Northern Ireland Border

Debate between George Eustice and Robert Buckland

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I would express it slightly differently, but would say this: the rationale Minister Poots has advanced is that the EU audit that took place and whose findings were published at the end of last year raised some issues that he believed were contentious and therefore potentially a threat to community relations. Therefore, in his view, part of the threshold test for authorisation to be required by the Northern Ireland Executive has been met. He therefore believes that there should be a discussion; to date, under the power-sharing agreement there has not been agreement that it should be discussed, and that has led to the current state of affairs. So it is too early to say what the legal position is. I know it is the position of Edwin Poots that it is not lawful to continue these checks without the express authority of the Northern Ireland Executive. Others may take a different view, but the UK Government very much hope the Northern Ireland Executive can find a resolution to this, and for our part, as the ones who stand behind the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and are responsible for it and for protecting it, and as the ones who are responsible for international negotiations, we will continue to endeavour through the negotiations with the EU to find an enduring solution.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend rightly characterises this as a devolved matter, and the Government, far from making a U-turn, have been very clear and consistent about it. However, the international law dimension of this and the obligations of the United Kingdom Government are also very clear. Would it not have been better for the Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive to have told my right hon. Friend before he decided to make this directive because of the obvious sensitivities and the vital importance of allowing my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to conduct her negotiations with Commissioner Šefčovič in as smooth and unimpeded a way as possible? We will deal with this through negotiation and resolution at international level, and therefore we need to avoid the elephant traps that unilateral action present.

[George Eustice]

My right hon. and learned Friend knows from experience that the UK Government have considerable patience for negotiation in order to reach agreement and sensible pragmatic settlements in these areas. He is absolutely right that we seek and would prefer a negotiated reform of the way the protocol is interpreted, and that is what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is working on, but I hope I have given an explanation on a number of occasions now about the perspective that Edwin Poots brings to this and why he has acted in the way that he has. I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will also understand that there is a difference between things we are responsible for in international law and things a devolved Administration are responsible for implementing under the devolved devolution settlement that we have.

Leveson Inquiry

Debate between George Eustice and Robert Buckland

Monday 3rd December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Buckland]

I take my hon. Friend’s point about the boundaries that are being set. My point, however, is that there is a parallel between existing statute and what I believe is being proposed. I do not view statutory underpinning as somehow creating an entirely new set of constraints within which journalists will have to work. This is not, in my opinion, analogous to the difference between prescribed rights and general liberties that may be defined by their boundaries. My hon. Friend and I often agree about the distinction between different types of law and the tension that exists between them, but I do not believe that we will end up in that situation.

[George Eustice]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong for the press to support statutory regulation when it protects their commercial interests and oppose it when it protects the interests of civil society?

[Mr Buckland]

I think that the Homer Simpson approach that we often observe—the contradictory approach that is taken to so many issues—is worrying, and demonstrates an inconsistency. I simply ask those who say that existing laws provide adequate protection for members of the public why we allowed ourselves to get into a position in which, in effect, a culture of impunity existed in certain parts of our print media. I think that Lord Justice Leveson deals very comprehensively with the reality of the law as it stands.

As I have said, the press operate within a framework, but when play is made of the criminal law, the context within which that law operates is far too often ignored by those who cite it. First, when it comes to criminal complaints there needs to be a victim and some form of complaint, which will come about either when the complainant goes to the police or when the police themselves have some intelligence or information about an alleged crime.

The problem in the context of, for example, telephone hacking or bribery is that very often the victims do not realise that they are victims for many years. That was certainly true in the case of some of the victims of telephone hacking, who became aware of the emergence of private and sensitive information into the public domain via the newspapers, and then began to suspect even their families and friends of having breached a confidence before realising, or being told about, the grim reality. The same can be said of bribery: those who have lost out as a result of it will not necessarily know of the wrongdoing at the time, and may not know of it for many years.

There are issues relating to the way in which evidence can be gathered. We know, and rightly stress, the importance of exemptions when it comes to journalistic material. Also, the police will naturally prioritise the individual offences, such as violence and dishonesty, while the issues raised in this inquiry have in recent times dropped low down the list of priorities. As Lord Leveson says, the mere fact that we now have lengthy investigations into telephone hacking and bribery does not necessarily mean that the police have always been able to conduct such inquiries. In fact, the co-operation of News International has made all the difference in that respect.

Much has been said about defamation. Like the Versace hotel, the law of defamation is open to all, but it is too expensive, and we as parliamentarians must support the ordinary person to get cheap and effective redress of any grievance through a robust independent regulatory system, which must be underpinned by statute.