United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Monday 21st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

My right hon. Friend is of course right about that, and we still hope to strike a free trade agreement with the EU. I also point out that these issues can and should be resolved through the Joint Committee—I will come back to that.

Both the UK and the EU signed up to the protocol on the basis I just outlined. We are committed to implementing the protocol and we have been working hard to ensure that it is done in a way that delivers the promises that have been made. That includes working with the EU to reach agreement through the Joint Committee process in a number of areas that the protocol left unresolved, and we very much hope that agreement can be reached shortly. But if it is not, the harmful legal defaults contained in some interpretations of the protocol, which were never intended to be used, would be activated. The consequences for Northern Ireland in that scenario would be very damaging. We cannot and will not run that risk.

The provisions we are considering today will therefore ensure that in any scenario, we will protect Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom; ensure that businesses based in Northern Ireland have unfettered access to the rest of the United Kingdom; and ensure that there is no legal confusion or ambiguity in UK law about the interpretation of the state aid elements of the Northern Ireland protocol.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Walker]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment, because I do intend to refer to some of his comments in my speech, and I will happily take his intervention shortly.

Further measures will be set out in the Finance Bill. These will have the same effect as those already proposed in the UKIM Bill, and will make it clear that no tariffs will be payable on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland unless those goods are destined for the EU market, or there is a genuine and substantial risk of them ending up there. We will take the necessary powers in the Finance Bill to ensure that this is defined in a reasonable and proportionate way, which ensures that legitimate traders are not penalised, while also resolving the outstanding issues relating to the payment of VAT and excise duty. So we are taking limited and reasonable steps through the legislation to create a legal safety net by taking powers in reserve, whereby Ministers can guarantee the integrity of our United Kingdom and ensure that the Government are always able to deliver on their commitments to the people of Northern Ireland in line with the three-stranded approach of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

[Mr Walker]

I will come in detail to the amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman’s party later in my speech, but I do recognise that when it comes to state aid, we have made specific agreements under the protocol on goods traded between Northern Ireland and the EU, and we should stick to those in order to ensure the effective functioning of trade north, south, east and west. We are taking steps in the Bill to clarify the state aid elements, and some of those will be to the benefit of businesses in Northern Ireland. I will come back to that point in more detail.

[Hilary Benn]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Walker]

If I may, I will come to the right hon. Gentleman’s point very shortly, and then I will happily give way to him.

We would not take these steps lightly. We hope it will never be necessary to use these powers, and we would do so only if, in our view, the EU was engaged in a material breach of its duties of good faith or other obligations. We would, of course, always activate appropriate formal dispute resolution mechanisms with the aim of finding a solution through this route in parallel to any domestic legislation. I draw the Committee’s attention to the statement that the Government made on 17 September .

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. That is why we are taking the powers in this Bill, and we would seek the consent of the House before those powers were exercised—it is to ensure that there is a legal default different from the one that he suggests. It is about taking these steps in parallel.

I want to recognise the significant concerns that many Members have raised, which is why we have agreed that a “break glass” provision should be included, requiring the House of Commons to give its approval before these measures are commenced. I will return to the detail of that shortly, but the Committee should be in no doubt that this Government will always seek to ensure that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is protected and that the political and economic integrity of our United Kingdom is maintained. That is what the Government amendments in this group seek to achieve.

Clauses 11, 40 and 41 of the Bill give effect to the Government’s commitment to give unfettered access to Northern Ireland goods to the whole UK internal market, in line with the protocol. They will ensure that we protect the vast majority of the £8.1 billion of goods sales from Northern Ireland to Great Britain and guarantee Northern Ireland’s place in the UK’s internal market. That will provide vital legal certainty for businesses in Northern Ireland, whose largest market is the rest of the United Kingdom—56% of Northern Ireland’s goods trade is with Great Britain—and deliver on a promise that has been repeatedly made throughout the process of our exit from the European Union.

Clause 11 sets out that qualifying Northern Ireland goods will benefit from mutual recognition and are not discriminated against. It ensures that the mutual recognition principle will apply to all such goods that will also benefit from unfettered access under clause 40. Clause 40 ensures that, in implementing the protocol, authorities must have special regard to the fundamental need to maintain Northern Ireland’s integral place in the UK’s internal market and customs territory and to facilitate the free flow of goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. That, of course, applies to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in both directions.

Clause 41 ensures that there will be no new checks, controls or administrative processes on goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. This clause is in keeping with what the Government have constantly said, including in our manifesto, and in line with our commitments to businesses in the “New Decade, New Approach” agreement.

Clauses 42, 43 and 45 set out the safety net that I have described. Clause 42 ensures that full unfettered access is guaranteed in any scenario by providing a power to disapply or modify the requirement for export declarations or other exit procedures when goods move from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) rightly said on Second Reading, there is no real justification for such declarations being needed to protect the EU’s single market or customs union. It is a wholly reasonable suggestion from the UK that this issue can and should be resolved through the Joint Committee, but if it is not—and this is perhaps where he and I disagree—there needs to be a safety net in place.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on that point. I want to press him on the safeguard measures that are provided in article 16 of the protocol and the extent to which they enable the Government to take action if they think the EU is being unreasonable. There is a one-month waiting period, but after that, the Government are able to take safeguard measures. Annex 7(5) goes on to say:

“The safeguard measures taken shall be the subject of consultations in the Joint Committee every 3 months”.

Could he clarify what would cause those safeguard measures to come to an end? Would it be a decision of the arbitration mechanism that the Government lost? Could it then go to the European Court of Justice? In other words, could he explain why what the Government negotiated to protect the country from bad faith action by the EU is insufficient? We have not had an answer to that question.

[Mr Walker]

We are talking about the question of legal default. The UK Government are responsible for their implementation of the protocol, and we want to ensure that we have the necessary powers in UK law to avoid those legal defaults. As I have said, we would initiate all necessary proceedings in international law, including those under the protocol, if necessary, at that stage. It is not a stage that any of us want to get to, and we still hope to resolve these issues through the Joint Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman would have to take up the reasons why the case was taken with the lady in question, but the DeSouza case is a clear example of how the Northern Ireland Act 1998 did not address these matters. I have been clear, in many interventions since I left my post last summer and while I was in post, that respecting the right of everybody who lives in Northern Ireland to identify in the way that they are comfortable with is incredibly important and we must respect it. So I say to the Minister: part 5 should not be in this Bill. The Government should not ask MPs to vote for an illegal law as a negotiating tactic. This part should be in a separate Bill, if these clauses are needed, and it should be debated separately; it should not be polluting what is otherwise a good and necessary piece of law. All possible steps to avoid needing these clauses should be taken.

I say to the Minister that I am undecided as to which way I will vote this evening, because I respect the fact that Government have moved and compromised, and I understand that that is a difficult thing for Governments to do. But I ask the Minister to give me clarity: if I walk through the Lobby today, am I breaking the law? If I walk through the Lobby today, will the law be broken as a result of my doing so? Will I have the answer for me at 3 am, not for my constituents or others, that I have done the right thing and that this will lead to a better result for the UK?

[Hilary Benn]

It is a great pleasure to follow that fine speech by the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley). I want to concentrate on how we get out of this mess without breaching international law and the treaty we signed up to. Four issues have caused all this: the question of exit summary declarations, the definition of “at-risk goods”, state aid and third country listing. The Bill deals with only some of those; further legislation is threatened to deal with the rest, but one has to look at them together.

The first thing I want to say is that it seems the Government are in a state of hopeless confusion on two questions. The first is: is the EU negotiating in good faith or not? I asked the Prime Minister that last week at the Liaison Committee and he told me it is not. Earlier that same day, the Northern Ireland Secretary told the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that the EU is negotiating in good faith, and indeed the Government’s response to that Committee’s report confirmed that. I do not know whether that makes the Minister, for whom I have a great regard, the adjudicator in this matter, but perhaps he might offer his opinion in his wind-up, because the Government do not appear to be of one mind.

Secondly, I believe the Minister referred in his speech—I tried to write down the phrase as I recall it—to, “Harmful legal defaults that were never intended to be used” or words to that effect. If they are legal defaults that the Government object to, it really does raise the question: why did the Government sign up to those legal defaults when they negotiated the protocol and the withdrawal agreement, and signed that and extolled its virtues to the House of Commons?

On exit summary declarations, there is a place for this and other concerns to be resolved, which is in the Joint Committee, through the article 16 process. The House needs to ask itself why the Government have said so little thus far about their intention to use article 16 if a satisfactory agreement cannot be reached; I did not get an answer from the Prime Minister last week and, with respect, I did not get an answer from the Minister today, but it seems that the Government have so little faith in the mechanism they negotiated that they have decided that they need to take powers to breach the terms of the treaty, even though—I remind the Minister—article 168 of the withdrawal agreement says that, “For any dispute between the EU and the UK arising under this agreement, the EU and the UK shall ‘only’ have recourse to the procedures provided for in this agreement. This Bill drives a coach and horses through that sentence, which the Government agreed. In the statement that Ministers put out last week, the Government said that they would use the provisions of article 16 “in parallel with” the powers they wish to take in this Bill. In parallel? I really do not understand that as an argument, because surely they should use the mechanism they have negotiated first, and then if they are absolutely determined to break international law, they can get to that subsequently.

I come back to the point about the Joint Committee. Why have the Government not shared with the House the proposals they have made to the EU side about how goods at risk can be identified? It is simply not good enough. Part of the reason why the Government have got into such a mess is that they have not shared with us how the negotiations are going and have then suddenly produced a remedy that is contrary to international law to solve a problem the contents of which we are not aware of because Government have not shared with Members how things are going.

This is not an academic issue: many businesses that trade into Northern Ireland have absolutely no idea, with just over three months to go, of what the arrangements are going to be—none. There is a responsibility on both parties—the EU and the UK—to give them some clarity. Have the Government proposed using, for example, tariff lines as the way to define goods at risk? Or products and shipments, or companies as the basis? To those who have looked into the issue in great detail, it seems that those are probably the three broad approaches that might be taken. I ask the Government to please be open with the House of Commons on this matter.

On state aid, I find it impossible to believe that the Government did not realise what the full implications of article 10 might be. Everybody recognised that it brought into the ambit of the state aid rules what happens in Northern Ireland, but had it really not occurred to Ministers that there might be reach-back—I think that is the expression—implications for state aid in the United Kingdom? This is currently a theoretical issue, because there are not any cases. The Minister will be well aware that in the wake of covid, the EU Commission has significantly relaxed the state aid rules. Other EU members are giving state aid to all sorts of companies. The question is how the matter is going to be resolved by means other than resorting to the breaking of international law.

There is a great puzzle in respect of the Government’s position. When the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster appeared before the Select Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union on 11 March and we asked him whether businesses that trade out of England into Northern Ireland were going to be subject to the full panoply of state aid regulations, he replied:

“No, we do not believe so.”

That was in March, but apparently the Government do now believe so. What happened between March and now to lead them to that conclusion?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster also said:

“The subsidy regime that the UK proposes to put in place after we have left the EU”—

we have now left the EU—

“will be one that the EU will recognise as a robust system.”

Here we are in September, and of a robust system for state aid there is no sight yet. How can that be the case? We read reports in the paper that the reason is because Ministers cannot agree on what kind of state aid policy they want.

The publication of such a policy is urgent for two reasons: not only for the purposes of sorting out the problem of potential reach-back, but for making a breakthrough in the trade negotiations. To be fair to the EU, it has moved from saying at the beginning, “You must follow all our rules on state aid in perpetuity,” to now saying rather plaintively to the Government, “Would you be so kind as to give us just an inkling of what your state aid regime is going to look like?” To announce that we are going to follow the World Trade Organisation rules is hardly a revelation, because as an independent member of the WTO we are obliged to follow the WTO rules. As we know, though, they lack important details and do not cover services.

The sooner the Government publish a state aid regime to answer the EU’s question, the sooner they can help the trade negotiations to move forward. Assuming that an agreement could be reached on that regime as part of the negotiations, the Government could, as the Minister will know, use article 13(8) of the withdrawal agreement to amend article 10, which is the cause of the potential problem—namely, reach-back.

The Bill does not deal with third-country listing, and no Bill could, because it is a regulatory decision of the European Union about the terms on which it lets third-country food and animal product imports into its jurisdiction. I happen to think that if the EU were to deny us such listing, arguably the UK could take the EU to the European Court, on the grounds that it was a perverse decision, or indeed the UK could certainly invoke article 16, on the grounds that denying the UK third-country listing was a breach of the good faith obligation under article 5.

Northern Ireland Protocol: UK Legal Obligations

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

My right hon. Friend has spoken about these issues over the last year or so and has been clear about his position, and he is absolutely right. The UK internal market Bill will make clear what will apply in January if we cannot reach a satisfactory and mutually suitable conclusions through the specialised Joint Committee and the wider free trade agreement. It is reasonable and sensible for the Government to give that certainty and clarity to businesses and people in Northern Ireland, which in itself will ensure that we abide by and deliver on the Good Friday agreement by ensuring that there will be no borders between east and west and north and south. He is also absolutely right that Great Britain will not be subject to EU rules in a state aid area while recognising the unique position of Northern Ireland.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I am afraid the Secretary of State’s protestations of innocence will not wash, because over the past two days—the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) addressed this question—the Government have given the impression that they may not be trusted to honour obligations they have freely entered into.

I wonder whether the Secretary of State can answer a very specific question relating to the Northern Ireland protocol, which he had some trouble answering in the summer when he appeared before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Will goods moving from GB to Northern Ireland be required to complete export declarations, import declarations or entry summary declarations—yes or no?

[Brandon Lewis]

As I assume the right hon. Gentleman knows, that forms part of the discussions that are going on in the specialist committee, between us and the EU, to deal with these issues. Our view is that the regime should be very flexible, as Michel Barnier has outlined, in terms of respecting the unique position of Northern Ireland, because those goods going from GB to Northern Ireland are, by definition, very low risk, and we must ensure that we do not end up in a situation where it is presumed that 100% of the goods going from GB to Northern Ireland are what the EU would refer to as “at-risk goods.” That would be inappropriate for Northern Ireland businesses, would drive up prices in Northern Ireland and would restrict supply to Northern Ireland. That does not fit with the protocol’s outline of Northern Ireland remaining an integral part of the UK customs territory and single market.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons & Committee: 2nd sitting
Wednesday 8th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

The hon. Lady talks about assessments of future deals. The place in which to do that is not legislation that is focused on implementing the withdrawal agreement. I am afraid that it is simply not the case, as it was in the last Parliament, that the political arithmetic means that the Opposition can tie the Government up with all sorts of commitments and assessments. We need to ensure that we get the best deal for our economy, our health and our country, and it is right that we move forward by accepting the withdrawal agreement, legislating through the Bill and focusing on the next stage.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

As the Minister will be well aware, new clause 1 bears a marked resemblance to clause 31 in the previous version of the Bill. The Prime Minister said to the House on 22 October, talking about the now disappeared clause 31, that

“the intention is to allow the House to participate actively and fully in the building of the future partnership”—[Official Report, 22 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 840.]

and the clause set out a whole process for doing that, so why was it a good idea to have that in the version of the Bill produced in October, but now it has apparently become completely unnecessary and terribly onerous for the Government?

[Mr Walker]

The answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question is perhaps in some of the exchanges we had during that debate, when I was reaching out to him to suggest that he ought to support our orderly withdrawal from the European Union so that we could get on to the next phase of negotiations. Since then, we have had a general election that provides a clear mandate for this Government to take us forward, to deliver the withdrawal agreement, and to get into that next phase of negotiations. I think we need to focus on that.

We have are already engaged extensively with the devolved Administrations in our preparations for the negotiations, and we will of course continue to involve all parties, including those in Northern Ireland, as we begin those negotiations. Indeed, this speaks to the absolute necessity and the vital urgency of restoring a functioning Executive in Northern Ireland as soon as possible. The Government will support Parliament in scrutinising the negotiations. We have made a clear commitment in this Bill to Parliament’s scrutiny of the withdrawal agreement Joint Committee. To that end, clause 30 provides that when disputes arise, they must be reported to Parliament. Further, clause 34 states that only a Minister will be able to act as the UK’s co-chair of the withdrawal agreement Joint Committee, and clause 35 ensures that all decisions must be made by a Minister in person. That Minister will be accountable to Parliament. We therefore believe that new clause 47 should not be pressed.

The Government fully recognise the important role that devolved Administrations will play in ensuring that our independent trade policy delivers for the whole of the UK. It is the responsibility of the UK Government to negotiate on behalf of the United Kingdom, and it is vital that we retain appropriate flexibility to proceed with negotiations at pace. However, we have been clear that the devolved Administrations will remain closely involved. Therefore, there is no need to make provisions in statute when the Government are already working tirelessly to ensure that the views and perspectives of devolved Administrations are given full consideration in the United Kingdom’s trade policy. As such, I would urge hon. Members not to press new clause 64.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Thursday 18th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move manuscript amendment (a) to Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendment 1, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 2 to 18.

[Hilary Benn]

I support Lords amendment 1, which very sensibly provides for when the reports required under the Bill should be made to the House and provides an opportunity for the House to debate them. In other words, it provides a context in which we can discuss what is contained in those reports by requiring them to be made and requiring a motion to be presented to the House.

Given that other matters, which we debated at some length last week, have been added to the Bill since it was originally published—and have widened the scope of the Bill considerably beyond the original purpose solely relating to elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly—it seems to me even more important that we have the provisions in Lords amendment 1 in the Bill. But there is a problem that my amendment seeks to fix if the House is not sitting—for example, because it has been prorogued —on the dates by which the reports have to be made, and the crucial dates are 4 September and 9 October. My amendment simply seeks to make provision for the House to be recalled in those circumstances to allow the opportunity for us to consider the reports and debate the motions that arise from the Bill if Lords amendment 1 is accepted by the House.

I should say at this stage that probably not every Member of the House is entirely familiar with the provisions of the Meeting of Parliament Act 1797, but the most important thing to recall is that section 1 is still on the statute book. It has been used, most recently in section 68(10) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 and in section 28(1) of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004—indeed, the Civil Contingencies Act makes specific reference to the Meeting of Parliament Act 1797.

In other words, this amendment does not—I emphasise this—seek to establish a new constitutional principle. It simply seeks to use previous practice to make sure that Parliament is sitting when it needs to be sitting to debate these matters. As I hope the amendment makes clear, it would do so by requiring that Parliament be recalled on a specified day within the period in which compliance with subsection (2B) of Lords amendment 1 is required. In other words, the Minister would have to lay the report and the motion in neutral terms would have to be moved within the period of five calendar days, beginning with the end of the day on which the report was made. If my amendment is carried, we would be sitting in order to ensure that we had the chance both to consider the report and, crucially, to debate the motion that has been presented. That is the single purpose of my amendment. It would be rather odd—would it not?—for the House to legislate to provide for these reports and motions on specified dates, only to find itself not being here to consider the reports and to debate the motions because of some other action, namely the fact that we might not be sitting.

My final point is this: everyone in the House is well aware that Brexit has significant implications for the country as a whole, but it will have particular implications for Northern Ireland, which the Exiting the European Union Committee has reported on and many Members on both sides of the House have spoken of. I suppose that this amendment has a secondary effect: to ensure that the House would be sitting at a crucial time for our country, as I believe the country would expect us to be. I do not think that we could accept circumstances, if I may coin the phrase, in which we were sent missing in action, and I hope that the House will support the amendment.

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I rise simply to support the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and to explain why I added my name to amendment (a).

As the right hon. Gentleman concluded on the position of Northern Ireland—the springboard for the amendment—the implications of every decision taken by the United Kingdom in relation to Brexit are highly significant both for Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. For us to be in the run-up to 31 October without those considerations being before the House seems genuinely very difficult, as it does when we go beyond that and consider that the House might not be sitting during the run-up to the date itself to consider all the other things. If we have felt under the weight of any pressure up to now, I venture to suggest to the House that that will be as nothing compared with the days leading up to 31 October if it is not clear where the country is going, either because a deal has been agreed or because the consequences of no deal have been sufficiently spelt out that everybody has been able to take a view. The idea that we might not be here to reflect those concerns and to take our own view on what the circumstances might be seems to me not only highly unlikely, but undesirable and preventable.

I have added my support for amendment (a), which strengthens the Anderson amendment agreed to in the other place and makes sure that we will be here to reflect the views of our constituents. Amendment (a) does not suggest how the House would vote when presented with a choice between a deal and no deal; it makes absolutely certain, in the absence of assurances, that we will be here then.

I commend to the House the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Hilary Benn Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 9th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

I hope that the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) will forgive me if I do not address his amendments directly. I thoroughly support them and hope that he feels encouraged after tonight to continue to pursue them when it comes to any further negotiation that may take place later in the year.

I shall speak to amendment 7, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends, although I should make it clear, as I think my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) did, that I fully endorse amendment 6 as well, both in respect of preventing the re-investigation of cases—sometimes more than once—and his suggestion that a time limit should be considered, rather than an amnesty.

My amendment is narrower in its focus. It is designed to encourage the Secretary of State and the judicial authorities in Northern Ireland to focus on the difference between the soldier and the terrorist—the soldier, who had a duty to the state, who had a duty to protect life and property; and the terrorist, who went out to kill or to maim. That difference, which we discussed in the Chamber a year ago and have already begun to discuss again tonight, seems to have been forgotten, swamped by a kind of moral equivalence. In my view, the distinction should be clear: armed troops are not civilians. They have a duty to the state. They must obey the chain of command. They are issued with lawful weapons. They are trained how to use lawful weapons, and indeed they are punished if they are found to be misusing them. They do not, unlike the terrorist, set out each morning with the intent to kill. The terrorist, by contrast, has at some point acquired an unlawful weapon—an illegal gun or a bomb—and would be doing that only if he or she intended to do harm with it.

In recognising the problem, which has been alluded to, of the convention on human rights and the difficulty of treating one group separately from another, I would like the authorities in Northern Ireland, and in particular the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, to think more deeply in approaching this issue about the presumption of intent. I would like the report we are asking for in this amendment to consider future prosecution guidance that would properly take into account whether or not a lethal weapon was involved and whether or not it had been legally authorised or acquired. It is a narrow amendment, but I think it would help the authorities to pursue this matter more clearly.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I rise very briefly to support the amendments moved by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), although I have to say I find it extraordinary that we are even having a debate about Prorogation. I hope that the very idea of proroguing Parliament to deny Members of this House the chance to express a view about the Brexit process at the vital moment—whichever side of the debate one is on, it will have enormous implications for the future of our country—will seem to many so outrageous, so underhand and so shocking. I cannot really understand why any Member, when presented with the proposition, would not say, “Well, that is completely out of the question.” It is a direct threat to our ability to have our say and to express our views.

The second point I want to make is that, if the new Prime Minister were to think, “I might be able to get away with it,” and Prorogation were to happen, it is important that he understands—I am confident of this—that there would be many Members of the House who would be determined to sit, meet, debate and express their view anyway. I do not believe that the House of Commons would be silenced in those circumstances. It would profit the Prime Minister nothing if he were to attempt to do that. I hope the idea will disappear into the dustbin of history where it belongs. If we do not succeed in putting the idea there by persuading the new Prime Minister finally to come forward and say, “Okay, I will never do that in any circumstances,” then voting for the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s amendments tonight will be a very important step in helping it on its way.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

Let me begin by addressing the issues raised by the right hon. Members for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon). We will return to this theme, so they will forgive me if my response today may be more truncated than I would prefer if there were more time. There can never be a question of moral equivalence between a member of our armed forces and somebody engaged in terrorism on behalf of a paramilitary organisation. We need to make that very clear. Whatever our disagreements, the agreement over the lack of moral equivalence is absolute and we should not be drawn down that track. That said, I am extremely uneasy about the approach taken by both right hon. Members.

The right hon. Member for New Forest East referred to our international commitments. One of our commitments is as a state party to the International Criminal Court and the treaties thereof. Article 29 of the Rome statute makes it clear that crimes that fall within the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be subject to a state-imposed statute of limitations. That is an absolute condition of the Rome statute. The right hon. Gentleman looks puzzled. I invite him to check that.