Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 11th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, over the Recess, the Minister and I both travelled to regions of the world where peace building continues to need to be nurtured and where trust is a vital commodity. The offensive nature of this Bill is that in just one measure it breaches international law, undermines our reliability for other international trade agreements, divides communities rather than brings them together and abuses proper parliamentary legislative processes to an egregious degree. The fact that it is a Foreign Office Bill—a department which is meant to promote the currency of the British word in an unreliable world—is doing immeasurable damage. I believe that the House knows it and that the Minister, who is very highly respected here, must know it too. My colleagues will expand on these areas in their contributions.

When the Government presented their protocol, they did so with somewhat of a Janus face. “Best of both worlds” and “oven-ready deal” was how it was how it was spun, but the unspun accompanying impact assessment was clear that it was neither, and far more complex.

Chapter 6 of the impact assessment at the time, on risks, states in paragraph 295:

“An increase in uncertainty associated with the UK’s regulatory or customs position with the EU could affect the business environment and consumer confidence. The costs of new checks and administration associated with the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol may affect the profitability of businesses trading to and from NI … given uncertainty around price changes, or the UK’s and NI’s relationship with the EU, consumers may decide to delay spending, reducing consumer demand for goods and services”.


Paragraph 302 states:

“The proposals will have an effect on all UK businesses that move goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, irrespective of the business’s size … a ‘one size fits all’ approach for business trade requirements is likely to have a disproportionate effect on SMBs in particular”.


Paragraph 319 states:

“This could result in higher prices for Northern Ireland consumers purchasing goods which reached Northern Ireland from both Great Britain and Ireland.”


Remember, this is what the Government said would happen if it was working—not if it was not working, which is what the Minister seems to be suggesting today. Perhaps the Government thought that we would not read the impact assessment at the time, let alone remember it. Boris Johnson said that there would be no problems. Liz Truss said that the problems were “unintended”. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, said that they were someone else’s fault. Speak no evil, hear no evil, but see evil.

When Liz Truss said in the spring that there were “unintended consequences”, the poor officials who outlined the intended consequences must have rolled their eyes. However, with the joint monitoring and systems that the Minister has outlined today, they were the very ones that were rejected by the Government at the time of the protocol. I am therefore not surprised that some want the protocol ended.

Instead, the Government say that they want to mend it, not end it. So if they mend, not end, what will be left of it? Northern Ireland will still have to operate under a foreign power’s laws and have no say over them. It will still collect its taxes, still operate under its state aid rules and still have to comply with the hundreds of regulations listed in the annexe to the Brexit agreement that I spoke of in 2019.

On countless occasions, the Liberal Democrats, along with our Alliance partners in Northern Ireland, warned constructively but repeatedly that the Government knew they were in breach of the previous commitment that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, gave to this House in January 2019 when he said:

“We will give an unequivocal commitment that that there will be no divergence in rules between … Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.—[Official Report, 9/1/19; col. 2222.]


We were ridiculed and condemned, especially in the House of Commons by people such as Steve Baker MP. However, today, on behalf of my colleagues, I accept Steve Baker’s apology. By the way, some might be tempted to suggest that it is the fact that we have this Bill that forced Brussels’ hand to return to talks; it is perhaps the welcome hand of apology from a Northern Ireland Minister.

The Minister’s justification for the Bill today seems to be based on the coming to pass of the very impacts that the Government themselves said were going to happen, but that case for the Government is disingenuous as the Bill does not even address all the areas in the Government’s previous Command Paper. There, they listed what they said were the problems with the protocol —not least that it would be an ongoing “democratic deficit”, which, I remind the House, was a fully intended consequence. So the Government cannot say that this is the solution when it omits whole swathes of areas that they previously said were the problem.

At this point, it is worth saying that the impact of the protocol has been mixed, with some benefits for people in Northern Ireland, which has benefited from the single market. Those are not my words; they are the words of the Northern Ireland Economy Ministry under a DUP Minister. I will quote from Invest NI:

“This dual market access position means that Northern Ireland can become a gateway for the sale of goods to two of the world’s largest markets … This is a unique proposition for manufacturers based in Northern Ireland as well as those seeking a pivotal location from which to service GB and EU markets … These additional benefits further enhance Northern Ireland’s already strong proposition as a prime location to establish, or grow, a business”.


I think the whole House wishes the Northern Ireland economy well and wishes growth for it, but the Government’s legal position is that all of what the DUP Minister’s department is saying is a grave and imminent peril to this country. Both cannot be right.

Describing “grave and imminent peril” is in the Government’s legal position: it seems to be their case. They cite the UN International Law Commission’s Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts from 2001. However, Article 25 of that states:

“Necessity may not be invoked by a State … unless the act … is the only way for the State to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril”.


It goes on to say that

“necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding wrongfulness if … the State has contributed to the situation of necessity.”

The Government state that the UK has not contributed to this situation of necessity relied upon. But, of course, that is almost a risible explanation, given that the Minister at the time, in 2019, signed an impact assessment saying that they were party to it. Given that the UK has made policy decisions separate from the agreement that would have had a material impact on UK trade with Northern Ireland, such as on labelling requirements, the Government cannot credibly argue the UK has been a wholly unwitting and absent bystander to this process.

I agree with the Law Society of Scotland, which said that the Bill goes beyond what is necessary to resolve any trade problems and instead seeks to rewrite provisions in the withdrawal agreement and the NI protocol, such as those in Clauses 13, 14 and 20. When the Advocate-General winds up this debate, I would be grateful if he could clarify the Minister’s assertion, in response to the intervention, that Article 16 would bring about the cessation of the whole of the protocol, rather than be a mechanism that could resolve certain elements of it. I have to say that the contradiction in the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, over these two days arguing in the Supreme Court that the Scottish Government are seeking to act unlawfully but this evening defending the Government for breaking international law is jarring.

Why should this deplorable misuse of “necessity” and redefining “grave and imminent peril” worry us so much? Since I have been speaking on trade from these Benches, I am now on my seventh Trade Minister in the Lords. Every one has said “Our word is our bond” in implementing agreements. For all the trade agreements we have signed, the other side will know that they can be changed unilaterally. How can we be trusted if we choose not to use the dispute mechanisms written into trade agreements but just bring forward domestic legislation to disapply treaty obligations? Pacta sunt servanda.

The Bill presents no baseline information on disruption, subsequent to the original impact assessment. It presents no objective assessment of overall net impact on the economy of Northern Ireland and no regulatory impact assessment contrary. This is all contrary to clear Cabinet Office guidance on legislation.

Finally, of course, the Bill reflects the Government’s view of Parliament. The Law Society of Scotland has said that

“it is inappropriate to implement international agreements by regulation. That approach departs from the precedents set by the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 and the EU (Future Relationship) Act 2020.”

I would add that it is contrary to every commitment for every trade agreement since Brexit.

I conclude by quoting these remarks:

“The Bill represents as stark a transfer of power from Parliament to the Executive as we have seen throughout the Brexit process. The Bill is unprecedented in its cavalier treatment of Parliament, the EU and the Government’s international obligations … the legislative mechanism by which the Government propose to give to effect to the Bill’s purpose is wholly contrary to the principles of parliamentary democracy (namely, parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law and the accountability of the Executive to Parliament)”.


That was all from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House.

On the basis of the breach of international law, the damage to our standing and word around the world, the adding to divisions—rather than healing them—and the abuse of Parliament, the Government should think again. At the very least, we should reflect very carefully on the necessity of proceeding, given ongoing talks that we on these Benches wish well and which need to continue and conclude.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, no one had proposed anything like the Northern Ireland protocol until the second half of 2017. It is worth recalling the genesis. I was a Member of the European Parliament at the time and following the negotiations. In the immediate aftermath of the referendum, no one in Brussels proposed that Northern Ireland should remain under EU jurisdiction for regulatory purposes. They understood that sovereign countries are not in the business of ceding part of their territory to foreign control. They understood that sovereign countries do not usually allow internal borders. All of the talk then was about finding technical solutions: Enda Kenny’s Government in Dublin negotiating in good faith with British authorities to try to find ways to keep the border open, on the basis that the UK and EU had pretty similar regulatory norms and could trust each other’s standards.

What changed? It was a very sudden moment, around October 2017. I remember Guy Verhofstadt coming to the Constitutional Affairs Committee with his customary self-satisfied grin, saying, “We have now made it part of our negotiating mandate that there must not be any change in the EU side of the single market regulations as pertaining to Northern Ireland.” What had changed? We all know the answer: what had changed was that, on 8 June 2017, there was a general election that altered the balance in the other place.

From then, it became clear that a majority of people in both Chambers here were not prepared to leave the European Union except on terms that Brussels liked. That was not the phrase they used; the phrase was that they would not “permit a no-deal Brexit”. But let us think about it for five seconds: that is exactly the same, is it not? So, of course, the European Union—not unreasonably; I do not blame them—started putting on the table all sorts of outlandish demands that, up until then, it had not occurred to them to make.

Plenty of people have said, “Parliament ought to assert itself in this situation.” That is fine, but it strikes me as a little inconsistent for noble Lords who were strongly in favour of this no-deal Brexit stance, who then, if you like, ensured that this treaty was signed under duress, now to turn around and say, “You told us it was a great treaty. How come you have changed your mind after three years?” It was signed in a moment of EU overreach and it was bound to be corrected when the majority in another place changed. I am bound to add that there is something slightly odd about saying, after three years of negotiations, “Shouldn’t we have a little bit more time to talk?” What do noble Lords think we have been doing for the last three years?

I would like to put a question. I am one of the last speakers; some 54 noble Lords have spoken and, as far as I can tell, no one has taken issue with the contents as set out by my noble friend the Minister. Noble Lords will correct me if I am wrong. The aims of the Bill are that companies in Northern Ireland that do not export should be free to follow either UK or EU regulation; that there should be a green channel so that goods not intended for onward export are not subject to additional checks or tests; that Northern Ireland should be part of the general principle of “no taxation without representation”; and that the treaty should be arbitrated in the same way as all other international accords. Are those unreasonable demands? I see a couple of Lib Dem Peers theatrically pulling Paxmanesque leers of incredulity. I shall, of course, give way.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way since he was obviously referring to me. I am wondering about the noble Lord’s assertion—a serious one: that Parliament was misled by the Prime Minister of the day; that the deal that they presented to Parliament was made under duress. We were not informed about that being the case, but that is the case that he is making. Is that correct?

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

There is absolutely no question that the Northern Ireland protocol would not have been agreed had there not been an anti-Brexit majority in another House that was saying in terms, and had taken the legislative agenda and legislated to say, that they would not permit Brexit to happen except on terms that Brussels liked.

I finish by saying that if there is a conflict between respecting the basis of the Good Friday agreement—which rests on the idea of devolution and power sharing—and an overseas treaty obligation, I hope that any British Government would pursue the former objective. That should go almost without saying. If we were not in this situation where a large chunk of the country will automatically want to side with the EU, whatever its position is, that would be an almost banal statement. If there is a conflict between the protocol and our obligation to the people of Northern Ireland, I hope that any British Government would honour their obligation to the people of Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by expressing my appreciation for the very large number of thoughtful and informed contributions we have heard during this debate. It has been an honour to have heard it and now to become a part of it. It has grappled with not only the grave political and constitutional matters before us but has cited the Marquess of Salisbury, by my noble friend Lady Nicholson, Montesquieu and The Spirit of the Laws by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice” by my noble friend Lord Moylan and that peerless advocate and exemplary parliamentarian Sir Edward Carson by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. The debate also heard the expression “Piss off” used by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, which I had perhaps not anticipated hearing in a debate in your Lordships’ House.

On behalf of the whole House, I am sure, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and others on the loss to our counsels constituted by the death of Lord Trimble. I also echo his comments on the loss to Lord Trimble’s community, the whole of Northern Ireland and his family.

Before I turn to the points raised by various noble Lords, I will briefly restate the reasons for introducing the Bill. The Northern Ireland protocol was agreed with the best of intentions, to ensure that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement was protected in all its dimensions as the United Kingdom left the European Union. The departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, put it so trenchantly, a UK matter. It is not to be balkanised in terms of how it played out in London, Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales. It is a United Kingdom matter.

But in its practical operation, the protocol is causing practical problems for people and businesses in Northern Ireland, including disruption and diversion to east-west trade. That disruption is present in the rest of the United Kingdom and it is causing significant costs and bureaucracy for businesses and traders.

Moreover, political life in Northern Ireland is, as your Lordships have heard on numerous occasions, built on compromise and power sharing across communities. However, as noble Lords have also heard, the protocol does not have the support of all communities in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, was but the first to explore this point. As a result, we are seeing political and social stress in Northern Ireland, including the non-functioning of the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly. It is clear that the protocol is putting strain on the delicate balance inherent in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

It remains the Government’s preference to reach a negotiated agreement on the protocol. I could not associate myself more with the comments from all sides of your Lordships’ House—the noble Lords, Lord Triesman and Lord Bach, on the Benches opposite, the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and my noble friend Lord Tugendhat—on the importance of negotiation and the hopes the Government have that it will ultimately bear fruit. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has reiterated this. He and Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič have agreed that officials should meet to discuss technical solutions. The Bill contains provisions to implement any future negotiated agreement with the European Union. I can give an assurance at this stage to my noble friend Lord Frost that we are clear that negotiations must be able to address the full range of serious issues caused by the protocol. The Bill is set up to enable us to do precisely that.

In answer to a point raised quite early in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, our EU partners and friends are aware of this Bill. They are aware that negotiations continue and recognise that there are problems to resolve.

My noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean spoke early in the debate about the manner in which the protocol has been operated. I will revert to that point when I discuss, at a level I think appropriate to Second Reading, the implications of the Government’s stance for international law. However, I must stress to your Lordships’ House that the problems created by the protocol are urgent and require swift action. The Taoiseach, the Irish Premier, said publicly last week that the protocol as it was originally designed was a little too strict. These problems are of long standing and we now seek to address them. But while we engage in dialogue with the European Union, we must also ensure that we have covered all bases and that the United Kingdom Government have the ability to implement durable solutions in any scenario.

I now propose to turn to some of the specific themes and questions raised in this evening’s debate. I do that against the undertaking that if I should fail to refer specifically to the contributions of any of your Lordships or fail to give consideration to any of your Lordships’ arguments proper to this stage of Second Reading, I am happy to engage with your Lordships in writing or in person in the corridors of this place, or for that matter, elsewhere.

The matter that featured most strongly in your Lordships’ deliberations today arose out of the matter of international law and the argument from necessity. The Government have already published a statement of their legal position on the Bill and their position is that it is lawful and necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Birt, from the Cross Benches and my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate seemed to suggest to your Lordships that the voice of the legal profession was as one in saying that this was not the case. That is not so. The Government have a worked-out position in international law and there is no reason why we should not take it forward.

The United Kingdom exercised its sovereign choice to leave the European Union single market and customs union. I discern that that course was not universally approved by your Lordships’ House. But the peril that has emerged was not inherent in the protocol’s provision. As to the universal opposition, which some of the contributors to this debate seemed to throw up, it is in the nature of law that it is often adversarial. It is in the nature of law that parties will have different approaches, just as it is in the nature of sincere friendship that sincere friends will often disagree, even on the most fundamental matters.

The strain that the arrangements under the protocol are placing on political institutions in Northern Ireland, and more generally on socio-political conditions, will leave the Government with no option but to take action if they cannot reach a negotiated solution with the European Union.

I listened with great interest to the comments as to law made not only by the many distinguished lawyers on the Benches of this place but from lay people concerned about the implications of the step that the Government were proposing to take. Opening for the Opposition from the Front Bench, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, began more correctly—or less wrongly—by saying that it was “likely” that this would amount to a breach of international law. Then she recovered the party line and said that it did breach international law. The curiosity was that I think that the lay people contributing to this debate about international law were, in fact, nearer to the truth than distinguished commentators such as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, or my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne, because the fact of the matter is that it is not possible—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I do not want that honour.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I hear the noble Lord and will revert to him in due course. It is not possible to equiparate international law with domestic law. There is simply not enough of it and it is too dependent on facts and circumstances which will not apply from case to case to come up with a precedent which would allow noble Lords who have spoken in these terms to speak with such certainty.

Should I address the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, at this stage? At an early stage in these proceedings, he spoke about the nature of the plea to necessity. I say again that it is very different from the interpretation of a domestic statute. Of course in international law there are similarities with domestic legislation, and of course in international law, often being a matter of paction, there are similarities with the law of contract. But it cannot be equiparated with, to use a metaphor that emerged from the Cross Benches, a contract for the sale of sausages. It is too complex and too fact-specific. That point was continued by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, my noble friends Lady McIntosh of Pickering, Lady Altmann and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier—I am sure that I have missed others out; as I said, my undertaking is to engage with your Lordships to assist them in moving this forward—and, I decipher from my scrawl, the noble Lord, Lord McDonald of Salford, speaking from the Cross Benches. The assertion that the Government’s position breaches international law is too bold and lacking in nuance. I submit that we are entitled to proceed on the basis that we anticipate that the protocol will be operated in a manner that reflects the unique and serious circumstances against which it was drawn up.

The doctrine of necessity was approached by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and my noble friend Lord Hannay of Chiswick in particular, who equiparated—if I misattribute this to my noble friend, I apologise to him and will happily correct it—invocation of the doctrine of necessity with the law of President Putin. Far from it: there is authority for the existence of a defence of necessity dating back at least to the early 19th century. It was recognised by the International Court of Justice in 1997 in a case between Slovakia and Hungary regarding a dam on the Danube. It formed part of the International Law Commission’s articles on state responsibility, drawn up in 2001, as the Government’s statement on their legal position notes. In 1995, the Government of Canada justified steps taken to protect the Grand Banks fisheries on the basis that it was necessary to do so. If fisheries in the Atlantic are important, how much more so is the extension of democratic rights across the whole of this United Kingdom?

Invoking the doctrine of necessity does not repudiate international law or the international rules-based order. It is part of the international rules-based order. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and my noble friend Lord Tugendhat stated that the Government were undermining the rule of law and that this constituted a flagrant breach of the rule of law. Again, by invoking the doctrine of necessity, we operate within the framework of international law and—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, again, with the utmost respect, I decline to give way to the noble Baroness. She has my assurance that I will engage with her.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The point is to answer noble Lords.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I hear the noble Lord; I will not give way.

It remains the Government’s preference to reach a negotiated agreement on the protocol, and further discussions are now under way with our European Union counterparts with the aim of identifying shared solutions. I can give my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering repeated assurance of the importance of negotiation. We will continue to work closely with the European Union on the crisis of Ukraine, as we will with the United States and with all friendly powers and democracies throughout the world. We have always said that we want to fix the problems created by the protocol, in part so that we can focus our full collective energy on global challenges such as these.

The point was taken up at various points during the debate that the Bill threatens Northern Ireland access to Ireland and to the wider European Union single market. I stand before your Lordships in place of my noble friend Lord Caine, who I feel is far better equipped to answer these questions, drawing on his extensive experience of affairs in Northern Ireland. Again, he will undertake to engage with noble Lords on that point. Any perception of risk posed to the EU single market can be managed through market surveillance activities delivered by relevant United Kingdom bodies which will continue to prevent, deter and remove non-compliant and unsafe activity to protect the consumers of both the United Kingdom and EU markets. Market surveillance will follow the risk-based and intelligence-led approach as it does at present. As we have said all long, our preference is for a negotiated solution, and we stand ready to discuss appropriate assurances with the European Union.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, Lady Doocey and Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, raised matters specific to agribusiness and dairy farming in particular. Again, I offer the House assurance that negotiations continue.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Frost for his account of the current economic situation and his summary of the historical situation in 2009 which my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere joined with his customary brio and, in the process, released a cat among the Liberal Democrat pigeons. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, whom I took to adopt the historical summary which my noble friend Lord Frost advanced.

I come next to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, who again very early in the debate raised the important point of an impact assessment. As the noble Lord pointed out, the Bill does not have an impact assessment. The full details of the new regime will be set out in regulations alongside and under the Bill, including economic impacts where appropriate.

Since the Bill was introduced, we have consulted extensively with businesses and other key shareholders on the underlying details of the regime to ensure that it is as smooth and as operable as possible. The Government are getting on with that task now.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, seemed to invoke the concept of historical inevitability in his contribution towards the end of the debate. I am no Marxist but I am by no means clear that his exercise in foresight in relation to society in Northern Ireland will prove to be accurate.

A matter of grave and, if I may say, fully appropriate interest to your Lordships is that of the breadth of the Henry VIII powers. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, my noble friend Lord Northbrook, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, once again, my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, in particular, raised these matters, and I apologise to other noble Lords whom I have not mentioned by name.

The Bill provides specific powers to make new law where we are disapplying the EU regime and where such law is appropriate to make the Bill’s regime work. These powers are restricted. They can be used only in connection with certain provisions and subject matter of the protocol, for example changing valued added tax rules in Northern Ireland.

It is important to emphasise that we are engaged in negotiations. We are not, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, said, engaging in blackmail; nor are negotiations, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, engaged in attempting to bully the European Union; and nor, as my noble friend Lady Altmann suggested, have we by this proposal become an elected dictatorship.

These provisions are necessary. They allow the Government to act as quickly as possible to deliver new policy arrangements, for example to introduce the green and red lane for traders. Since the Bill was introduced in June this year, the Government have consulted extensively. There have been over 100 bespoke sessions with over 250 businesses, business representative organisations and regulators.

I am being warned once again: noble Lords will doubtless be glad to see the back of me. The steps which we are taking are necessary to reflect the unique and dynamic situation in which the Bill passed in the other place.

In conclusion—