parliament, but not without warning from us.

Dame Eleanor, you will recognise that none of these contributions is going into extraordinary detail on the issue. There is a complexity to it, but in the real world of politics, consumers and the businesses that we represent, we need a practical solution. Given how limited the amendments in this group are, it is fair to say not only that is it accepted that there needs to be a practical solution, but that this Bill takes us far along that path.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Sir Geoffrey Robinson.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

Being named after another esteemed Member of this House is, I am sure, a fitting tribute, but thank you, Dame Eleanor, for the opportunity to say a few words in this debate.

[The Chairman]

I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman; I have just realised that I called him by the wrong name—it is 41° C outside.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

Robinson is quite a popular name in the Democratic Unionist party. I am honoured to join my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who has that assignation.

I listened very carefully to the comments that the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) made about VAT, and particularly the difficulties that arose from the Chancellor’s announcement of a VAT relief on certain energy products that are designed to make homes more energy-efficient. He made the point, and I am sure it is accurate, that according to Treasury figures, Northern Ireland would stand to benefit by an amount in the region of £1 million. However, that highlights the failure of the Alliance party to recognise that for us it is not a matter of the sum involved; it is the principle—the fact that Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, as is recognised in the Belfast agreement, in the constitution of the Republic of Ireland and by this Government, cannot benefit from a scheme designed to benefit all our country because the rules of an external body prevent the Treasury from applying that benefit to all the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Peter Bone)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought it might be appropriate to draw the House’s attention to a small adjustment to the business tomorrow. Given the progress of the Committee of the whole House, we will now take Third Reading of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill tomorrow. A supplementary programme motion will be tabled tonight to provide an extra hour of debate tomorrow.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I will take any points of order further to that point of order. I see that there are none. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It is very useful for the House to know of the change that will be made to tomorrow’s Order Paper.

Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Mr Speaker indicated that there would be an informal limit of four minutes, and that clearly is not quite working. I am not speaking with reference to the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), because as leader of his party he is allowed a certain leeway. We now have to have a formal limit of four minutes. I call Mike Wood.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

That is the convictions, but how is the charging, Secretary of State? Again, I am happy to take an intervention. Has the charging gone up or down? Currently, 1.3% of rapes that are brought forward result in a charge. That does not surprise me, when the institution that is currently in government constantly turns a blind eye to sexual misdemeanours.

A lot of people have mentioned antisemitism in this debate, because they are all desperate to make it about something wrong with the Labour party. However, when the Labour party was holding a leadership election, every single candidate was asked, “What will you do to stamp out antisemitism?” and rightly so. It is vital that we were held to account. So what did any one of the candidates do when the Member for—I can’t remember where, but Pincher by name, pincher by—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I have given the hon. Lady quite a lot of leeway. We are discussing matters that are or perhaps will be sub judice, and I think the hon. Lady knows that. Let us guide this in a different direction.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 13th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, as usual. I have to say that I have never heard those requests.

Amendment 10, again tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle, relates to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. They are, of course, important and well-respected institutions. They were established on the basis of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. They undertake important duties and any change to their remit should not happen arbitrarily. The Government engage regularly with the commissions and they have powers to provide advice to the Government on issues arising from article 2 of the protocol. The Government have engaged broadly on the issues created by the protocol with stakeholder groups across business and civic society in Northern Ireland, the rest of the United Kingdom and internationally. In fact, the engagement has been considerable. As the Committee will know, the Bill provides specific powers to establish a new regime in Northern Ireland which addresses the issues with the current operation of the protocol. We are consulting stakeholders on the detail of how the powers are to be used. We will give plenty of notice to those affected in due course. Therefore, amendment 10 would compel the Government to do what, in many cases, they already intend to do.

We are moving quickly with the Bill because the situation in Northern Ireland is pressing. The power in clause 15 that would, among other things, allow Ministers to reduce the amount of the protocol that is excluded is designed to ensure that we can get the final, detailed design of the regime right. Its use is subject to a necessity test against a defined set of permitted purposes. It is designed to provide stakeholders in Northern Ireland with certainty that the Government will deliver the solutions that we have outlined to the problems that the protocol is causing.

It is essential that the power can be used quickly if needed. Although, in normal cases, the Government will of course engage with stakeholder groups in Northern Ireland, there may be occasions when the urgency of a situation means that the Government need to act swiftly. This amendment risks tying the Government’s hands behind their back, and that is why I ask the hon. Member for Foyle not to press it.

Amendment 40 is in the name of the right hon. Member for Tottenham, who I do not think is in his place. This is the first of a number of amendments from him in the same vein, to which the Government have a single view. The amendment would replace the test of “appropriateness” in the use of the Bill’s delegated powers with one of “necessity”. Members should not confuse this with the international law doctrine of necessity, as the right hon. Member is doing.

The question covers well-trodden ground. Members may remember the extended debates on this topic during the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The powers there are similar to those in this Bill, the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 and the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020. I note that the House and their lordships in the other place ultimately accepted that the word “appropriateness” in this context was, in fact, appropriate.

The word “necessary”, which this amendment seeks to import, is a very strict legal test for a court to interpret. Where there are two or more choices available to Ministers as to what provision is appropriate to address the issues that the protocol has created, arguably neither one is strictly necessary, because there is an alternative. Ministers need to be able to exercise their discretion to choose the most appropriate course. That is why the word “appropriate” is the correct word.

There are clearly multiple choices in how to replace the elements of the protocol that no longer apply in our domestic law. The Government must propose that which would be the most appropriate choice. That is why we have chosen that word. I therefore ask the right hon. Member not to press his amendment.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before the Minister comes to his next point, I draw to his attention that a great many people wish to speak in the debate. A lot of people have a right to do so because they are proposing amendments to which I would like to give them time to speak. The Minister has had the floor for 41 minutes. I hope that he might soon be able to draw his remarks to a close, possibly by addressing just the essential parts without the peripheral parts. In that way, there might be enough time, as we have only an hour and a half left of the debate.

[Michael Ellis]

I am in full agreement with you, Dame Eleanor, and I am coming rapidly to a conclusion with my points on new clauses 1, 2 and 3, which relate to the Government’s approach to environmental protection and principles as related to the Bill. They introduce new provisions to the Bill that require Ministers of the Crown to provide statements on the environmental impacts of any powers taken under the Bill prior to being able to exercise those.

I understand the desire of the hon. Member for Foyle to ensure that our high environmental standards are upheld across the United Kingdom. In the UK, we already have some of the highest standards of environmental protection in the world. We have no intention of weakening or lowering those standards. The Government are proudly committed to enshrining better environmental protections in law to demonstrate a firm commitment to the highest environmental standards, as we did in the Environment Act 2021.

The UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive are already held to account by the independent Office for Environmental Protection, which was created under the Act and has a statutory duty to monitor and report annually on progress on improving the environment in accordance with the UK Government’s environmental improvement plans. The OEP also monitors the implementation of, or any proposed changes to, environmental law, and may hold the Government and public authorities to account for serious failures to comply with it. In addition, the Act already creates a duty on Ministers to be guided by five internationally recognised environmental principles when making policy.

In that context, new clauses 1, 2 and 3 are not necessary, as their purpose is served by existing protections, both practical and legislative. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Foyle not to press the new clauses.

May I return very briefly to the consent mechanism, which operates on an international level? We are committed to the 2024 consent vote, which was a principal goal of the Government’s negotiation, as I alluded to a short time ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We had three hours for this debate. The first four speeches have taken more than two hours. We have about 55 minutes left and 10 people wish to speak. I do not have the power to put on a time limit, but you all have the power to act decently, and speak for four or five minutes and no longer. I hold you all to honour. You should take four to five minutes, otherwise you are preventing other people from speaking. I call Sir Geoffrey Cox.

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

I will be quick. I have listened with fascination to the contributions and speeches made this afternoon. If I thought that the Bill would produce a durable and permanent solution, I would support it, but I do not believe it will produce a durable and permanent solution. The fact is that we cannot impose on Northern Ireland, or on any other party to a treaty that we signed, unilaterally a political solution. A political solution has to be reached politically; it cannot be imposed by this House through legislation. The EU—like it or not—and the Irish Government are a party to these negotiations. Unless we are able to achieve assent to the arrangements that we propose, they will not last. It will have to be resolved ultimately by agreement. It is much the same as the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill—another attempt by the Government to impose a political solution on Northern Ireland, without first having reached the solution and then produced the legislation that works out and implements that solution. I do not believe that this legislation will produce a permanent solution.

We come to the question of necessity. I am not prepared to say that there is an impossibility that the basis of necessity could not justify the actions that the Government are taking. I have the gravest of misgivings about it, and the deepest of scepticism about whether or not it affords a proper legal basis as a matter of international law, but we have not seen the evidence. It is possible that the Government and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General have seen some evidence that we have not seen that could crystallise at least the plausible case that this action needs to be taken.

I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), but the fact of the matter is that even necessity is not a legal basis for a permanent solution. The doctrine of necessity in international law requires the measures that have been implemented as a necessity to answer the urgent and imminent peril to be removed as soon as the basis for taking action on the grounds of necessity has gone. Indeed, necessity does not even remove the breach; one is still in breach of the agreement. Necessity simply removes the wrongfulness, which further emphasises the fact that necessity cannot produce a permanent solution as a matter of international law. Only agreement—only the reaching of a political solution—can do so.

Nobody need tell me about the politically tone deaf intransigence of the European Union in negotiation. I recall vividly in my visits to Brussels in the early months of 2019, saying to Michel Barnier, “But do you not see, Michel, that this produces an anomalous situation? If a farmer in Northern Ireland wants to take up the issue of cattle tagging, to whom does he go? When the law is imposed by the European Union, the only place he can go is either to Brussels itself or to Dublin, and how will that feel for one whole section of the community of Northern Ireland?” I must tell the Committee that the European Union representatives reacted as if they had been stung by wasps. We have to understand that those at the European Union believe the protocol to be the very zenith of creative diplomacy. They cherish and prize it, as if it were their own child. But that does not mean that we do not need to engage in the patient effort—maybe it will take months, maybe years—gradually to make them see that this is an unsustainable situation.

What we should not do is reach immediately for a solution, over which there are the gravest doubts as to its efficacy as a matter of international law, over which there are the gravest doubts about the sincerity and good faith of the Government—for I take it that the Government have advanced their case on the basis of necessity sincerely. I assume that they must mean, and genuinely mean, that they genuinely believe that there is a respectable case on the basis of necessity. If they do, why should we not at least be told the evidence—the evidence! We can gist it, we can summarise it if it is security sensitive, but at least let this House acquit itself of the doubt that exists over its legal efficacy as a matter of international law. It is no light thing for this House to take a step—

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle]

New Zealand has been able to negotiate quite diligently and swiftly a veterinary agreement with the European Union. Turkey has been able to agree a customs arrangement with the EU. There has been no law breaking, no storming out of negotiations; representatives sat round the table and got it done. Why does he think that this Government have failed where other Governments have succeeded?

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman answers the question, I must say that his rhetoric is matchless, but his arithmetic is rubbish. He has held the Committee for 10 minutes with his matchless rhetoric, and I beg him to draw to a conclusion.

Dangerous Dogs

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The whole House sends its condolences to the bereaved family. That was a very sad story. Our hearts go out to them.

Question put and agreed to.

Address to Her Majesty: Platinum Jubilee

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I would like to make a brief statement on behalf of the Speaker in relation to the Humble Address celebrating Her Majesty the Queen’s platinum jubilee.

The Speaker says:

“The House will be aware that I am absent as I am travelling to the Falkland Islands for a long-planned visit to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the war there.

I had hoped—and passed on my hope to the Government—that the debate on the Humble Address might have been scheduled for an earlier day so as to avoid the clash, but for reasons I do not fully understand that has not been possible.

Therefore, I hope the House will understand that I want to put on record that no disrespect is intended by my absence; indeed, I look forward to celebrating the jubilee in the Falkland Islands, where, in the words of the chair of the legislative assembly, ‘our distance only serves to strengthen the feelings of gratitude, love and respect that we have for Her Majesty The Queen.’

I would like to give my own short tribute to Her Majesty, the Duke of Lancaster. Most Gracious Sovereign: we, your faithful House of Commons, offer our heartfelt congratulations on the completion of 70 years of your reign. We, too, are pleased to have contributed to the jubilee lamps in New Palace Yard to symbolise the enduring and guiding light you have been to our nation and indeed the whole world.

Not only has Your Majesty been a constant presence in the lives of most of your subjects, but you are also the third-longest serving monarch in world history, and the first in this country to achieve a platinum jubilee—which is an incredible feat.

Your long and distinguished reign has seen extraordinary changes at home and in the wider world. The United Kingdom of 1952 would be unrecognisable today. Back then, the country was making tentative steps towards rebuilding and recovering from the ravages of the second world war, while today we are grateful to our NHS for leading us through the pandemic and look warily upon the war in Ukraine and the shockwaves it has delivered across the globe.

We have moved at lightning speed from rationing through to the jet age, to the space age, to the digital age. The nature of society has changed dramatically too, as today we are richly multicultural and multifaith, celebrating diversity and equality, making this country not only a vibrant and exciting place to live but one that is proud its people can be true to themselves.

Our place in the world has also changed during this time. Seventy years ago, this Parliament was at the heart of an empire; today we are one of 54 independent members of the Commonwealth, of which you are head. We are no longer members of the European Union, and we have chosen to delegate powers to the devolved Parliaments of Scotland and Wales as well as the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The House of Commons today looks rather different from that of 1952, too. We have 13 times as many women Members, from 17 female MPs in 1951 to 225 in 2022, and it is also a younger House.

Without doubt, your lengthy reign and experience, your sage advice and your devotion to the UK, the British overseas territories and the Commonwealth of Nations has been of particular benefit to all 14 Prime Ministers who have served you over the years.

Platinum is the appropriate epithet for this jubilee: it is one of the purest of the precious metals; it is rare, durable and enormously valued. For 70 years, Your Majesty has profoundly demonstrated all these qualities. On behalf of all the Members of the House of Commons, may I thank you wholeheartedly for all that you have done, are doing and will do for the good of our country.”

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

It is indeed a privilege to rise to pay tribute to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on her platinum jubilee, on behalf of myself and my Maidenhead constituents.

Seventy years on the throne is a remarkable achievement. During each and every one of those years, what has shone through has been Her Majesty’s utter dedication to duty, her selflessness and her great love of country. She has served with dignity and grace through not only what have been some very remarkable changing times, but through some difficult years for her family. As has already been referred to, she has seen Prime Ministers come and go. I was No. 13. [Laughter.] But I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when I say that she has greeted us all with charm and consideration, and with an impressive knowledge and understanding of the issues of the day. For all those 70 years, Her Majesty has been a rock for the nation, a point of stability around which the changing tides of history have swirled. Her commitment to service has been remarkable, and it should be an example and an inspiration to us all.

Most people see Her Majesty when she is on her official duties and do not see what goes on behind the scenes. I was pleased when, on the date of her platinum jubilee in February, the palace released photos of her with her private secretary going through her red box, which she does assiduously, but which is a part of her work of which few people are aware.

When the Queen is out and about on her official duties and people meet her, their joy and delight in seeing the Queen is obvious. That goes beyond our shores, as we have seen from her overseas visits, and I saw a little example of that when we hosted the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting here in 2018. The Queen allowed us, very kindly, to meet at Windsor castle. There was a reception before the lunch and I was told that the Queen would turn up to it, but nobody else knew. The minute that she walked into the room, heads turned. There was a palpable sense of delight throughout the entire room and people started to queue up to make sure that they had the opportunity to speak to Her Majesty. We should particularly thank Her Majesty for all that she has done for the Commonwealth and for her great love of the Commonwealth. The strength and growth of that network of nations has been made all the more possible by the fact that she has been at its head.

Aside from official duties, I have also had the opportunity to see Her Majesty in more relaxed times; I speak particularly of the Prime Minister’s weekends at Balmoral. Her Majesty’s great desire for all her guests to be relaxed and enjoy themselves was absolutely clear. She takes great care to put people at ease and to ensure that they are enjoying the benefits of the beautiful Scottish countryside. During the time at Balmoral, I also saw Her Majesty’s great love and understanding of the countryside. She was driving us to a place where we were going to have one of the famous evening barbecues. There was a gate in the track, and in front of the gate stood a very large stag. Her Majesty slammed on the brakes and said, “What is he doing here?” To most drivers, that would have meant, “Why is he in my way?”, but not to Her Majesty. As she explained, she knew that the deer should be on a different part of the hillside. She could not understand why he had come down so low. She knew the countryside; she knew its animals.

The Queen’s love of gardens is clear, and her joy in being able to go to the Chelsea flower show this year could be seen by all. Her love of horses, which has also been referred to, was clear when she was able to attend the last evening of the Royal Windsor horse show. There was a particularly poignant moment when Lady Louise Windsor entered the arena driving the carriage of the late Duke of Edinburgh.

Her Majesty has been a constant presence in our lives. She is respected across the world. She has been steadfast in her selflessness, in her dedication to duty, in her commitment to her country. For 70 years, she has dedicated her life to service of her country and her people, and for that, from the bottom of our hearts, we say simply: Ma’am, thank you, and God save the Queen.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I commend the right hon. Lady on her platinum jubilee purple. If we had thought, it could have been made compulsory. Perhaps on another day.

Debate on the Address

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I now call Anna Firth to make her maiden speech.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

My right hon. Friend says that he will remain in this House. It is right that he does so, particularly at this juncture in Northern Ireland’s constitutional and economic place within the United Kingdom.

There are those who feel they can speak for Unionism, but they are not the people who speak for Unionism. You are the leader of Unionism. Therefore, it is vital that you remain in this House until this Government honour their commitment to restoring Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom. In truth, you are only adhering to the mandate that our electorate gave to us last Thursday.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Just before the right hon. Gentleman responds, I did not want to interrupt what the hon. Lady was saying because it was very powerful, but she really must not call the right hon. Gentleman “you” three times in the Chamber. He is “he”. Perhaps she would just like to give her last line again, saying “he”.

[Carla Lockhart]

It is absolutely vital that he remains in this place to ensure that Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom is constitutionally and economically restored.

Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Thursday 21st April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

Indeed, she nods again.

When I sat here and listened to the Prime Minister’s words, I was deeply moved. For all that I have said that if he broke the law, acquiesced in breaking the law or lied at the Dispatch Box, he must go, I still felt moved to forgive. But I want to be honest to the House, and to my voters, and say that that spirit of earnest willingness to forgive lasted about 90 seconds of the 1922 Committee meeting, which I am sorry to say was its usual orgy of adulation. It was a great festival of bombast, and I am afraid that I cannot bear such things. This level of transgression and this level of demand for forgiveness requires more than an apology in order to draw a line under it and move on in the way that the Prime Minister sought to do overnight with his interviews.

I am sorry to be saying that on the record like this, but I am afraid that the Prime Minister and those who advise him need to understand that this is a permanent stone in his shoe. Those of us who want to forgive him have to see permanent contrition, a permanent change of attitude and permanent acknowledgement of people such as my constituent who did not get to see his wife in a care home on their 50th wedding anniversary. I think he saw her only through a window on her 75th birthday. I have been married for only 25 years, but I know what that would mean to me. What am I to say to that man, who did not see his wife before she died? I could say, “You and I are Christian men, and forgiveness is hard.”

I do not like forgiving the Prime Minister. My spirit is much more full of wrath and vengeance. I feel much more Ezekiel 7:3 about this issue, and I invite everybody to look that up. I do not want to forgive our Prime Minister. The trouble is that I like him and helped him to get where he is—I will come back to that in a moment—and the problem is that I am under a command to forgive.

I will talk about what the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) said. When I and others went out of our way not only to make my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but to do our bit—in my case, systematically—to help get an 80-seat majority, of course we did not think that he would exhibit a meticulous grasp of tedious and boring minute rules. But we did know that he had two jobs: he had to get us out of the European Union, which he was fully committed to doing, and he had to defeat the radical leaders of the Labour party. He had to do so in an environment in which everyone was exhausted, we were testing our constitution to destruction, and the internal stability of the United Kingdom was at stake. That is the job we gave him to do, and by goodness he did it. For that I am thankful, and he will live with my thanks forever. He deserves to be lauded in the history books.

The problem that I now have, having watched what I would say was beautiful, marvellous contrition, is that the Prime Minister’s apology lasted only as long as it took to get out of the headmaster’s study. That is not good enough for me, and it is not good enough for my voters—I am sorry, but it is not. I am afraid that I now have to acknowledge that if the Prime Minister occupied any other office of senior responsibility—if he were a Secretary of State, a Minister of State, a Parliamentary Under-Secretary, a permanent secretary, a director general, a chief executive of a private company or a board director—he would be long gone. The reason that he is not long gone is that it is an extremely grave matter to remove a sitting Prime Minister, and goodness knows I have had something to do with that too. It is an extremely grave matter and an extremely big decision, and it tends to untether history. All of us should approach such things with reverence, awe and an awareness of the difficulty of doing it and the potential consequences.

That is why I have been tempted to forgive, but I have to say that the possibility of that has now gone. I am sorry, but for not obeying the letter and the spirit of the law—we have heard that the Prime Minister knew what the letter was—the Prime Minister should now be long gone. I will certainly vote for the motion but, really, the Prime Minister should just know that the gig is up.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The House will be aware that a great many people wish to speak this afternoon. If we are to continue in the spirit of fairness to one another, I hope that we will manage without a time limit. I am testing the integrity of hon. Members: please stick to around five minutes. That way, everybody will have the chance to participate more or less equally. If it does not work, I will put on a time limit, as usual.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I will.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before the hon. Lady gives way, I did ask for five minutes and she has taken nine. She may wish to consider whether she is giving way or might be concluding soon.

[Caroline Lucas]

Madam Deputy Speaker, on that note, I will not give way. I had not realised it was nine minutes and I will bring my comments to a close. Simply to say again, this matter could not be more important, and that is why it matters so much that the motion is passed later today.

Parole System: Public Protection

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s statement. Last week, two prisoners absconded from Thorn Cross prison in my constituency, bringing the total to five so far in the first three months of this year. Shane Farrington, as the Lord Chancellor has already mentioned, was one of those who absconded. He was sentenced for killing another prisoner and for escaping from custody in 2018. Understandably, people living in Appleton Thorn in my constituency are asking what he was doing in an open prison in Warrington. Can the Lord Chancellor confirm that the changes being announced today will prioritise the safety of people living close to open prisons, and assure me that the Government’s priority is to cut the number of absconds from open prisons, such as the one in Warrington South?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Just before the Lord Chancellor answers that question, may I say that, although I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has been waiting a long time to ask his question, he made a preamble and then asked two questions. That is not what this is about. Each person has the chance to ask one question. We do not need a preamble. The preamble comes from the Minister who is making the statement. We do not need all of that stated over and over again. I am making this point now before we come to the next statement, which I appreciate will be controversial. We will have short questions and as short as possible answers. I appreciate that the Minister has to give a full answer, but we do not need a preamble. It is not a speech; it is a question.

[Dominic Raab]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I heed your advice, as always. We have already cut the number of absconds by a third. Of course the measures that I introduced in December—not the ones that I have announced today—will further allow an extra safeguard, which, I hope, will give my hon. Friend’s constituents some reassurance.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the Lord Chancellor for his thorough answers. We will now move onto the next statement. I will pause to allow people to enter and to leave the Chamber. I also remind hon. Members that, after this item of business, we have six hours of very important consideration of Lords amendments. That will take us well into the evening.

Appointment of Lord Lebedev

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before we commence the debate, I have to say something about orderly language. As the House knows, reflections on the conduct of Members of either House may only be made on a substantive motion; this matter has been dealt with in points of order several times in recent weeks, so those who attend the Chamber regularly will be aware of that. The motion before us today is substantive, so there is greater leeway in what may be said than would otherwise be the case, but that does not mean that no rules apply at all. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) looks disappointed.

The motion refers to concerns raised about the appropriateness of appointing Lord Lebedev to the House of Lords. Therefore, debate may cover those concerns. Members should bear in mind, however, that raising a concern is not the same as making unproven allegations about personal conduct.

In relation to the Prime Minister, his behaviour can be discussed in so far as it relates to the appointment of Lord Lebedev to the House of Lords. Again, Members should be cautious about making unproven allegations, but they can refer to concerns about the process. Even so, it is not in order to criticise the conduct of the Prime Minister in ways that do not relate to the substance of this motion.

Finally, as with all our proceedings, the precise context of what is said will influence the decision of the Chair in deciding what is orderly or not. I do sincerely hope that, as ever—and you have all heard Mr Speaker say this many times—in the words of Erskine May, “moderation and good temper” will characterise the debate we are about to have.

I know the right hon. Lady appreciates that, and I call Angela Rayner to move the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

I am sorry to intervene on my right hon. Friend and I hope speak later in the debate, but I thought she should be aware that since this debate started, Lord Lebedev has been tweeting furiously, implying the inappropriateness of this House to even have this debate. That from a Member of the other place is completely unacceptable and, if I may advise Lord Lebedev, extremely unwise.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

If what the right hon. Gentleman says is correct—I have no reason to doubt him although I have not seen the content of the tweets—let me say that if it was inappropriate for any debate to be occurring in this Chamber, it would not be occurring.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

Well, I will invite the House to draw its own conclusion. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I did say at the beginning that we must have good temper in this debate. Shouting at the Minister or anyone else does not help.

[Shaun Bailey]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In a bit of chuntering from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), she referred to this as the most xenophobic Conservative party. Can I just say to the hon. Lady that I am certainly not a xenophobe and I take real exception to that? I invite her to withdraw those comments. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Let me make this absolutely clear: nobody in this Chamber is calling anybody xenophobic. If anybody has used phrases like that, stop it now. I am not having it repeated. I am taking it that these things have not been said, because it would be better if they have not. Now, let us keep this at the right level. There is no need for superlative insults to go from one side to the other.

[Michael Ellis]

To return to where I started, there are so many issues that affect people’s lives that we could be debating today, for example: my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s income tax cuts, the first in 16 years; the 5p cut in fuel duty; or my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary’s plans to make sure that any child who falls behind in English or maths gets the support they need to get back on track. I find it surprising, at the very least, that the Opposition have chosen this particular motion, one that, at best, would compromise the ability of an independent body, which is respected for its independence, to fulfil its mandate simply to make a short-term political point. At worst, it would be negligent of the long-term consequences to the key role of the House of Lords in scrutinising the Executive and being a revising Chamber, and the valued expertise and specialist knowledge and experience of its Members.