Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I did listen very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said and I want to read Hansard tomorrow to get better into my head exactly what he was saying, but I was struck by some of the things he said. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I voted against the protocol, as did every unionist in Northern Ireland—so it has no support among one section of the community.

We have long moved away from majoritism. As a matter of fact, I do not remember majoritism in Northern Ireland. That age has long gone and we were told that it would never return. Politics in Northern Ireland would be by consensus; that is what we were told. We were not only told it—they put it down in law. But I have yet to hear from many who berate this Bill that they are concerned about how the Belfast agreement has been kicked right, left and centre. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, to suppose for a second that this border was where it should be and not in the Irish Sea. Does anybody—but anybody—feel for a moment that that would not have caused the complete collapse of the Northern Ireland Assembly?

We have not collapsed the Northern Ireland Assembly as such. The Ministers are still in place, doing their tasks and getting on with it, because we did it in such a way. When Sinn Féin did it, they wrapped everything up. I have never heard one Member from either the Lib Dems or Labour—which surprises me—say that Sinn Féin has done wrong here. I did not hear it. Maybe it was said when I was not here, but I have never heard that said. I find that there is pick and choose. If unionists do something, they are a nasty lot, they are nasty people, but with Sinn Féin it is, “Oh no, they have a reason; they have a cause.” Well, we have a cause and we want to defend that cause.

In 1960 the UN went further and passed its decolonisation declaration, basically shifting its position to one of actively encouraging imperial powers to decolonise. Today, the UN still has a committee dedicated to the decolonisation of the small remaining colonies. If you examine its work, the UN is very clear that an NSGT is not a jurisdiction that is governed entirely by another country. Most NSGTs are largely self-governing. They remain classified as NSGTs because they are not entirely self-governing. Now, of course, I recognise that, in order to be formally classified as an NSGT by the UN, you not only have to meet the definition of an NSGT; you also have to persuade the Assembly to vote an agreement that a jurisdiction should be so defined.

I am not about to start a campaign for the UN to vote to classify Northern Ireland as an EU NSGT. However, it is clear, on the basis of the UN definition of an NSGT and the level of self-government enjoyed by existing NSGTs, that Northern Ireland not only meets the UN definition of an NSGT, but one in relation to which the colonial power—in our case the EU—controls more of the governance of Northern Ireland than do many officially recognised colonial powers in relation to their NSGTs.

The story of colonisation since 1960 has been the story of decolonisation. The actions of the EU arguably amount to the first example of new colonisation, as opposed to annexation by military force, since 1960. I find it quite extraordinary that the EU should have even dreamt of seeking this agreement. It does not reflect well on the EU at all that it should have requested this, and the fact that the UK Government had to fight it for even the most ridiculous four years, after the fact, is quite extraordinary. Of course, its justification was allegedly defending the Good Friday agreement—or Belfast agreement, whichever you choose—but this is utterly absurd.

The citizens of Northern Ireland deserve the full rigour of protection under international law in respect of their democratic right to political participation as our counterparts have in each of the other constituent parts of the United Kingdom or indeed any other country. However, that protection has been patently undermined by the protocol.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am concerned about his argument when it comes to the position of the new—again—Home Secretary. She said in July:

“The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill needs to be changed so that it actually solves the problem. … The bill’s ‘dual regulatory regime’ lets EU law flow into Northern Ireland in perpetuity … I’ve been fighting for while in government. Without them, the bill treats people living in Northern Ireland as second-class citizens.”


Does the noble Lord agree with Suella Braverman? If he does, will he be bringing an amendment to Bill to make sure it does not have a dual regulatory regime that allows EU law to flow into Northern Ireland?

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

If the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is asking me if I agree that Northern Ireland citizens are now treated as second-class citizens, yes, I do. Some people in Northern Ireland seem to be content to be treated as second-class citizens, because, like the noble Lord, they want to pull this Bill apart and the protocol to remain. I hear, in the debate today, some noble Lords saying that there are problems with the protocol, but in time that will be sorted out. Where will our economy and industry be? My noble friend Lord Browne will be making some reference to that a little later.

Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, among other provisions, states:

“Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. … Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.”


This has plainly been violated by the protocol, which has partly removed our right to take part in the Government of our country as it relates to 300 areas of law, both in terms of engaging in public service as a candidate and in terms of voting.

Of greatest importance, however, is that the plundering of aspects of our right to vote violates the Good Friday agreement. I hear many champions in this House of the Belfast agreement, and I have to admit that I would not be the best advocate of the Belfast agreement, and I am prepared to say that. But let those who are stand up, and then they will run into problems with their debate and where they are going. Specifically, the Good Friday agreement affords the people of Northern Ireland the right

“to pursue democratically national and political aspirations.”

Moreover, in the case of the Good Friday agreement, there is the additional international constraint arising from a foundational provision of the protocol, in Article 2, which specifically obliges the UK Government to ensure that there is no diminishment of any of the Good Friday agreement rights following Brexit. Article 2(1) states:

“The United Kingdom shall ensure that no diminution of rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity, as set out in that part of the 1998 Agreement entitled Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity results from its withdrawal from the Union”.


So now we confront the central absurdity: the EU pretended that an obligation that did not exist in the protocol existed, and that an obligation in the protocol that did exist in fact did not. There is nothing anywhere in the text of the Good Friday agreement saying that there cannot be a customs border, and there is something that plainly states you cannot erode the political democratic rights of the people of Northern Ireland, which was the plain consequence of placing a border down the Irish Sea.

Of course, I am not saying for a minute that the UK and the Republic of Ireland could not agree to avoid a hard land border, only that it is not required in the Good Friday agreement. In a context, however, where the Good Friday agreement prohibits—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Judge (CB)]

In that case, how do we know for a fact that Article 16 will torpedo them?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, if the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Bew, is so powerful, why has he failed to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, who started his remarks by saying that he has no faith in any of these talks resulting in any agreement for two or three years at least? If the noble Lord, Lord Bew, cannot even persuade the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, he may struggle to persuade others who may be a bit more sympathetic to his arguments.

The noble Lord, Lord Bew, knows that I like and respect him, but let me scotch this point about Article 16. The Government insisted that they were working in the joint committee when others on the Conservative Benches were saying they should dump that work and trigger Article 16. We on these Benches said, “Let the joint committee process do its work, because that is what the Government negotiated in the agreement.” Now we have heard in Committee in the Commons that talks have been exhausted—no more on the joint committee; instead, we are bringing unilateral legislation. So the noble Lord will forgive me for being a bit cynical about the Government’s position. On the one hand, they are saying that they are using the joint committee and therefore will not trigger Article 16, and on the other that they are no longer in the joint committee and need unilateral legislation. I am afraid it does not match. That is perhaps at the heart of why there is still uncertainty over the Government’s proposals.

At the outset, I say that I am a borderer and live in Scotland—I was going to say that therefore I sympathise, but that sounds deeply patronising. I understand many of the arguments, as I said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, because I raised them in the debates. We opposed the Government because we could see the situation was not only going to be detrimental but would effectively remove rights. But that is not something that our Benches or this Bill can resolve.

I respect both noble Lords who spoke with passion about this, but I put it to them that they and Suella Braverman cannot both be right. The new Home Secretary is on the record saying that this Bill will make citizens in Northern Ireland “second-class citizens” —this Bill, not the protocol. She is arguing for this Bill to be amended. She said in her article in the Times that she had argued that while in government. She is now back in government, so I do not know what will happen with the Government’s position in this Bill on a dual regulatory system, but maybe the noble Lords can inform me later on.

If the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, is arguing so strongly that this Bill will not have Northern Ireland operating under two systems, it is incumbent on him to bring amendments to it to remove the dual regulatory system and Clause 11 when we get to it. I look forward to debating those amendments, because he surely cannot support measures in this Bill which would allow Ministers to enforce EU rules on traders within Northern Ireland.

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. All I wanted to say is that I am encouraged that I can get his support if we do that. Is that what he is saying?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I will match his “Get rid of Clause 11” with “Get rid of them all”, because that is our position.

The Advocate-General said at Second Reading:

“the peril … was not inherent in the protocol’s provision.” —[Official Report, 11/10/22; col. 764.]

But he then said today that the “problem lies in the protocol”, which the Government themselves negotiated. So, we are back to the situation regarding the Government’s proposals, and it seems that the Government are going to rest on an assertion of necessity, with an assumption that it is not going to be tested. It surely is not welcome for us, in passing legislation, that the Government are effectively asking people to challenge it in the international courts—I can only imagine that it would be the ICJ.

The ICJ has stated in clear terms that invoking necessity on wrongfulness and not adhering to a treaty commitment cannot be a permanent solution. So I ask the Advocate-General, if he responds to any of the points that I am going to make, whether the Government agree with that. The ICJ has stated on a number of occasions that, even if invoking necessity was upheld, it is only temporary in order to remove the grave and imminent peril; it is not permanent, because it still means that that party is in breach of the treaty.

So if long-term, permanent changes are required to be made, that will require protocol changes and treaty changes, and the Government have not said that. They cannot invoke necessity if they believe that this is a permanent solution. The reason why I say that with confidence is—the Advocate-General, in schooling the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and me as non-lawyers, said we were “less wrong” on this—that, customarily in international law, we have to look at the record of the ICJ. I asked the Library of the House to provide me with information on when the ICJ has upheld parties who have invoked necessity. It has never been upheld, for the very good reason that it has to be limited, and “grave and immanent peril” on a cumulative basis is considered an exceptionally high bar. The Advocate-General must know that.

Of the two cases that the Advocate-General cited, the one involving Hungary and Slovakia—which was referred to by my noble friend—I found fascinating, as I mentioned before, when I read the judgment. The Advocate-General said that necessity

“was recognised by the International Court of Justice in 1997 in a case between Slovakia and Hungary regarding a dam on the Danube.”—[Official Report, 11/10/22; col. 765]

As I referred to before, the Government seem to be relying on one case regarding communist Hungary in 1989 which the ICJ threw out.

The second case mentioned, involving Canada and fisheries, could refer to two cases. In one, the ICJ was asked by Spain to adjudicate because Canada had seized a vessel, invoking necessity, but the ICJ said that it could not look into it because Canada had passed legislation at that time to have a reservation from the ICJ, so the case could not even be heard. The other case relating to the Grand Banks should worry the Minister, as it was about imposing licence fees. Canada invoked necessity; the US responded saying that it would pay the fees of the fishermen and then claim reimbursement from Canada; then Canada amended its laws, which brought in all other aspects, and it was resolved by Canada removing the licence fees. Now, if that is a precedent, it is a worrying one, because I can see that there will be consequences with the EU as a result of this legislation. There will be reciprocal action and the UK will pay for it.

So can the Minister confirm what the Library told me, that there has never been a successful invocation of necessity? Can he tell me if there has ever been a case where any party has invoked necessity for framework legislation? I could not find it, so presumably the Minister will be able to help me.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly; I do not see any point in repeating what other people have said. I added my name to the attempt by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to remove these clauses, and it has been observed by some that this is a wrecking move. I guess it is, in a way, if you do not agree with a Bill and feel unable to amend it in a way that would make it satisfactory, you attempt to remove clauses which then unravel it. We are not happy with this piece of legislation and we are seeking ways—some of them creative, others more blunt, as this one is—because we think the Government are taking the wrong approach.

The points about necessity have been made at length. I think the Minister needs to be as thorough as he can—although perhaps not as lengthy as he can, just very clear. I think we want clarity about exactly where the Government think they are on this. My suspicion is that the Government are backfilling their answers as they go along and that they did not really think about this, because this piece of legislation was not really thought about. Introducing it in the first place was a political act to give the impression that the Government were playing hardball in negotiations. It has kind of served its purpose, as some people have explained, over the months. Ministers are now having to justify where they have got themselves, and we are all intrigued about where it is going to go next.

I do not know how the Minister is going to respond to the concerns raised by the DUP, which are incredibly serious and ought to be considered with the utmost thoughtfulness. Especially in the absence of any draft regulations, I do not know how those concerns are going to be dealt with. It is all very unclear. This is not the way we should proceed with any issues, and especially not when it comes to Northern Ireland.

We have been around the houses on the issue of Article 16 rather a lot. It is just ridiculous to claim that Article 16 lacks the flexibility to be able to deal with the concerns that have been raised—obviously it does. The Minister’s explanation for why that is no longer the Government’s preferred route does not really add up. Again, I think that in their desire to have some legislation, they are having to make up reasons going backwards, and that is why they are now coming unstuck on the Floor of the House.

I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and her concerns about the haulage industry. It is absolutely right that those concerns should be raised. I would be very happy to go to Ballymena and to meet Mr Jackson to listen to what he has to say, because I am sure that what he said in his letter to us is true. Of course we ought to be looking at ways to make sure that those issues are fixed, but I do not think that this is the right way to go about it. This is not about the EU always being right; I think the EU was wrong to link these issues with Horizon. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other. We should have made progress on both issues, but separately. So, we do not always take the EU’s side. That is just not true.

The principal concern we have is that unless we get at the very least the things we have asked for in our earlier amendments—specifically these draft regulations; that is really important—we are going to be looking at ways to make sure that the Bill does not proceed as smoothly as the Minister would like. This is not a tweaking issue; we just do not think the Government are going about this in the right way.

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

My Lords, as we approach what I think will be the final series of amendments for discussion tonight, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their thoughtful and entirely well-intentioned contributions to this important debate.

Clause 1 summarises the effect of the Bill and gives vital clarity on how it will function. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, was critical of its drafting—indeed, of its presence in the Bill itself. He may be right to be critical but there have been, and will always be, changes in the manner in which legislation is drafted; there certainly have been over the past few years. In a matter of this sort, it is perhaps important as a matter of perception, given the history to which some contributors among your Lordships have referred, that the Bill carries assurances in Clause 1.

The clause sets out that the Bill makes domestic provision in connection with the disapplication of specific areas of the Northern Ireland protocol that are causing problems. It also sets out that the Bill provides Ministers with powers in connection with the further disapplication of additional areas of the Northern Ireland protocol according to specific purposes, as well as powers to make new domestic arrangements. The clause also clarifies how other legislation, such as the important Acts of Union, is affected by the Bill. I recommend that the clause stands part of the Bill.

Clause 2 will underpin the essential functioning of the Bill by confirming that any part of the protocol or withdrawal agreement that has been excluded by the Bill’s provisions has no effect in domestic law. I think it is recognised around the Committee that, at this point, we are coming away from the preamble of Clause 1, as we might call it, into the heart of the Bill and what it intends to accomplish. I certainly took the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord Browne of Belmont, to understand that fully when they talked about ripping the heart out of this Bill through these proposed amendments.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, referred to the difficulties. I think that, wherever it stands on this Bill, the Committee is united on the fact that there are grave difficulties in Northern Ireland. I had the honour of briefly meeting the commercial director of McCulla Ireland on a visit to your Lordships’ House; I listened with great interest and concern to the matters raised by him.

The vital approach of these clauses is to amend the relevant provisions of the EU withdrawal Act that currently give domestic effect to the protocol and withdrawal agreement. This technical provision is, as noble Lords have recognised, vital for the Bill to function as, without it, there may be a lack of clarity as to which of the existing protocol and EU law regime, on the one hand, and the revised operation of the protocol, on the other, has effect. Where this Bill or its powers do not exclude a provision in the protocol or withdrawal agreement, that provision will continue to have effect via the EU withdrawal Act, as now. In answer to a point made in a debate on an earlier group, I emphasise that what the Government are proposing is not the ripping up of the protocol but directed action to those parts of the protocol that are not working. The Bill seeks to leave untouched the remainder of the protocol’s passages that are providing benefit, as was always intended to be the case. I therefore recommend that this clause stands part of the Bill.

Clause 3 supplements Clause 2 and will remove the requirement for courts to interpret relevant domestic law in line with the withdrawal agreement in so far as that would lead to an interpretation of domestic law that is incompatible with the Bill and any regulations made under it. This is done by the amendment of the relevant provision of the EU withdrawal Act, which currently requires courts to interpret relevant separation agreement law and domestic law consistently with the withdrawal agreement. Instead, it is made clear that no such interpretation should be made if this would be incompatible with provisions of the Bill or any regulations made under it. It is vital to provide certainty as to how the regime should operate, so I recommend that this clause stands part of the Bill.

We have had, I submit, a lengthy and important debate during this stage of the Bill. I seek noble Lords’ forbearance—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I am coming to the noble Lord’s point. I am not proposing to wind up immediately. I acknowledge the importance of the debate we have heard. I pray for noble Lords’ forbearance if I do not respond to every point that has been canvassed specifically in relation to the doctrine of necessity, which we had a debate about in relation to the earlier group.

I anticipate what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is about to say. He put certain points to me in relation to the information that he had from the Library of your Lordships’ House. He cites the occasions on which the doctrine of necessity has been founded and outlines significant aspects of those cases to your Lordships’ House, but every legal case will stand on its own merits, and comparison of individual facts and circumstances does little to advance the argument as to the role of necessity in the unique circumstances with which your Lordships’ House is faced. Therefore, with the utmost respect to the noble Lord, the point he makes is of no value.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful for the answer. I respectfully believe that my point had value, because if the Government are using precedent and customary law, it is relevant to highlight that it has never been successfully invoked, and it has never been even attempted to be invoked in the way that this Government are doing. Since we are approaching customary international law, it is worth having that on the record.

My specific question was whether the Government’s interpretation of invoking necessity can be permanent, or whether the Advocate-General believes that I am correct with the ICJ stating in clear terms on many occasions that invoking necessity can only be a temporary response of wrongfulness, for grave and imminent individual aspects, but the breach is still there. Or do the Government believe that using necessity can be permanent?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for canvassing that. Again, I accept that it is an important point, as are all those that have been made around your Lordships’ House today.

Not all principles of international law are tested before a court, and acceptance by the international community of a particular practice, or codification by relevant institutions, as in the articles on state responsibility, can provide very significant precedent. Necessity provides a justification for non-performance with specific terms of the protocol, for as long as the circumstances justifying necessity persist. That relates to the temporal point which the noble Lord makes. The relevant circumstances could last for a significant length of time, so it is not necessarily a short-term justification.