Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Geoffrey Cox Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 13th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I will come to the Good Friday agreement in my remarks, but I simply say to the hon. Member that there is a difference of view as to how we interpret what is required in terms of consent. Lord Trimble, as one of the key negotiators of the Belfast agreement, has stated very clearly that the principle of consent does not just apply to the final question as to whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom. The term “constitutional status” extends to these circumstances, where Northern Ireland’s constitutional relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom has been changed by virtue of the subjugation of the Acts of Union.

[Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman knows with what affection I regard him, his party and Northern Ireland, having had the privilege of being Advocate General for Northern Ireland. What he is saying is a very good case for triggering article 16, which was the entire purpose of the inclusion of article 16 in the protocol. It is not necessarily a good reason, however, for changing the entire basis of the treaty, including writing out the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and so on. How do we get from a position where we have societal impacts, with which I am perfectly willing to agree, to a position where we virtually rewrite the terms of a treaty that we solemnly signed only two and a half years ago?

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I have great respect for the right hon. and learned Member, and I know of his affection for Northern Ireland. I think back to those very difficult and challenging days when this House was dealing with the pre-departure discussions about the laws that would have to be put in place around the treaty to leave the European Union. I thank him for the time that he took to understand the situation in regard to Northern Ireland.

I would say two things in response to the point that the right hon. and learned Member has, understandably, made. First, the Command Paper published by the UK Government one year ago last July set out the basis on which they believed that the conditions had been met for article 16 to be triggered. We have been very patient. We have waited and waited, and we allowed time for the negotiations with the European Union to go forward in the hope that the EU would show more flexibility. I do not doubt the integrity of Maroš Šefčovič as the lead negotiator, but the difficulty is that his negotiating remit is so constrained that his ability to deliver the change that is required to meet the need—to resolve the difficulties created by the protocol—is so limited that in the absence of a change of his remit, I do not think those negotiations will get anywhere.

Article 16 and the triggering thereof is a temporary measure; it is not a permanent solution. What I need, what Northern Ireland needs and, especially, what business in Northern Ireland needs is certainty. That is why we believe that the Government are right to bring forward proposals for a longer-term solution, and not just to go for the temporary fix—the sticking plaster—of article 16. That will create more uncertainty rather than giving us certainty, and it is certainty that we are looking for. That is why I think that what the Government have done is right in the circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

How would the hon. Gentleman propose to negotiate to permit the voters of Northern Ireland to have a say in the laws that are being made for them?

[Peter Kyle]

It was a Labour Government who delivered the framework for the Good Friday agreement in the first place. We respect devolution to Northern Ireland. The key thing is that, yes, Northern Ireland has been suffering the existential challenges posed by the protocol, but, fundamentally, Northern Ireland has been suffering from neglect. When the Executive collapsed, there was no visit from the Prime Minister for five months; there were no multi-party talks, in Downing Street or in Belfast; there was no attempt at getting people around the table; and not a single statement was made to this House about Northern Ireland by the Northern Ireland Secretary at the time, the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary. Just imagine for one second what would happen if the Welsh Senedd or the Scottish Parliament collapsed and this House of Commons went five months before there was any action whatsoever. The only time the Prime Minister visited Northern Ireland was once the Assembly failed to be assembled, after the elections. At that point, when the difficulties in Northern Ireland became so deeply entrenched, the Prime Minister finally went over there for one quick, fleeting, in-and-out visit. That is not good enough. We know that Northern Ireland—all of Northern Ireland—deserves the full attention of the UK Government. It also needs the attention and engagement of this House, where Northern Ireland parties can have their say regularly, on an ongoing basis, not just once a month at oral questions.

[Peter Kyle]

I suggest that had the Prime Minister gone to live in Northern Ireland and gone to camp out there—bearing in mind that he is the person who went to Northern Ireland and promised that over his dead body would there be a border in the Irish sea, and bearing in mind what we now know he has been engaging in and the squalor with which he delivered the duties of his office, based on the resignation letters of members of his own Government—he is not the person who could ever have hoped to muster the statecraft to deliver the settlement that Northern Ireland needs.

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

rose—

[Peter Kyle]

I am going to finish now, so that we can hear directly from Conservative Members. We have always to remember that the Conservative party was the one that enabled, delivered and sustained that Prime Minister in office, and all the time that was done, the politics of Northern Ireland did not just fail to move forward—it sank. So this Bill, from that Government, who their leadership candidates are only too happy to support, is an affront to the UK’s values and to our international interests, at home and abroad. This Bill will not deliver the progress that is needed in Northern Ireland and it will only harm our interests abroad.

[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—

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

No, I will not give way. Too many need to speak.

It is no light matter for this House to take a step that is in contravention of its international obligations. The dignity of this nation rests upon its word being seen to be implemented once it is given. Therefore, I think it a small thing—a reasonable thing—that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has asked.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary talked about Members as patriots. I do not believe that there is a person in this House who is not a patriot, not a person in this House who does not believe—[Interruption.] There may be some exceptions on the Opposition Benches, but I certainly do not believe that of those on the Labour Benches. The fact is that I want to give credit and the benefit of the doubt to everybody, but patriotism can also be the belief that we should stand by our word and that we depart from it only if there is a proper legal basis for doing so.

There is plenty of precedent for the Attorney General coming to the House—I should know, I did it—to answer questions about the international law compatibility of a measure in this House. Indeed, it goes way back, I think, to either the Wilson Government or the Heath Government. Attorneys General would come to the House to answer questions on the compatibility of statutes with international law. I invite the Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), to invite the Attorney General to come and answer those questions, because, in my judgment, it is an obligation to the House. The Attorney General has a residual duty to advise the House on matters such as this.

I say to my right hon. and learned Friend that I will not be able to support this Bill—that comes as no surprise—but I sympathise with the plight in which the Government find themselves. We should all be a lot better if we united in this House to besiege the European Union with requests so that it sees that it must effect real change in this protocol. That is why I asked the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) what is his solution to the democratic deficit of which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has properly and accurately spoken.

These are really intransigent, intractable problems. It is no use sitting, as the hon. Member for Hove does, attacking those of us on the Government Benches for not having solutions if he just talks more and does not propose constructive, new replacement agreements that might fulfil the legitimate wish of the Unionist community to feel that they are not separated and segregated from the rest of the kingdom, while doing justice to the European Union’s desire to protect its single market.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

Dame Eleanor, you rebuke me entirely justly. Let me see if I can answer the question. Yes, of course there are trade mitigations, and I had a sincere hope two and a half years ago that they would be resolved in the joint committee. They have not been resolved in the joint committee.

[Peter Kyle]

Why?

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

I do not know, but it is no use the hon. Gentleman’s using the tactic of deflection to try to put me off my question to him. The democratic problem is what I put to him, and Labour has no answer to that problem. If the party is to be taken seriously, it needs concrete proposals that might work. On that note, Dame Eleanor, I will conclude.