Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Troubles

Debate between Hilary Benn and Sammy Wilson

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. I have talked tonight about a lot of process, future legislation, remedial orders and so on. That is why I said at the end of my statement that, in the end, this is about the families—the families, whom many Members in the House will have met, who still do not know what happened and who carry the incredible pain from what they have been through with them to this day. The very least we can do is to try really, really hard to find a way of giving them the answers that they have been seeking.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the fact that the Government, as part of their appeal, will appeal the way in which the scope of article 2 has been extended, even to include overreach into national policy. I say to the Secretary of State that as long as article 2 remains, there will always be contention about how much say the EU will have—not only on law and activities in Northern Ireland, but on policy made in this House.

On the decisions he has made on inquests, civil cases and disclosure, the Secretary of State has to be honest with this House: that is not going to result in terrorists being taken through the courts or through the process in Northern Ireland. It will result only in ageing members of the security forces being dragged once again through the courts and suffering as a result of the service they gave in Northern Ireland. He said he intends to continue to speak with the Irish Government. The Irish Government have shamelessly taken our Government to court while doing nothing about the collusion and activities of the Irish state and Irish security forces in aiding and abetting the killing of soldiers and genocide along the border. Will the Secretary of State ensure that if there is a discussion on legacy, they address the past sins they are guilty of?

[Hilary Benn]

In dealing with the legacy of the troubles it is important that everyone faces up to the consequences of what happened and of what they did or did not do—everyone. It is a painful and difficult process indeed. The implication of what I have announced to the House today is that nobody can escape prosecution, because the immunity that was offered by the legacy Act has been removed. If there is evidence—although I acknowledge to the House that with the passage of time that becomes more and more difficult, for reasons the right hon. Gentleman alluded to—at least that possibility remains.

On article 2, I would simply point out that this agreement was reached between the British Government and the European Union, and it is the British courts—not the European courts—that have interpreted it. That is why the Government are of the view that we should seek to get a definitive ruling on the nature of that interpretation from the Supreme Court.

Windsor Framework

Debate between Hilary Benn and Sammy Wilson

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Hilary Benn]

I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and he and I have had many discussions about progress on implementing the commitments made in “Safeguarding the Union”. He can see the progress that has been made, and he and I have discussed issues where there is work in progress.

By the way, the original protocol, which had many flaws and difficulties, and the Windsor framework negotiated by the previous Government, which represents a considerable improvement, were both approved democratically by this Parliament. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim argues that they were imposed from Brussels, but it was this Parliament that decided the way to reconcile the choices—impossible choices, in a way—that leaving the European Union created. Frankly, I would not have started from here, as I think he well understands, but this is a consequence of a decision taken by the British people, and Parliament decided to put these arrangements in place. To reject the idea that there is an issue that needs to be addressed is not the responsible thing to do, and therefore the Windsor framework represented a considerable step forward.

[Sammy Wilson]

The Secretary of State is making much of the fact that this Parliament imposed these arrangements on Northern Ireland, but he set out three objectives: to protect the EU market, to protect the Union and to protect the UK internal market. The European Union is happy with the arrangements, but the other two objectives have not been achieved. Whether this Parliament voted for it or not, the internal market is not operating. There are lots of examples of that, as the Secretary of State knows, because I am sure people complain to him every month, as they do to us. As has been pointed out, we are not part of the United Kingdom any longer when our laws cannot even be made in our own Parliament.

[Hilary Benn]

Northern Ireland is very much part of the United Kingdom. I was merely pointing out that the protocol and the Windsor framework were democratic decisions of this Parliament, of which Northern Ireland is a part. After much debate, consideration, argument and disputation, that is how this Parliament decided to move things forward. The Windsor framework, which I spoke in favour of and supported, was a considerable step forward on the arrangements originally negotiated in the Northern Ireland protocol, which were never going to work. For example, requiring an export health certificate for every one of the items on the back of the supermarket lorries that come across from Cairnryan to Larne and Belfast every single night was never a practical proposition. The Windsor framework has replaced potentially 1,000 or 2,000 certificates with one certificate. That is a step forward by anybody’s definition.

Turning to the question of the consent vote, that is part of the provision that has been made to allow the Assembly to take a decision. I have triggered the consent process, as Members will be aware. It is for the Assembly to take that decision. If it approves the continued operation of the Windsor framework, it will last for another eight years if the approval is on a cross-community basis, or—I speak from memory—for another four years if not. It is for the Members of the Assembly to make that decision, but the framework really does bring a lot of benefits.

At the beginning of his contribution, the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim talked about the fettering of Northern Ireland businesses’ access to GB, if I heard him correctly. There is no fettering of Northern Ireland businesses’ access to GB.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hilary Benn and Sammy Wilson

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

It is really important that the medicines that are required continue to be supplied. The industry has had quite a period in which to make arrangements to ensure that the labelling rules are met. I hope that, in the time available, those companies that have not done so will do so.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

6. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on implementing the Windsor framework labelling requirements set out in his Department’s Command Paper entitled “Safeguarding the Union”, published on 31 January 2024.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)]

Having carefully considered the results of the consultation with industry, the Government decided not to proceed with the introduction of mandatory “Not for EU” labelling in Great Britian from 1 October 2024. Instead, we will take the powers necessary to apply “Not for EU” labelling in the future, if that is required to secure supplies in Northern Ireland.

[Sammy Wilson]

The result of the Northern Ireland protocol, signed by the previous Government, has been to create an economic border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and the imposition of EU law, which has created a problem for the supply of goods to Northern Ireland. When in opposition, Labour supported the idea of food labelling as a way of avoiding an interruption in the supply of food goods from GB to Northern Ireland, so why have the Government reneged on that promise, and what will be the trigger for its imposition if needed?

[Hilary Benn]

The consultation on UK-wide labelling led the industry to say that such labelling would impose huge costs on industry, and therefore on consumers, through raised goods prices. The aim is to ensure that goods are not delisted in Northern Ireland. That is why we are taking a power to ensure that if there is any evidence of that happening, the labelling requirements set out in “Safeguarding the Union” can be applied, including on individual products on a sectoral basis.

Northern Ireland City Deals

Debate between Hilary Benn and Sammy Wilson

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful and important point. The progress that Northern Ireland has made over the past 26 years since the signing of the Good Friday agreement is what everybody is striving to continue. I am confident that the Treasury will pay close attention to the exchanges on this urgent question, and the hon. Gentleman’s eloquence speaks for itself.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I have listened to the answers that the Secretary of State has given, and I cannot understand his logic. First, one of the reasons for not progressing with these deals is that they are not far enough advanced. Does he not recognise the amount of money that has already gone into developing them, and how this decision puts that money at risk? Who will put further resources into those schemes if there is no certainty at the end?

The Secretary of State has talked about Northern Ireland being part of economic growth. In the Causeway Coast and Glens case, much of the investment will be for economic growth, whether that is the development of food and drugs at the University of Ulster, the innovation hub at North West Regional College, or the innovation hub in Cushendall. By not having those schemes in place, the Secretary of State is going to affect economic growth, so can he explain the logic of the decision he has made?

[Hilary Benn]

In fairness to myself, I have pointed out that these two schemes are not as far advanced as the Belfast and the Derry/Londonderry and Strabane city deals, because one of them only recently signed its heads of terms and the other has yet to do so. From memory, the time it took for the Belfast and the Derry and Strabane deals to get from heads of terms to full financial deal signing was between two and a half and three and a half years. So there is some way to go based on past experience, precisely because a great deal of work has to be done in partnership with the private sector, the Northern Ireland Executive, local businesses and the councils to put the shape of the deals in place. The right hon. Member makes a powerful argument for clarity as quickly as possible.

Patrick Finucane Murder

Debate between Hilary Benn and Sammy Wilson

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

This is a bad decision today. It will cause anger and further hurt for the many hundreds of families who have not had justice for the murder of their loved ones, including the mass murder of Protestant workmen at Kingsmill, the blowing up of Protestant workmen at Teebane and the horrendous murder of worshippers at Tullyvallen, among others. I think the Secretary of State has to explain to the House why, after tens of millions of pounds have been spent on inquiries and reviews of this case, he still believes it is necessary to acquiesce in the demands of the family by having another inquiry. How does he justify it to those hundreds of families that no such resources will be put in place to seek out the truth about the murders of their family members? Given the record of inquiries of this nature being a golden goose for barristers and solicitors in Northern Ireland, how is he going to ensure that the costs are capped?

[Hilary Benn]

The right hon. Member recounts some of the terrible murders, and I have myself met, as I am sure others have, the only survivor of the Kingsmill massacre and heard at first hand the truly chilling story of what happened on that day. First, considerable resources are now being given to the independent commission, and it is important to recognise that, because it has a huge task on its hands. I hope others will come forward to the commission to avail themselves of what it can offer.

Secondly, and I have said this to other Members in answering their questions, in this particular case a commitment was made twice, and I think it is important that we honour it. We also have to recognise in this particular case that the Court held in 2019 that all of the investigations—I accept what the right hon. Member said about them and their extent, and of course they involved the expenditure of public moneys—did not meet the requirements of article 2. Faced with that, and faced with the quashing at the end of 2022 of the decision of a previous Secretary of State not to call an inquiry pending further investigations, it has fallen to me to look at this and to decide how we are going to go forward. I have set out my reasons as clearly as I can hope to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Hilary Benn and Sammy Wilson

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)]

The Government are committed to ensuring that Euro 2028 benefits the whole of the United Kingdom. We are working as quickly as possible with all partners to assess the options on the Casement Park project.

[Sammy Wilson]

Many people were surprised when the Secretary of State, on first being appointed, made it his priority to deliver on Casement Park. Committing £320 million for a stadium to host five matches at a time when there are huge waiting lists to be dealt with in the health service, and with special educational needs and social housing needing funding, is an indefensible use of public money. Can the Secretary of State assure us that the Government’s view has not been influenced by any personal interventions by the chief of staff of the Labour party, for whom this is a personal project, and can he confirm that such an intervention would be a breach of standards in public life?

[Hilary Benn]

I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that I said this was a priority because a decision needs to be made. The fact is that the Government have inherited a commitment to hosting the Euros at Casement Park. It is now a year and three quarters since UEFA awarded that right to Northern Ireland, and to the United Kingdom and Ireland, but nothing has happened during the year and three quarters since then to progress the project. We are left with a situation in which the cost has gone through the roof, and even if we had the money, we do not know if we could build it in time. That is why the Government are looking at it, and that is why I said it was a priority to make a decision.

Northern Ireland

Debate between Hilary Benn and Sammy Wilson

Monday 26th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Whether this Humble Address is or is not a love letter to anyone, I will leave for others to debate, but it certainly can be described as a coda to the recent restoration of the institutions in Northern Ireland. As we have heard from the Minister, it addresses a number of matters that I shall briefly touch upon, but may I make it clear at the beginning that the Opposition will be supporting it?

This is our first opportunity as a House to welcome the return of devolved government, and I wish to acknowledge the leadership of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) in recognising that, for the sake of Northern Ireland and its people, the DUP needed to return to government, and in arguing the case for that course of action so persuasively. The Secretary of State and I have both had the pleasure of meeting the new First Minister and Deputy First Minister. I must say that I agree with the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), that they have made a positive start and have set the tone for what we all hope will be a constructive and productive Administration. I join him in wishing both of them, together with the other members of the Executive and indeed the whole Assembly, every success in their responsibilities, because their task—our task, collectively—is to ensure that this restoration endures. Let us be frank, however. I hope people will also recognise that never again should Northern Ireland find itself without its Assembly and its devolved Government.

It is also right that we reaffirm our support for the Good Friday agreement in all its strands and dimensions. It is important for us to do so, because the agreement made possible the considerable progress we have seen in Northern Ireland, including the establishment of power sharing. That reaffirming is also needed because there was a perception that some of the language in the recent Command Paper was not wholly in keeping with the spirit of shared commitment.

I will raise one section of the Command Paper that I found genuinely puzzling, which is what it said about the all-island economy and the Government’s commitment to remove the legal duties to have regard to the all-island economy in section 10(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. That section of the withdrawal Act actually refers to having

“due regard to the joint report from the negotiators of the EU and the United Kingdom Government on progress during phase 1 of negotiations under Article 50”

on the United Kingdom’s orderly withdrawal from the EU. The report runs to 15 pages, but there appears, as far as I can see, to be only one reference in it to the all-island economy, in the last two lines of paragraph 49.

In responding, can the Minister explain what the effect would be of repealing section 10(1)(b) of the 2018 Act, given that it refers to the whole of the joint report, and not just to the reference in paragraph 49 to the all-island economy? Does that mean Ministers would no longer have to have regard to anything at all in the joint report —surely that cannot be the case—or are the Government saying that they wish to remove the reference to the all-island economy in paragraph 49? In that case, given that it was a joint report agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union, have Ministers told the EU of their intentions? To follow up, when might we see the legislation and the new statutory guidance?

No one is in any doubt that Northern Ireland does far more trade with the UK internal market than it does with Ireland, and that will continue to be the case, but it is also evident that trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic has increased since we left the European Union. That tells us that the all-island economy is both a fact and greatly to the benefit of businesses and people in Northern Ireland, whether that is milk from Northern Ireland going south to be processed, or Coca-Cola produced in the firm’s flagship plant in Lisburn being sold all over Ireland and beyond, or Guinness coming north from Dublin.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The right hon. Gentleman has rightly identified one of the impacts of the Windsor framework and the Northern Ireland protocol: namely, that trade is now being diverted to the Irish Republic, as firms in Northern Ireland find it more difficult to link with their supply chains in GB and are forced to look at supplies from the Irish Republic. Some of the people who are now purchasing from the Republic tell me that those supplies are more expensive and of lower quality.

[Hilary Benn]

The first point I would make to the right hon. Gentleman is that the three examples I have just given have nothing at all to do with the Northern Ireland protocol or the Windsor framework; they were all pre-existing facts of the all-island economy, which those businesses welcomed because it is about the ability to trade, find markets, sell their goods and make a return. Secondly, he returns, understandably, to the essential problem that the protocol and the Windsor framework have been trying to address, and it is the point that the Minister made openly in his speech, which is that once we left the EU, there was an issue about the border. One way or another, a way had to be found to ensure that goods moving across that non-existent border complied with the rules of the single market. The current Government under a previous Prime Minister made a choice as to how it was going to be done. I strongly support the Windsor framework, precisely because it is an important step forward in trying to make that trade, as the Minister referred to, as easy as possible for businesses. I make that point because many businesses do not really understand why the phrase “all-island economy” should provoke such strong feelings, especially when there has recently been a warm welcome to the allocations from the shared island fund for cross-community projects that will strengthen the all-island economy, including the much-needed improvement to the A5, a more regular train service between Belfast and Dublin, the Narrow Water bridge connecting the counties of Down and Meath, and a contribution to the building of Casement Park so that, in four years, we can all celebrate Northern Ireland helping to host the European football championship. I make that point because many businesses do not really understand why the phrase “all-island economy” should provoke such strong feelings, especially when there has recently been a warm welcome to the allocations from the shared island fund for cross-community projects that will strengthen the all-island economy, including the much-needed improvement to the A5, a more regular train service between Belfast and Dublin, the Narrow Water bridge connecting the counties of Down and Meath, and a contribution to the building of Casement Park so that, in four years, we can all celebrate Northern Ireland helping to host the European football championship.

Nevertheless, we warmly endorse the renewed commitment to the Good Friday agreement contained in the Humble Address, which of course was the then Government’s extraordinary achievement with all the parties involved in the negotiation almost 26 years ago. It is only right that we should remind ourselves as a country of the peace that it has created and of the obligations we took on when we signed it. That includes, as the Minister said, recognition that the future constitutional status of Northern Ireland is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland alone, and that with our co-guarantor, the Irish Government, we have a shared interest in continuing to promote peace, prosperity and progress north and south.

On the next section, when I read the Humble Address I wondered in passing when the Acts of Union 1800 were last referred to in a motion tabled by the Government. In the light of recent events, I felt that I should familiarise myself with the original Acts, although they have, of course, been considerably amended since. The Act of Union (Ireland) 1800 is short by modern standards—they knew how to say things much more briefly than we seem to manage these days—and contains a number of interesting provisions, including the application of tariffs and excise on certain categories of goods moving between Great Britain and Ireland. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley raised that point with me when we debated the matter recently.

Now, I do not think anyone wants to restore tariffs and excise on certain categories of goods moving, and I do not think anyone wants to restore section 21 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, which required that movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland be treated as imports and exports for the purposes of forms to be used and the information to be furnished. As we were told, customs officers were instructed to conduct physical inspections of ships with daily sailings twice weekly. How many people even recall that, in 1947, the Stormont Parliament introduced a requirement that workers from Great Britain would need a work permit to go and work in Northern Ireland?

Those are not just interesting historical facts. As the Command Paper’s informative annex pointed out—congratulations to the civil servants who did the research and drafted that—the Acts of Union have not been a guarantor at all times of free and unfettered movements of goods and people over the centuries. Instead, they have framed a slightly more complex relationship than is sometimes suggested.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

On the issues about which the right hon. Gentleman complains, it pains me to say it but they were put in place because the House of Commons voted to pass the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It is not correct to say that they are enforced upon Northern Ireland by the EU of its own volition; they were arrangements that the House decided should be put in place because the people of the UK had voted to leave the European Union. That, too, is a fact.

[Sammy Wilson]

That vote was made in this House on two grounds. First, the EU made its terms clear and we had a spineless Government that were prepared to bow to it, saying that if those arrangements were not put in place, there would be no deal. Weighing up the impact that might have on the rest of the United Kingdom and the impact it would have on Northern Ireland, the Government decided that Northern Ireland would be the sacrificial lamb. Secondly, we were told at that time, as was this House and businesses in Northern Ireland, “Don’t worry,” and were promised, “You’ll get some bits of paper but just tear them up, or give the Prime Minister a ring and he’ll make sure you don’t have to worry about them.” I accept that the decision was made by this House, but it was made on that basis, and the fact is it still had a detrimental impact on Northern Ireland.

Changes have been made by the Windsor framework, the Northern Ireland protocol and the “Safeguarding the Union” document, but the economic foundational importance of the Act of Union is still being undermined. We are told that 20% of goods still have to go through a red lane. Most of those goods go to manufacturing businesses or distributors in Northern Ireland, in many cases because they are parts of products that will eventually be sold. The businesses will still be subject to checks because the product has not been made—it is only parts coming in—and because of the eventual destination of the products, even though most businesses can say, “Look, we sell in Northern Ireland, outside EU or to GB”.

I spoke to a businessman this morning who informed me that the situation is going to get worse. The paperwork for the last order he got for goods coming through the red lane took six hours. When people are working on very thin margins, that additional work makes them question whether to invest further in Northern Ireland or to jump over the border to the Irish Republic, so the red lane requirements have a huge economic impact.

Even the UK internal market requirements are at the gift of the EU, because the EU still has control of trade that comes from GB into Northern Ireland through regulations 2023/1231 and 2023/1128. If the EU deems at any stage that the arrangements for the internal market lane do not meet its requirements, the ultimate say as to what happens to those movements of trade will remain with the EU and it can go back to the default position with 100% checks. I note that those two regulations have not been removed by the EU as a result of “Safeguarding the Union”. The EU still holds that control, which is worrying for businesses in Northern Ireland. The Humble Address is all about telling His Majesty that the foundational importance of the Act of Union will be respected and is being respected by the Government, but that is just not true.

My final point is about the part of the Humble Address that says that

“executive power in Northern Ireland shall continue to be vested in His Majesty, and that joint authority is not provided for in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998 in respect of the UK and Irish Governments.”

There is no definition of “joint authority”. In the past, Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box and told us there has been no change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland as a result of the protocol and the Windsor framework, and Northern Ireland was still fully part of the United Kingdom. Words can mean whatever they want, it seems, when the Government find themselves challenged by the agreement they have made with the EU.

I trust that the Government will not accede to some of the demands that have been made. In his intervention, the hon. Member for North Down said that he wanted a review of the Belfast agreement. That would open all kinds of doors. If he had his way, the review would be based on a majority view of what should happen in the future. The removal of the consent principle and the majority vote in the Assembly is what he and his friends in Sinn Féin and the SDLP are aiming for now. Unionists are now a minority, so majoritarianism is no longer a problem.

Northern Ireland

Debate between Hilary Benn and Sammy Wilson

Thursday 1st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I am a teetotaller, so perhaps I do not feel the suffering in that example in the same way as other Members. However, the right hon. Gentleman is an observant student of Northern Ireland history, and he makes his point extremely forcefully.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the right hon. Member recognise the difference between a tariff being put on by this Parliament or the Assembly or a Parliament in Northern Ireland, where the people of the country elect representatives who take a decision on tariffs that act as an impediment to trade, and a tariff imposed by an outside body such as the EU, which is the case in Northern Ireland? That is how the Act of Union is being disrupted, because an outside body can interfere with it.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Debate between Hilary Benn and Sammy Wilson

2nd reading
Wednesday 24th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with my hon. Friend that this is the moment to get the institutions back up and running. I wish the person he referred to all the best in their treatment.

The civil servants are left to make decisions that ought to be made by elected representatives. In the case of public sector pay, for example, some workers have not had a pay rise for almost three years—that should hardly bear repetition—and no decisions have been taken because there is not enough money in the budget to do so. That is why there was such a large strike last week, and I see that further industrial action is likely coming towards us. Everyone, including the Government, now recognises that that is not a sustainable position.

The proof on the Government’s side is that, in announcing the financial package, they identified money for public sector pay, but it will not be released until such time as the Executive are restored. If I may be frank, I understand why the Secretary of State took that decision initially, but in relation to public sector pay, that moment has now passed. That is why I called on him last week to release that part of the budget package so that the disputes can be settled, workers can get their pay increases and public services can try to address the many challenges that they face.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an important point. Many public sector pay awards have been made—nearly 50 over the past year. The only reason the current one is not being made is that the Secretary of State is holding teachers, nurses and so on as pawns in the game that he is playing in his efforts to force us to make a decision that he wants us to make, but that we do not wish to make.

[Hilary Benn]

The right hon. Gentleman links the pay question to his stance on the DUP’s difference of view on the Windsor framework and the protocol. I say to him in return that it is equally true that if the DUP were to go back into government, public sector workers would get their pay increase. That is why I said a moment ago that I hope very much that that will be the case.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Debate between Hilary Benn and Sammy Wilson

Committee stage
Wednesday 20th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Brexit undoubtably casts a heavy shadow over this debate. The point raised by the right hon. Members for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) on the democratic deficit is fairly made, although almost all the laws under which Northern Ireland is currently operating apply in the United Kingdom because of retained EU law. We must not get this entirely out of perspective because the Government chose, at the moment of withdrawal, to take EU law, move it across and stick it into UK legislation.

[Sammy Wilson]

Although the right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about EU law being retained for the rest of the United Kingdom, the vital difference is that the 82 pages of EU law contained in the protocol can be changed. Those changes apply to Northern Ireland, which is where the democratic deficit comes in.

[Hilary Benn]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I understand it entirely. I am talking about the situation as it is today. We should, therefore, be calm and reasonable in describing it.

Let us not forget that Northern Ireland is in a unique and favourable position compared with my constituents, precisely because it has access to both the market of the United Kingdom and the market of the European Union, which is why the polling indicates that businesses in Northern Ireland are very much in favour of having this privileged access, which other parts of the United Kingdom would greatly like.

The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet correctly made a point about the grace period. I do not understand why the Government did not just continue negotiating within the grace period. [Interruption.] The Minister for the Cabinet Office raises his eyebrows, but we have now been in the grace period for 18 months. I believe there is a problem with the checks that needs to be sorted out, as I have said on the record many times. In my conversations with European colleagues, I have asked them to give me one example of how the integrity, safety and security of the single market has been compromised during the grace period. I have yet to receive an answer that a problem has actually arisen. The longer that goes on—perhaps that would have been the better approach for the Government—the more difficult it becomes for the EU to argue, “There is a fundamental difficulty here, which is why we need the whole panoply”. In the end, we are going to have to identify where the real risks are, and it is a relatively limited number of products. For the rest, particularly those goods that come to supermarkets and businesses in Northern Ireland that are not going anywhere else, a completely different solution could be required, although the Government are going to have a job on their hands to differentiate between the two.

I wish to speak in support of my amendment 12, which I hope might be voted on later, my amendment 13 and other amendments. I said last week that the Bill as a whole was egregious, but clause 18(1), to which amendment 12 refers, is particularly so, because it states:

“A Minister of the Crown may engage in conduct in relation to any matter dealt with in the Northern Ireland Protocol…if the Minister of the Crown considers it appropriate”.

Basically, that is asking the House to legislate to give Ministers a power to do whatever they feel like, provided, in their opinion, that they think it is appropriate. We should listen to what Sir Jonathan Jones, the former Treasury Solicitor has had to say. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who is on our Front Bench, mentioned, Sir Jonathan described this power as “extraordinary” and said it is a “do whatever you like” power, and no wonder. He also said in the article he wrote that the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which led to his resignation, was bad enough, but this Bill is of a “wholly different order”. The Hansard Society has criticised the clause as not being subject to any parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever, a criticism also made by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which said:

“There is no definition of ‘conduct’ in the Bill itself. And there is nothing on the face of clause 18 that would prevent it from creating legally binding rules of general application.”

The Committee has previously criticised what it calls “disguised legislation,” by which it means

“instruments that are legislative in effect but often not subject to parliamentary oversight. Examples include guidance, determinations, arrangements, codes of practice and public notices. Clause 18 appears to allow all these things to be done, without any parliamentary procedure and in a way that is binding on the general public.”

So the question the Committee reasonably ask of the Minister is: what is this power and what do Ministers want it for? If I heard the Minister correctly, he said that the clause was there merely to ensure that Ministers acted lawfully. What is this “conduct”? I ask because “engage in conduct” is, as the very helpful House of Commons Library note says,

“an unusual form of words for a statutory power.”

If we turn to the Bill’s explanatory notes for some enlightenment, we see that they state that clause 18(1) authorises “sub-legislative activity”. I have been in the House for a few years and I have never come across the concept of “sub-legislative activity”, whatever that is. The only example given in the explanatory notes is guidance. If the Government’s aim is to have a power to issue guidance on matters that they have not thought of in the rest of the Bill or might think of at some point in the future, why does the clause not say, “The Minister will have the power to issue guidance”? It does not say that.

The other example the Minister gave left me even more perplexed. He said that this was to enable Ministers to issue instructions to civil servants. I was a Minister for nine years and I am not aware that I had to refer to a bit of legislation to give instructions to civil servants. I find the explanation wholly incredible, so it begs the question, and ought to beg the question for the Committee, whether one supports the principle of the Bill or not: what are the Government actually seeking to do? The Hansard Society, in its excellent note, makes it clear that that is not a narrow, obscure point. It is about ensuring that relevant legal provisions are drafted and treated consistently with other legislation. That is why the Hansard Society says:

“It also ensures that law-making does not circumvent the publication requirements that accompany, and the parliamentary scrutiny that is afforded to, primary and delegated legislation.”

In this case, the Government have given no explanation of why they believe that the powers are needed—apart from in relation to guidance and instructing civil servants, as we have just heard from the Minister—or why they believe that the powers are administrative rather than legislative. We need to hear from the Minister in his further contribution precisely what conduct is covered by cause 18(1). If he has a list of things in mind, will he please amend the Bill and put them in one by one so that we can see what they are? Secondly, will he give a categorical assurance that this provision will not permit legally binding obligations to be made as a result of that conduct? I raise that issue because the Government have not included clause 18(1) in the Bill’s delegated powers memorandum, which is quite a significant point.

The clause is also indicative of the Government’s wider ambitions for, and the problems they are having with, the Bill. What they really want to do—the Minister has been absolutely open about this, to his great credit—is give themselves the power to do whatever they want in relation to the protocol. They want to be able to turn things on, turn them off and even turn them back on again whenever they feel like it. The fundamental problem, which has become evident over the last two days in Committee, is that, in fairness, Ministers are not entirely clear how some of their proposals—for example, a red customs lane and a green customs lane, or the dual regulatory regime, which we discussed at some length yesterday—will work in practice.

To take the example of the dual regulatory regime, when pressed on whether firms would be required to choose whether to follow EU or UK rules, the Minister said yesterday:

“clause 7 makes it clear that businesses will have a choice which regulatory route to follow when supplying goods to the market in Northern Ireland.”

However, later he said that clause 11 would

“allow a Minister to prescribe a single regulatory route for specific sectors, including a UK-only route with no application of EU law”—[Official Report, 19 July 2022; Vol. 718, c. 877-79.]

In other words, businesses will be absolutely free to choose which system they want to use, unless and until the Government tell them which one they must use.

There is a confusion and a contradiction here. Why would Ministers want to take such a power if they are confident that they have already worked out how a dual regulatory system will work? I do not think they are confident, because they do not know the answer. That is why so many of these Henry VIII powers are dotted throughout the Bill to give the Government the cover they require. For me that goes to the heart of why clause 18(1) is so objectionable and why it has been more widely criticised—apart from the Bill itself—than any other clause: the Government are trying to give themselves a sweeping power and a sweeping-up power. That is why this provision should be removed.

Let me turn briefly to my amendment 13. To be frank, I tabled it as a probing amendment because I was trying to understand the Government’s intention in allowing courts or tribunals in the UK to refer matters to the European Court. There is a bit of a contradiction between clause 20(2), which would prevent any UK court from referring a matter to the European Court, and clause 20(4), which would allow the Government to lay down in regulations a procedure under which courts could refer matters of interpretation of EU law to the European Court. To put it simply, if the Government are planning regulations to allow referrals—if they are not planning that, why does subsection (4) exist—why take a blanket power two subsections earlier to prevent any referrals whatever. The thinking does not seem clear.

Finally, given what I have said about the inappropriate use of the word “appropriate” in the Bill, I support the Opposition amendments, including new clauses 11 and 12, which would change the word “appropriate” to “necessary”. It seems to me that that would provide a better and a higher test for the exercise of ministerial discretion rather than the wide latitude allowed for in the Bill, which has rightly led to so much criticism from so many quarters.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Debate between Hilary Benn and Sammy Wilson

2nd reading
Monday 27th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley]

rose—

[Sammy Wilson]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

I am not going to give way, as I want to keep to time.

Of course there are products where it can reasonably be argued that there is a potential risk. I wish we had spent the time talking about those products, one by one, because if there is a good case I am sure the Government will respond. While the EU says it has offered to reduce paperwork, it is important to remember that it is a reduction compared with the full application of the rules; it is an increase compared with what is currently the case because of the extension of the grace periods. That is why I have said to the EU and all I have spoken to that the EU needs to move to make this negotiation work. Surely we can reach some agreement on SPS checks on the basis that almost all the food produced in Britain is produced to exactly the same standards as it was while we were members of the EU.

I find this very frustrating because we hear Simon Coveney say on the radio, when the idea of a green lane is put to him, “We have proposed something very similar”. Well, why cannot the two parties get on with the negotiation to make this happen? Heaven forbid, if we can negotiate the Belfast/Good Friday agreement—an astonishing achievement, the phrase of my good friend my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—are the Government really incapable, with the EU, of negotiating for a prawn sandwich to cross the Irish sea without a lot of accompanying paperwork? This cannot be beyond the wit and ability of politicians.

In my view, this is a Bill borne of desperation rather than principle. It is a Bill trying to solve a problem that is entirely of the Government’s own making. It does Britain’s international standing no good whatsoever. And it will make the negotiation, which is the only way this is going to be solved in the end, harder rather than easier. There are so many more pressing things for us to be talking about with the EU—our biggest, nearest and most important trading partner still—not least the war in Ukraine and not least climate change. The current crisis in the Government in respect of Northern Ireland arises from a practical problem and requires a practical solution. We need those old virtues of patient diplomacy and negotiation, which take as their starting point the purpose of the rules, which is to protect the integrity of the single market, rather than the rules themselves. Frankly, it is now time for the Government, together with the EU, to get back around the table and sort this out.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Hilary Benn and Sammy Wilson

Committee: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The right hon. Gentleman is getting to the nub of the issue. If a meaningful vote, by his definition, means that Parliament should be able to say to the Government, “We don’t like the deal that you have got, and we’re not accepting no deal, so go back to the EU and negotiate another deal,” what chance does he think there is that those who do not want us to leave in the first place will ever offer a deal that this House could buy into?

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman anticipates precisely the point that I was going to make—[Interruption.] I was. As we have already heard, all the Ministers and Prime Ministers who negotiate in this process will say at some point, either in the main forum or in other discussions, “I’ll never get this through my Parliament.” That is the accountability we are talking about. It is called democracy, and it is really important that Ministers, Prime Ministers and negotiators have that thought in their minds when they are negotiating on behalf of the country and the House. In such circumstances, I think the House would first want to ask why we were facing no deal, and it might well wish to give the Government fresh negotiating instructions. The House might want to tell the Government to go back in and say, “On reflection, we would like to suggest that we do the following.” There must be sufficient time for that to take place if we are going to get a reasonable deal.

Another point I want to make—I am conscious, Sir David, of what you said about the time—is that Ministers need to understand why they are having such difficulty with this fundamental debate on the Bill. It has to do with the history of the Government’s handling of the whole process. At every single stage, this House has had to demand our role and our voice. I remember the answer when people first asked what the Government’s negotiating objectives were: “Brexit means Brexit.” When a follow-up question was asked, we were told—