United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Monday 21st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Let me get this right. My hon. Friend seems to be saying, “If somebody else does something wrong, it’s okay for us to do something wrong.” I am sorry, I do not agree with him on that point.

I recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) has taken every effort to ameliorate the impact of these clauses, and the Government have accepted and put down their own amendment. But, frankly, my view is that to the outside world, it makes no difference whether a decision to break international law is taken by a Minister or by this Parliament; it is still a decision to break international law. This can only weaken the UK in the eyes of the world. One of the great strengths we have as a country is our commitment to the rule of law, and this will have been damaged. Our reputation as a country that stands by its word will have been tarnished, and the willingness of other countries to trust the United Kingdom and its values will have been reduced. So much for global Britain!

In 2018, when Russian agents used a chemical weapon on the streets of Salisbury to attempt to murder Sergei and Yulia Skripal—a nerve agent that led to the death of Dawn Sturgess and affected her partner, Charlie Rowley—I led the action. I called on our friends and allies to stand alongside the United Kingdom, and I led the action that resulted in 29 countries expelling an unprecedented 153 Russian agents from their borders. We were able to do that because those countries had trust in the United Kingdom. Where will that trust be in the future if they see a United Kingdom willing to break its word and international law?

If we pass this Bill with clauses 41 to 45, and in so doing accede to the Government’s wish to break international law, I believe it will have a detrimental effect on people’s trust in the United Kingdom. As the United Kingdom negotiates trade deals around the rest of the world, why should anybody we are negotiating with believe that we will uphold what we sign up to in those agreements if we have said clearly, “If we don’t like it after we’ve signed up to it, we’ll break it”?

This is a country that upholds the rule of law. That is one of the things that makes us great; it is one of our characteristics. We propound and uphold the rule of law around the world. The Conservative party upholds the rule of law—it is one of our values and characteristics—yet we are being asked to tear up that principle and throw away that value. Why? I can only see, on the face of it, that it is because the Government did not really understand what they were signing up to when they signed the withdrawal agreement.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon described the Government’s action as unconscionable. As has been said, Lord Keen resigned because he said that he found it increasingly difficult to reconcile his obligations as a Law Officer with the Government’s policy intentions. Frankly, I find it difficult to understand how any Minister can go through the Lobby to support these clauses.

I consider that, in introducing clauses 41 to 45, the Government are acting recklessly and irresponsibly, with no thought to the long-term impact on the United Kingdom’s standing in the world. It will lead to untold damage to the United Kingdom’s reputation and puts its future at risk. As a result, with regret I have to tell the Minister that I cannot support this Bill.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

It is a privilege to follow such a thoughtful and considered speech.

I rise to speak to amendments 31 and 32, in my name and the names of my colleagues. They require that the definition of terms used in clause 45 be determined only after an impact assessment of the UK Government’s obligations under international law has been carried out. I am also happy to speak in support of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends from the Alliance and the SDLP, and I look forward to further debate in Committee.

The SNP rejected the Bill on Second Reading because we will never support legislation that breaks international law—I am not actually sure why I have to say that. Our amendments seek to ensure that this Parliament understands the impact on its international obligations of any future decisions that it takes on the matters covered by the Bill. The UK Government have presented a Bill that not only threatens a breach of international law—a position that now seems to satisfy many Conservative Members—but was in itself a monumental act of bad faith that speaks volumes about their view of themselves and the world around them.

Last October, speaking about his withdrawal deal, the Prime Minister said:

“if we do this deal—if we pass this deal and the legislation that enables it—we can turn the page and allow this Parliament and this country to begin to heal and unite.”—[Official Report, 22 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 826.]

The range of the amendments to this section of the Bill alone make it clear—not that we needed the clarity—that healing and unity can hardly be described as the highlights of his leadership.

In November 2019, the Prime Minister said:

“Northern Ireland has got a great deal. You keep free movement, you keep access to the single market”.

The Minister spoke about the Conservative manifesto, but it and the Conservative campaign boasted of the Prime Minister’s oven-ready deal. The Prime Minister was effusive in his support of the deal, calling it “very good”, “excellent”, “fantastic” and “wonderful”, but here we are, and he has changed his tune: far from his deal being oven-ready, it is now only fit for the cowp.

[Ian Paisley]

Is the hon. Lady telling us that she and her party believed the Prime Minister then?

[Kirsten Oswald]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. The short answer is no. Regrettably, I do not believe the Prime Minister, on this or other matters.

The Prime Minister said at that point:

“We have to protect the U.K. from that disaster”:

a disaster—and that is his word, not mine—that was negotiated by him and the same adviser as he has now. The Prime Minister visited Northern Ireland last month and talked of close co-operation between central and devolved Governments, but in the least surprising news of the day, certainly to viewers in Scotland, he did not engage with anyone outside Westminster in the development of his Bill. He excluded all of the devolved Administrations from the process of developing a so-called single market through the United Kingdom—plus ça change. Despite the clear relationship between this Bill and the peace process, as well as not engaging with the Northern Irish Executive, the Prime Minister failed to engage with the Irish Government. Despite the clear importance of doing so, he just breenged on regardless. We know why there was no engagement. It is because this shabby Bill—his shabby Bill—had to be put together out of sight of people that the Prime Minister could not control, people with respect for the rule of law and for accountability.

The SNP amendments would ensure that this Parliament would receive an assessment of the impact of any future action on these matters on the UK Government’s obligations under international law—a proper assessment, not the usual triumph of blustering bombast over good judgment by the Prime Minister. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better from the Conservative party, and our amendments recognise that. How can businesses and communities plan with any confidence when their future depends on the internal battles of a party that shows such scant regard for the rule of law?

[Colum Eastwood]

There has been a lot of talk in recent weeks about consent. The hon. Member rightly says that the devolved Administrations were not spoken to at all about this Bill. With all the talk about consent, it might be useful for the House to know that the Northern Ireland Assembly has just voted in favour of the withdrawal agreement—in favour of sticking to the agreement that the British Government have made with the European Union, and that includes the Northern Ireland protocol. It is the voice of Northern Ireland and it is saying very clearly that this Bill is wrong.

[Kirsten Oswald]

I thank my hon. Friend that intervention. That is a key point for us. How can anyone trust a Government who do not stand behind the agreements they negotiate—a Government who cannot even agree with themselves?

The Prime Minister’s approach has led to several senior legal figures making a sharp exit. Sir Jonathan Jones, the head of the Government’s legal department; Lord Keen, the UK Government’s most senior adviser on Scots law; and David Melding, Shadow Counsel General in the Welsh Senedd, have all walked away. We have heard about Lord Keen’s letter of resignation, but it was particularly telling in respect of the matters that are before us today. He said:

“I have endeavoured to identify a respectable argument for the provisions at clauses 42 to 45 of the bill, but it is now clear that this will not meet your policy intentions.”

That is a damning condemnation from a former chair of the Conservative party in Scotland. No Member representing a Scottish constituency can defend these clauses—or, in fact, this Bill—and expect to be taken seriously when they claim to stand up for Scotland in this place.

We have also heard that the Sir Declan Morgan, the Lord Chief Justice—Northern Ireland’s top judge—warned that when Governments break international law, that

“might undermine…the administration of justice.”

That should concern us all. Even the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), who is a barrister, felt the need to resign as the Prime Minister’s special envoy on freedom of religion. These are telling actions and words that should give the Prime Minister pause for thought and reflection. This Bill is a grubby power grab that we cannot and will not support, and this part, as it stands, hangs like a badge of dishonour around this Prime Minister’s term of office—however long or short that might be.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister’s approach is being propped up by those with somewhat flexible standards. The Attorney General’s take could most charitably be described as mince, and the Lord Chancellor says he will resign only if the Government break the rule of law in a way that is “unacceptable”, which obviously, for a Law Officer, prompts the question: what is an acceptable way to break the law?

What of the effect of the Bill on the UK and Northern Ireland? In October last year, when he was still trying to convince us that he had negotiated a great deal, the Prime Minister said of his withdrawal agreement Bill:

“For those who share my belief in the transformative power of free trade…a new deal, enabled by this Bill, will allow us to sign free trade agreements around the world.”—[Official Report, 22 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 830.]

By using this Bill to trash that deal, the Prime Minister has again exposed the ethical vacuum at the heart of his Government and undermined trust around the world—and all the time he has singularly failed to deliver what is needed by Northern Ireland. As Professor Katy Hayward of Queen’s University Belfast put it,

“the one thing most hoped for from this bill—certainty—has become an even more distant prospect.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

There are many essential reasons, in our national interest and on constitutional and legal grounds, and grounds of practical necessity, for the clear, unambiguous “notwithstanding” clauses in the Bill that have been discussed in the context of clauses 42 to 45.

I mentioned in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) that this was a question not just of whether the Euro pot was calling the British kettle black, but of whether, in the United Kingdom, we had ourselves overridden clear treaties. There are too many—they are far too numerous—to mention in this short debate. Of course, there is also an enormous number of examples of international law breaches by foreign states—not only, in Europe, by member states but by the EU itself, egregiously. Furthermore, there are examples of other countries, every one of them democratically elected, having done so. This question of values and reputation, and the issues that have arisen, has to be weighed against that context.

Of course, there are many international treaties, and there are many aspects—

[Kirsten Oswald]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir William Cash]

In a moment. There are many aspects of international law that are sacrosanct—those in respect of torture, genocide and the rest, for example—and it is the fact that international law comes in many shapes, sizes and degrees, as I am sure we all know.

Basically, the point is that where the sovereignty of a nation is involved—the Vienna convention addresses this question—and where we are at the highest end of where the national interest lies, other considerations come into play. It is absolutely clear that in many instances, democratically elected civilisations—countries—have themselves broken these treaties.

This Bill does not, in my view, breach international law, but our rule of law must be based on our Parliament making our laws for our people based on our sovereignty, not judges. Indeed, Parliament itself voted for section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, without a single vote or even a voice raised in opposition, as far as I am aware, in either House on Second Reading. That Bill passed its Second Reading by as many as 124 votes.

The famous Lord Bingham clearly demonstrated this in chapter 12 of his book, “The Rule of Law”. He said clearly, with respect to the fact that it is our Parliament, not judges, that makes laws for our people based on sovereignty, that he had come across a number of judgments that had breached that principle. Wise judges do not want to make political decisions. His unimpeachable principles turn on their head the exaggerated claims with respect to the breaking of international law that has not taken place.

As I said, the German Federal Constitutional Court stated in December 2015:

“International law leaves it to each state…to give precedence to national law”.

Laying a Bill is not a breach of international law and is privileged. If a treaty is entered into on the reasonable assumption that a state of affairs would exist, but that does not transpire, the treaty is voidable. The agreement was written on the basis of the EU recognising our sovereignty, which has not happened.

International law is broken by democratic countries throughout the world and the EU, in their own interests. The list is long, but I will give a few examples. Western Sahara is one case. Another is migrants sent back to north Africa and Turkey. In 2010, when the EU broke the Lisbon treaty, Madame Lagarde said,

“We violated all the rules”

about the Greek and Irish bail-outs. The EU is unilaterally changing the bilateral channel tunnel treaty without our being able to prevent it. The EU threatened to use the WTO’s most favoured nation principle against the UK contrary to state practice, core principles of world trade and requirements negotiated in good faith.

I have another stack of examples, which I mentioned, where UK statute has overridden international treaties. There is no argument about it; it is there in black and white in the treaties and in the sections of various enactments that have overtaken and overridden international law.

It is understandable that some are bothered about this to a degree, but the fact is—

[Kirsten Oswald]

rose—

[Sir William Cash]

I said, “to a degree”. Within the framework of international law, it is entirely a question of whether the degree to which it is done is commensurate with what is being proposed. The case of sovereignty goes to the heart of the extent to which we are entitled to take the action that we do.

This is less about breaking international law than about breaking the conditions in respect of state aid and in respect of the manner in which the Northern Ireland protocol would operate in the UK with respect to breaking the issues of contract and of the manner in which people work in this country. We are faced with a critical problem, the effect of which is that if we were not to pass these clear and unambiguous clauses, we would find that we were subjected to EU laws—that we were subjugated to them—in a way that would ensure that we would not be able to compete effectively throughout the world or support the workers of this country, particularly in the context of covid.

Section 38 was passed by every single person in this House and by the House of Lords. There is no doubt about that. The notwithstanding provision is inviolate; it is in an Act of Parliament. These enactments do the necessary job to ensure the future prosperity and competitiveness of this country, and the opportunity for its people to move forward in an enterprise society to enable future generations after Brexit to guarantee their jobs, their businesses and their future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I apologise to my right hon. Friend. His name was in my mind because it was on the monitor before the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth spoke.

It is important to see these clauses in the wider context. My heart sank when I picked up the first draft of the agreement, because this was not the departure from the European Union that I had expected to see expressed in the text of the agreement; it was the same oppressive, impenetrable text with endless references to the treaties as they exist. The withdrawal agreement was clearly a concerted attempt by the European Union to continue its influence, even through the direct applicability and direct effect of European Union law on the United Kingdom.

[Kirsten Oswald]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

No, I am not going to give way. I am going to be very brief.

The important perspective is to ask ourselves how this debate is going to be regarded in 10, 20 or 30 years’ time. These controversies will be seen as the growing pains of the re-establishment of our national sovereign independence as a national democracy. I dare say that none of us has studied the debates on the Great Reform Act of 1832, but I bet they went through exactly the same kind of painful introspection that we have seen in the Chamber this evening. Today we look upon the 1832 Reform Act as a great stride towards the democratisation of our constitution, and history will look back at these debates in the same way and see this moment in our history as the time that we decided to take back control of our own constitutional arrangements and our own national democracy.

I would go further than that. There is no doubt that this Bill will get through this House intact, but some people are suggesting that there will be more of a problem in the other place. There will be those who continue to resist the consequences of leaving the European Union and the consequences of having signed a highly unsatisfactory agreement that attempts to sustain the influence of the European Union far beyond any legitimate role it has in making the laws of our country. That is what we are talking about, in relieving ourselves of these clauses. However, I can assure the House that, in the long run, nothing is going to stand in the way of the British people re-establishing and reclaiming our independence, and if the other place chooses to stand in our way in that respect, I suspect that in the longer term this House, as the democratic House, will prevail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)]

In rising to support the Bill, I want to speak about clauses 40 to 45. I start by quoting from the manifesto that I proudly stood on. It brought not just me to the House, but so many of my colleagues. That manifesto said clearly:

“We will ensure that Northern Ireland’s businesses and producers enjoy unfettered access to the rest of the UK and that in the implementation of our Brexit deal, we maintain and strengthen the integrity and smooth operation of our internal market.”

[Kirsten Oswald]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Antony Higginbotham]

I will not, because I am short on time. The clauses we are talking about today do exactly what we said in the manifesto. Clause 40 deals with Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market. Clause 41 deals with unfettered access. Those should be uncontroversial clauses and they should be uncontroversial because they are explicitly referenced in the protocol itself, which states that

“nothing in this Protocol prevents the United Kingdom from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom’s internal market”.

As we have heard today, the protocol goes on to set out in high-level terms how we avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland, something that I am as committed to today as I was the day I voted for Brexit. We heard eloquently from my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) why that is so important. The protocol also sets out that it is for the Joint Committee to reach agreement on some of the specifics. It delegates decision making to that committee to finesse the detail and act in a way that is consistent with the protocol. The protocol requires both sides to negotiate in good faith, protect the Good Friday agreement and reach a free trade deal, because ultimately that free trade deal is what will prevent a hard border. That is what we are striving for, and that is what the clauses help to do.

However, given the short time before the end of the transition and that no free trade agreement has yet been agreed, we have to give thought to what happens if the EU takes an approach that is not in good faith. What if it takes a maximalist approach to what goods are considered high risk or a maximalist approach to what would constitute state aid that impacts the European Union? The outcome of that decision would not only be a major impediment to Great Britain and Northern Irish trade, but would threaten our own integrity and the Good Friday agreement. Are some seriously suggesting that in that scenario there should not be a means for the UK to respond? Are they suggesting we should look at such a situation, shrug our shoulders and say international law means we must surrender parts of our country?

I heard the concerns from Members on both sides of the Committee about international law, but let us be clear on what we are not doing. I do not think that the language has been helpful. We have heard references to rogue states, to the Novichok poisoning on UK streets and to Hong Kong citizens, but we are not breaking international criminal law. We are not breaking an international treaty on global security. We are not breaking a free trade agreement. We are saying that, having signed up to an agreement to fulfil a democratic mandate to the people of this country, which one side appears to be using to undermine our constitutional integrity, we will stand resolutely as one country in pushing back.

We have values as a country, and yes, those include standing up for an international rules-based system, the rule of law and democratic sovereignty, but when conflict arises, which it can do from time to time, Parliament remains sovereign, and this Parliament will act in the interests of our Union. That position was reaffirmed in our own EU withdrawal Act, which recognised the sovereignty of Parliament. If this Parliament is sovereign, we must act for the constitutional integrity of our country, and for that reason, I will be supporting this Bill.