European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill

Peter Dowd Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 6th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

May I say that it is a delight to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker? I thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for giving the House the opportunity to debate the contents of his Bill, as set out in its 25 clauses, and the issues that surround it, which have clearly been the subject of consternation, to say the least, in some quarters.

I listened carefully to the many points and assertions that the hon. and learned Gentleman made; no doubt everybody in the Chamber listened to them. I do not underestimate the significance of the concerns—perceived, real or otherwise—that he and many others have in relation to the operation of the Windsor framework, which in effect was a successfully negotiated recalibration of the Northern Ireland protocol. There is no doubt that all sides worked hard to achieve an agreement, given the obvious complexities, nuances and tensions that were bound to arise when the implementation of the decision to leave the European Union was made in the light of the 2016 referendum.

The detailed statement made by the most recent former Prime Minister, the response to it and the questions about it on 27 February 2023 set the tone, in my view—I think that is also the view of many other hon. Members—for a genuine attempt on all sides of the negotiation to be as flexible as possible, given the circumstances.

I want to quote a few points from that debate. The Prime Minister at the time said:

“Today’s agreement has three equally important objectives: first, allowing trade to flow freely within our UK internal market; secondly, protecting Northern Ireland’s place in our Union”—

we all agree with and recognise that—

“and thirdly, safeguarding sovereignty and closing the democratic deficit.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 570.]

He went on to take each of those in turn in more detail. He later said:

“Today’s agreement scraps 1,700 pages of EU law.” —[Official Report, 27 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 571.]

That has been referred to in the debate; I will return to that in due course. He went on to say:

“The EU has also explicitly accepted an important principle in the political declaration. It is there in black and white that the treaty is subject to the Vienna convention. This means that, unequivocally, the legal basis for the Windsor framework is in international law.” —[Official Report, 27 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 574.]

It is important to move on to the current Prime Minister, who was then the Leader of the Opposition. He said:

“This agreement will allow us to move forward as a country, rather than being locked in endless disputes with our allies.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 577.]

Who would not agree with that statement? We do not want to continue to be locked in endless battles and arguments with our allies.

It is worthwhile referring to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who said at the time:

“My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his ministerial colleagues have strained every sinew these last weeks and months to arrive at today’s position. They are to be congratulated.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 582.]

That is important from the Conservative Benches. The current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said:

“I congratulate the negotiators on this very significant achievement”,

and it was an achievement. Even the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) said:

“I start by unreservedly congratulating my right hon. Friend on what seems to be a spectacular negotiating success.” —[Official Report, 27 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 584.]

[Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I am listening to my hon. Friend’s speech with interest. Does he agree that his contribution shows that there is space for fulsome debate and important democratic scrutiny of these things that affect our family of nations?

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend is right. Many of us here today want to discuss this issue because it is crucial to our constituents not just in the short term, but in the longer term. The former Member for Clwyd West said:

“The Command Paper tells us that the framework, ‘narrows the range of EU rules applicable in Northern Ireland—to less than 3% overall by the EU’s own calculations’”.—[Official Report, 27 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 605.]

[Jim Allister]

The hon. Member has recited what some might have thought were erudite contributions in support of these arrangements, apparently with the insinuation towards the end that we have considered this whole matter. Have his friends not spent since July trying to undo the very things that the previous Government did on so many other matters, because they thought that they were wrong? They were wrong on this, so should they not be trying to undo it?

[Peter Dowd]

I do not quite understand the hon. and learned Member’s point. Today, we are trying to tease out many of the issues and concerns that he, quite understandably, has raised, to try to understand them and maybe to reflect on them and, in future, give consideration to them through the process. It is important that we are all here today listening to what he and other Members have to say.

[Ms Creasy]

Importantly, this House was charged, along with the Irish Government, to uphold the Good Friday agreement. In any legislation that comes along, it is right and proper that we ask how to do that, alongside our colleagues across in Ireland. This legislation touches on so many elements of that agreement, so today’s debate is also about us doing the important job that we pledged to do all those years ago, to improve and maintain peace and stability in Northern Ireland.

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I would be the first to admit that we do not always get these things right—whoever does? What we have to do is try, try and try again, and attempt to do our best in good faith. I will come back to that in a moment.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Member has quoted some of the comments that were made in this House, but does he accept that of the two people who negotiated the very things that he is referring to, and to whom those comments refer, one thought that he had signed up to an agreement for no paperwork? He said that if there was any paperwork, people should simply tear it up, as it does not matter. Does he accept that the other one negotiated an agreement whose EU version was totally different from the version that he gave to this House and the people of Northern Ireland? Let us not fall back too much on the comments made about either of the two agreements of the time, because many were made either with a lack of knowledge or with hope that was not fully founded.

[Peter Dowd]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, and I am not going to challenge the integrity of the people who were part of that negotiation. It is not for me to challenge their integrity: they are hon. Members, and I believe that they did what they did with the best intention. During the statement on 27 February, I believe that, on the whole, most comments were supportive, but I acknowledge and accept that some were not, such as those from the right hon. Gentleman himself. He made his views known, as did others.

I acknowledge that some of the Members who spoke during that statement are in the Chamber today and express disquiet. I welcome the fact that they have taken their places on the Benches, but their disquiet and the disquiet of others must be set in the context of the following—namely, that the agreement, according to the Command Paper, which is important and which I referred to earlier,

“narrows the range of EU rules applicable in Northern Ireland – to less than 3% overall by the EU’s own calculations.”

In any negotiation in the circumstances, coming away with that figure is not necessarily unreasonable. Would a figure of 100% be the acid test? Maybe it would, but I do not think so, given the circumstances—in practical terms, that is unlikely. That is the nature of negotiation: otherwise, it would be called imposition. We must recognise that those on the other side, who have their views, passions and commitment to their communities as well as their histories, have also been fraught with other people.

I will finish with this. I do not accept the idea that some of our partners in the European Union—some of those eastern bloc European countries that were under the yoke of the Soviet Union as a coloniser—would take the different view that they, in turn, were part of a group or cabal trying to impose a colonialist approach to another country.

[Jim Allister]

How else would the hon. Member describe a scenario in which a huge quota of laws are made in a foreign jurisdiction? How else would he classify that than as colonialism?

[Peter Dowd]

I will touch on that a little later.

[Ms Creasy]

I wish I could understand—perhaps my hon. Friend can help me out with this. If, on the one hand, the European Union is a source of colonisation that has this disrespect towards the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, but, on the other hand, as part of a trade agreement we would simply trust each other to mutually enforce each other’s rules without any level of oversight, at what point do we start trusting these colonisers, as opposed to recognising that as part of an international trade treaty, we both have to stick to the same set of rules and see them upheld?

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. At the end of the day, whether the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and I like it or not, and I do, they are allies in virtually the biggest trading area—in fact, it is the largest—in the world, but I accept that Members have concerns. I am not trying to deny that, and I am not trying to demean them or push them under the carpet.

I also do not want to revisit the pre-referendum process. It is unavailing at this stage to rehash or regurgitate the arguments, warnings, finger pointing, claims, vilifications, passions and tensions that at times dominated the debate in the lead-up to and during the last weeks of the referendum campaign, but the situation we face is a direct result and consequence of that decision—of that, in my view, there is no doubt. I believe it is fair to say that personalities, rather than policies, often dominated the discussions and debates at the time. I also believe that, at times, high-politics issues around sovereignty, self-determination and other factors came into play. However, such matters are really symmetrical. That is the nature of the democratic debate and of the democratic debate that we have in this country, for better or worse.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one consequence is that we have a United Kingdom in part of which people have a second-class citizenship compared with the rest of the United Kingdom? Does he have any solutions, other than the solution put forward by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) in his brilliant Bill, as he brings intellectual rigour to try to address this intractable problem?

[Peter Dowd]

I think the fact that the hon. Gentleman used the word “intractable” gives us a clue about how challenging it actually is. When a country decides, for better or for worse, to withdraw from a treaty to which it has been a signatory for more than 50 years, issues are bound to arise.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill undermines not only the UK’s adherence to the Windsor framework, but the security architecture that the Belfast agreement underpins? The Belfast agreement is not just a peace settlement, but a cornerstone of our national security strategy. By jeopardising our reputation as a trustworthy international partner, the Bill would weaken our ability to collaborate with allies on global security challenges. Does he not agree that by maintaining the integrity of the agreement, we are safeguarding our national security and international standing?

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We have to be very careful of the law of unintended consequences when we go down a particular path.

Issues are bound to arise that either no one thought about or thought would have significance outside of an abstract environment but subsequently became significant, or that were parked so that we could come back to them at a later date. The reality, as we found throughout the whole post-referendum period—oven-ready this and oven-ready that—is that lots of things that were parked are coming back to bite. The problem with that, as I said, is the law of unseen and ignored consequences—those things are waiting around the corner, and turn up like an uninvited and unwelcome guest in our house.

Please bear with me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the potential unintended consequences of coming out of a treaty. Imagine what would happen if we decided to abrogate the North Atlantic treaty—which, of course, no one would dream of doing. We know there would certainly be huge consequences to such an action. I suspect Members understand there would be pretty immediate and most probably predictable consequences to that. However, it is sometimes the unpredictability of taking actions that comes back to haunt us.

The same could be said for other treaties, which may appear to be of little significance and consequence in the short term, but which might take on a whole new persona down the line. I am not sure that many people would initially grasp the consequences of, say, breaching the Antarctic treaty, but there would be consequences in due course. If we abrogate a treaty, or part of a treaty, it is unlikely that we can then somehow revisit it, change domestic law and expect other countries to accept that.

I will finish on this point, because it is important. There are other treaties that we have to look to—I could go into detail on them, but I will not. What about— [Interruption.] Well, if Members insist. How about the 1963 nuclear test ban treaty? What would happen if we decided to tweak that a little bit through domestic law?

[Fleur Anderson]

It would be dangerous.

[Peter Dowd]

Precisely—my hon. Friend on the Front Bench says it would be dangerous, and it would be. What about the key provisions of the outer space treaty? What about the agreement establishing the European Bank for Reconstruction and Redevelopment? On and on it goes.

[Jim Allister]

Is the Belfast agreement not an international treaty subject to international law? Is it okay to breach that agreement when it comes to its provision of every key decision being taken on a cross-community basis? I suppose that is okay because it affects only Unionists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

The bottom line, in my view and that of many other people, is that it has not been breached. I completely accept that the hon. and learned Gentleman takes a different view, but I do not believe that it has been breached, and there are better legal brains than me who agree.

The Windsor framework was in turn realigned through the “Safeguarding the Union” paper of January 2024, which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to, and the Stormont brake mechanism and the provisions contained therein for the Northern Ireland Assembly to approach the UK Government in relation to the application of EU laws. I read the Windsor framework time and time and time again, as I suspect all Members in this Chamber did.

[Joe Powell]

North-south co-operation between institutions in Northern Ireland was a vital component of the Good Friday agreement, so I thank my hon. Friend for making his point about treaties, because the Bill, which I have read, in clause 14 makes it possible to disapply protections in the Windsor framework for north-south co-operation. Would my hon. Friend reflect on why disapplying the role of north-south co-operation would be consistent with the intent of upholding the Good Friday agreement? That is a relevant point for him to reflect on.

[Peter Dowd]

That is a really good point, and I am pleased we are having this debate, because these are the points we need to consider carefully when we look at these issues and figure them out. It is an excellent point; I think we will all reflect on that, and I hope the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and hon. Gentleman across the Chamber reflect on it. It is important to note that the protection of the Belfast agreement was paramount and that was there to reassure the communities of Northern Ireland. I hope that this debate continues, notwithstanding some of the points that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim made, so that people understand that we are here to reassure as much as we can.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Dowd]

I will, but I first want to make a point about the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim. I know that he holds views that are born out of real belief in, and commitment to, his constituents and the wider communities across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and that is exactly the view that I take. I hold views born out of a real belief in, and commitment to, my constituents, and every Member in this Chamber takes that approach. Who am I to challenge their integrity on that? I am not in any way going to attempt that, either from my side or to cast aspersions on the other side.

[Alex Easton]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the 3% of EU laws that we have to obey. Would the hon. Member like his constituents to be unable to get drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and diabetes, as is the case in Northern Ireland? Would his constituents like that? The hon. Gentleman can get veterinary drugs in his constituency that we cannot get. Would he like that situation for his constituency? Let us say that the hon. Gentleman had a dog and wanted to take it to his neighbouring constituency—would he like it if he needed to get a passport to come back? Does he not think that this situation is unfair on us in Northern Ireland, as we are meant to be part of the United Kingdom?

[Peter Dowd]

The framework attempts to do that, and there is nothing, I suspect, that prevents those issues being teased out in more detail as time goes by, but at the end of the day, I do not live in a perfect world—I do not know about anybody else. I have constituents, for example, who have been unable to get access to drugs, and that is nothing to do with this issue; it is to do with a whole range of matters that have developed over the past 14 years in relation to Government policy, but I do not want to go there. I and other hon. Members are trying to do the best we possibly can, given the circumstances we have inherited. I know that might be cold comfort for some Members across the Chamber, but it is said with the best intent and with sincerity. It is not to brush this matter aside; it is a recognition that there are challenges, but those challenges were bound to crop up given some of the points I raised earlier.

[Robin Swann]

rose—

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

[Peter Dowd]

I will give way first to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) and then to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

[Robin Swann]

I thank the hon. Member for making that point. It looks like I will not get to make a speech, but I want to put on the record that the Ulster Unionist party actually campaigned to remain in the European Union. We thought it best at that point, because we foresaw exactly what is happening now. We respect the referendum of this United Kingdom, but we are now seeing the enabling of what we were concerned about because of the lack of interest in this House with regard to some of the regulations that are coming through and how they are applied to Northern Ireland. The hon. Member mentioned medicines. Yes, we have supply issues, which are global issues, but we also have additional supply issues because of regulation from the European Union.

[Peter Dowd]

As far as I am aware, the framework attempts to tackle some of those issues. I completely accept that the hon. Member maybe does not accept that or does not want to accept it; I do not know. I am not casting aspersions at all on the integrity or beliefs of Members. At no time do I say anything that denies the right of people to hold the views that they hold, which are clearly, deeply and obviously felt. In a way, I actually celebrate those differences.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. I want to give the point of view of my constituent, who runs a business. She says, “I currently supply materials to a lady in Devon, who then produces goods for sale within the United Kingdom, only I’m at a complete loss as to what to do regarding the GPSR rules coming in. The United Kingdom voted to leave the EU. Successive Parliaments have done what they can to make this nation as dysfunctional as possible and return us to EU subjugation.” What would the hon. Member tell my constituent’s business, which must close as part of the price to pay to further the aim of having an all-Ireland Irish Republic? That is what my constituent says, and it is very much contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said.

[Peter Dowd]

As I understand it, that issue is being negotiated. I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not accept the point he made about subjugation. I do not think it is subjugation, and I will come to that. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I respect the point he made, and I respect the views of his constituents, just as I respect the views of my constituents. But it does not alter the fact that the negotiation is taking place. As I said before—I will repeat it again—these things are never, ever symmetrical.

[Sammy Wilson]

I know that the hon. Member and others on the Government Benches have tried to make light of the use of the words “subjugation”, “colonisation” and everything else, but almost every week in this place, Members complain that Ministers do not come to this House to explain and elucidate on their policies, and that they are not prepared to be questioned on those policies, and quite rightly so. If Ministers were able to do that continuously in this place, would Labour Members not be claiming that we did not have accountable Government, that we did not have a Government who respected democracy, and that they were subjugating the people who are affected by those laws? I guarantee that no Members present would accept that from Ministers in this place, but they accept it in Northern Ireland.

[Peter Dowd]

In this place, we are enabled to ask these questions in a whole variety of different ways, including oral questions, written questions and meetings with Ministers. They are still available right across the piece, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that. Over a number years in this place, I have sometimes felt that I have not been listened to by the Government of the day. That is what I believed. [Interruption.] I was often listened to by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), who is on the Opposition Front Bench, and I completely accept that there were honourable exceptions. But at the end of the day, we live in a democracy in which we can challenge time after time, and we have to be persistent. I repeat that there are differences of opinion, but I respect them. I hope that today’s debate is being conducted in an as open and transparent way as possible.

This is not the end of the matter. Even if the Bill does not go through, the matter is not over. Nobody is going to pretend that somehow we are all going to go our separate ways and no one is ever going to ask a question or challenge a Minister in the future. This issue will come back time after time. I know emotion has its place, but so do hard facts, statistics and evidence, and they have to be balanced against one another. However, passion can sometimes lead to a febrile atmosphere that dominates, and we have to guard against that.

[Andrew Lewin]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, especially on the language we use. In my maiden speech, I said that when I agree with a Member on the other side, I would say so in this House. I call out the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who I believe did a good thing with the Windsor framework. After nearly 10 years of moving away from the European Union, he took a practical step that led to a serious improvement. I want to put that on the record, because I think it is important.

[Peter Dowd]

This House often debates the most challenging and sensitive matters. In this Chamber last Friday, we saw how a sensitive and intense debate based on conviction rather than dogma brings out the best in the House. That is why I have been looking forward to this debate and to listening to the views of colleagues of all political persuasions, and I hope I have done that.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim gave the House a heads-up on this Bill with his previous actions. For example, the putative incompatibility of article 6 of the Acts of Union with the Belfast agreement was ruled out on all counts by the Supreme Court, as far as I am aware. I am sure Members on both sides of the Chamber will recognise that engagement with this debate is done in good faith, even where there are differences of opinion.

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his explanatory notes on the Bill. I read them with interest, particularly paragraph 11:

“The purpose of the Bill is to provide Ministers with the power to make changes to the operation of the Windsor Framework in domestic law, restore the cross-community imperative of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement in respect of continuance of the Windsor Framework and to safeguard democracy, peace and stability in Northern Ireland.”

In my view, this is effectively a reincarnation of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022, which caused concern in so many quarters, domains and jurisdictions. The Government of the time acknowledged that there would be non-performance of their international obligations out of necessity. They said that they sought to reach a negotiated settlement with the European Union to forestall the need to invoke the concept of necessity.

The previous Government subsequently withdrew the Bill, because they believed they had secured the necessary conditions they sought, as set out in the UK-EU withdrawal agreement. Therefore, the assertion on the use of the concept of necessity was never put to the test. I, for one, am pleased that it was not. If it had been, in my view and in the view of many others, we would have been on the road to perdition—there is no doubt about that.

As I have said, this Bill is another iteration of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill that would take us back to June 2022 and, once again, put the country in danger of breaching its obligations under international law, notwithstanding what the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim said. The idea that the Bill can invoke the concept of necessity as a reason for a breach is beguiling, but illusory.

[Jim Allister]

Does the hon. Member not accept that a fundamental element of the jurisprudence of international law in this area is the requirement that any such agreement must not infringe the territorial integrity of either state? That, patently, has happened. Is this not the fundamental flaw in the international law argument? It falls at the first prerequisite: that the territorial integrity of the state with which the agreement is being made must not be infringed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

I do not want to go down that particular rabbit hole, but I will say this. We have the sovereign base in Akrotiri, in Cyprus. We negotiated that. Is it a breach of the sovereign territory of Cyprus? Is it somehow wrong? We negotiated it, we agreed it, it exists and it is used, so I do not believe that it is a breach. It is possible to negotiate a range of matters. It could be said that an element of sovereignty is given away for a better, or a more comprehensive, capacity in another area.

[Jim Allister]

What the hon. Member seems to be saying is that if the United Kingdom decides to acquiesce in—indeed, support—the infringement of its own territorial integrity, that is all right. If that is the basis, is it not all the more reason why the Government—a new Government—of the United Kingdom ought to address this humiliating concession?

[Peter Dowd]

I do not think it is a humiliating concession, but if it is a concession at all, I think it is an attempt, given the circumstances that we faced, to reach an agreement with trading partners in the light of the decision of the British people. We live in a world where we do not get everything we want. We live in a world where there is a little bit of give and a little bit of take, and sometimes we are able to give more than we take, and vice versa. As I have said, however, I do not want to go down that rabbit hole, because I do not think it is necessarily the subject of today’s debate. We touch on it, and it is pertinent, but I do not think it should dominate the whole debate.

There is no doubt that the subject is fraught with all the concerns and anxieties and consternation to which I referred earlier, and we have to operate in the wider political environment and milieu in which countries have to operate all the time. I think it only fair to point out that the law of unintended consequences may decide to poke its head around the door, and perhaps even to walk into the Chamber, and there will be nothing that we can do. That is the very nature of the issue that confronts us. There are no easy solutions. There are no easy answers to difficult questions. There are no off-the-cuff responses that will sort out the issue. That is a statement of the obvious.

[Ben Coleman]

I very much like the image of the law of unintended consequences poking its head around the door. One thing that has occurred to me during this debate is that we need, in Northern Ireland and Great Britain and the whole of our United Kingdom, to try to reduce the red tape that Brexit has introduced. One of the most important steps that we could take is to enter into a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the European Union, but if we are to do that, we will need the EU to trust us, and to accept that if we negotiate with it and reach an agreement, we will stick by that agreement. Is not the challenge, in the context of this particular Bill, that one of the laws of unintended consequences might be that the EU simply will not engage in the discussion and negotiation that we need in order to proceed with those red-tape-reducing measures?

[Peter Dowd]

That is a perfectly valid point. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has had a sneak preview of the points that I will raise later on. I will take up that matter with my staff.

It is important to recognise that those views are considered. I am sure that those views have been informed by many events, circumstances and long-held political opinions, and by culturally held views, which, in turn, have been informed by many personal and political experiences—some constructive and positive, and others negative and traumatic. In justice to the debate, I am sure that Members have attempted to bring if not a fresh perspective to it, then at least a perspective that takes into account the views of others from across the Chamber.

In this debate, the word “irrelevant” may itself become irrelevant, because we must face up to the fact that many of the points being made are not irrelevant, given the wide-ranging impact that any change to the law would have on internal and external relationships, both in a formal legal sense and informally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) said.

On trust, the Bill asks the House to abrogate our treaty obligations under the withdrawal agreement. That is worrying. Having given this some thought, I decided to look at the treaty landscape and the issue of necessity, which has been raised. That then sets off the justified claim about the potential for abrogation, so it is a good place to start. The ecosystem around treaties goes to the heart of the efficacy of partnerships, relationships and—dare I use the word—trust between those who sign a treaty.

This issue really goes to the heart of the question of trust, belief or faith in what we say as a nation. I look to our finest playwright to set the scene—in fact, I go to scene four from Shakespeare’s Henry VI, part 3:

“For trust not him that hath once broken faith”.

The concept of oaths and promises was explored by William Kerrigan in his book, “Shakespeare’s Promises”. It is important to quote this, because it goes to the heart of the matter. He writes:

“It is impossible to imagine any kind of moral life without obligations, and impossible to imagine obligations without types of promises. We are always up against them. Before we ever reflect on what a promise is, we have made them and are expected to make more of them. We are born into nations that enter into treaties and agreements. Promises are with us like gravity. Man is a promising animal.”

[Mr Bailey]

I take my hon. Friend back to his point about abrogating treaties, which is the modus operandi of the next United States President. Such behaviour creates instability in our international order, yet those supporting the Bill ask that we disestablish an agreement that provides stability, and that seeks to address intractable issues, and asks that we fix those problems through relationships with such persons.

[Peter Dowd]

It is a fair point. The question we have to ask ourselves is this: if we agree to the Bill, are we in breach of faith and trust? I think so. I do not say that lightly, or to be offensive or provocative.

[Jim Allister]

Does the hon. Member think that there is such a thing as breach of trust when it comes to relations within the United Kingdom? Are the citizens of this United Kingdom entitled to expect equal citizenship, and to be governed by laws that their nation makes, or are those things secondary to tipping our cap to the EU? Is that his stance?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

My stance is that if a person does not trust me in a democratic environment, they are perfectly entitled to go down to the ballot box and put an X against my opponent’s name, and I will respect them for doing so. That is the way we do it in this country.

[Ms Creasy]

Many of us are passionate about equal rights; that is why we have concerns about this legislation. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) would not engage on the subject of the impact that the Bill would have on human rights in Northern Ireland. We all know about our democratic rights. When we talk about equal citizenship, we are talking about the ability to be represented, about rights being upheld, and about a right of remedy. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill would rip up those rights in Northern Ireland by ripping up article 2 of the Windsor framework? The Bill would deny people in Northern Ireland rights that his constituents and mine have, because we have recourse to the European Court of Human Rights if we feel that an overbearing Government are breaching our rights. When it comes to equal citizenship in the Union, we must reject the Bill to uphold the rights of all.

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend is right. I reject the Bill as respectfully as I can. Countries have to operate in an international rules-based system. That is the position that this country has taken on many occasions, even when the consequences for us have been dire. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim talked about foundations. I do not want to undermine the foundation of the rules-based system, trust and good faith. That is what I do not want to breach.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Member not accept that trust in the United Kingdom is important? The Belfast agreement makes it clear that a promise was made to the people of Northern Ireland that there would be no change of any sort to our constitutional position unless they expressed a wish for it. The people of Northern Ireland have continually voted to be part of the Union. I know that the hon. Member is a Unionist. The Labour party fought hard to maintain the Union when Scottish nationalists tried to break away. Does he accept that he has an equal obligation to Unionist people in Northern Ireland—an obligation to stand by the promises that were made to them in an internationally agreed settlement? [Interruption.]

[Peter Dowd]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) says from a sedentary position, the framework strengthens the Union. That is exactly the point that I would have made. I know that some people do not accept that, but I believe that it strengthens the Union. Like a curate’s egg, any treaty will have good and bad parts for both sides. We would not need treaties or agreements if we all agreed about everything. The reality is that dissonance comes with the territory.

[Alex McIntyre]

Members on the Opposition Benches have talked a lot about cross-community support. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) mentioned a lack of consultation. Is my hon. Friend aware of whether there has been any cross-community consultation on the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend may be in a much better position to say, but I suspect that this is the place where that consultation happens. We listen to the views of people, and we can reflect them in our observations.

I want to continue on the theme of trust. Dictators and autocrats consider treaties a sign of weakness, to be dispensed with as soon as is practicable. In this country, we tend not to take that transactional and cynical approach. I am forever thankful for that. Keeping faith with a treaty or agreement that we have signed without duress says a good detail about our moral compass as a nation.

Having started on the issue of the importance of treaties, I want to look at one or two examples of the 14,000 treaties to which this country is a signatory. [Interruption.] No, I will not go into the treaty issue again, but I refer Members to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s online treaties database if they wish to look up the treaties that this country has signed over the years—and yes, I do have a life.

This country has had a good deal of experience in writing, agreeing, monitoring, enforcing and advising on treaties. There is little that this country does not know about the history, implementation, negotiation, monitoring and abrogation of treaties. We may even be the place to go to get that advice. Over the decades, this country has decided in good faith and with good intentions to put its name, credibility and integrity up front by signing treaties to ensure that its national interests can are secured as far as is practically possible. We have centuries of experience of the pitfalls, implications and consequences of a unilateral breach of a treaty. I ask colleagues to hold that thought during the deliberations on this Bill.

It goes without saying that serious, sometimes convoluted, diplomatic manoeuvres and mental gymnastics are involved in agreeing the terms of a treaty. That will come as no surprise at all to Members—if it did, that would be surprising to me. One has to be careful before signing a treaty. That does not mean that one does not sign it, but once an agreement is reached, signed and ratified, it remains duly constituted until the treaty is renegotiated through the proper channels. Do we really want to feel, as Sophocles said, that

“No treaty is ever an impediment to a cheat”?

I do not believe we are cheats. Sophocles also said:

“All men make mistakes, but a good man yields when he knows his course is wrong, and repairs the evil. The only crime is pride.”

I hope that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim does not have too much pride. Call me old-fashioned, but I am afraid that whether we like it or not, we have to negotiate a treaty or an agreement through the proper channels.

[Dr Arthur]

I am impressed by my hon. Friend’s knowledge of the classics. He makes an important point, because it is almost as if we were being presented with a false choice between ripping up the Windsor agreement and setting it in stone. It has already been shown that the agreement can adapt and evolve, and it will continue to do so.

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point: treaties are renegotiated all the time. Yes, that can be messy—as I have said, we have a great deal of experience of how messy it is—but that has never stopped us from doing it, or attempting to do it, in good faith.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Dowd]

The question we have to ask ourselves is whether the Bill before us is a breach of a treaty or agreement. I will leave that question in the air while I let the hon. Gentleman intervene.

[Jim Shannon]

Everyone in this House respects the hon. Gentleman for his honesty, and for the way he has stood up for justice. In all the debates we have been in, in Westminster Hall or this Chamber, he has epitomised those who seek justice and honesty. However, in his contribution today, the rights of the people of Northern Ireland, of Unionists and of all those who wish to have their rights restored through this Bill have not been referred to. I ask the hon. Gentleman I know to take that on board, and to speak up for the people of Northern Ireland; unfortunately, he has not done that so far.

[Peter Dowd]

I regret that the hon. Gentleman takes that view of what I am saying. I would not say it is not fair, but I am genuinely trying to be as conciliatory as I can be given the circumstances in relation to the question of trust. The question is this: is this Bill a breach of an agreement or a treaty? In my view it is, and I think most people are not denying that assertion. There may be some people who do so, but as a House of Commons paper of 4 December says on page 17:

“No rule of a state’s domestic law can be used to justify a breach of its existing international obligations. This principle is set out in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.”

I genuinely believe that I am bound by that. We can caveat any breach of international law until the cows come home; it can be claimed that it is out of the concept of necessity as referred to before in terms of international law. However, although we can claim whatever we want, it does not wash with other countries with which we have negotiated, and that in a sense is all there is to that particular point.

[Jim Allister]

In pursuit of the hon. Member’s filibuster, he tells us how much he adheres to international law. Why does he not adhere to the declaration and the principles of international law from the United Nations of 24 October 1970, which says in very emphatic terms that there is a duty in treaties

“not to intervene in matters within domestic jurisdiction of any State”

and that the principles of international law require respect for territorial integrity? If those are the principles and the Windsor framework infringes on those principles, is it not the Windsor framework that is flawed, and not the declaration of fundamental principles?

[Peter Dowd]

No, I disagree. If I am being honest, I think that view is predicated on a fallacy. I do not want to use those words, as I am trying to be as temperate as I possibly can be, but I believe the hon. and learned Gentleman is using that reference somewhat inappropriately. As I said, we can caveat any breach of international law that we like, but it comes back to the question of what our partners or co-signatories think.

It is worthwhile exploring that concept in a little more detail, because it goes to the heart of our responsibilities as a custodian—I choose that word with care, for that is what we are—of international law, and not just in relation to any particular treaty, but in general terms.

[Ms Creasy]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and it is one that he and I have lived and breathed as Members elected prior to 2024 and indeed prior to 2019, when the legislation at the heart of this matter was constructed in this place. We were on the Opposition Benches at the time and we all had to look at the concept of international relations and what would happen because of the Brexit votes. It was striking that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) promoting this legislation talked as if that had never happened. We have been there before in all of this. There are no perfect solutions; that is part of the challenge that Brexit created for all of us. But in looking at what we do next, understanding that breaching international protocols has consequences is as important as thinking about what we do when we breach those international protocols, as we did with Brexit.

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend makes a really important and fair point. We have to be very careful in this area when we have international obligations, and we have to be even more cautious when we are dealing with the situation that we found ourselves in given the context of the Belfast agreement.

I am drawing to a close, Members will be pleased to know, but it is worthwhile exploring the concept in a little more detail, because as I said, it goes to our position as a custodian. The circumstances in which we can depart from obligations are fairly clear: for instance, by mutual agreement—that is unsurprising—or implied right to withdraw. Neither of those is the case in this situation. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks they should be, but I do not believe that they are.

Can we say that the treaty or agreement is no longer in place due to agreed time limits or sunset clauses? The answer to that question is no. Has the other side materially breached the treaty or the agreement, which would in turn absolve us of our obligations? Well, I do not think that applies either. What about our ability to carry out the agreement because of the “disappearance or destruction” of an object crucial to the operation of the treaty? That get-out clause does not exist, either; well, not that I am aware. In fact, the Windsor framework is protected by the Vienna convention on treaties, as was brought out during the statement that I referred to.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Member mentions whether the other side has ever broken the treaty. Of course it did: the EU did so in a fit of pique, rage and vengeance against the United Kingdom during the covid crisis. It caught itself quickly, because it realised exactly what it had done, but the fact of the matter is, in the mind of the EU, the treaty is not as sacrosanct as he is trying to make it out to be for the UK. He suggests that we should not even think about breaking the Windsor framework and the protocol. The EU, when it is convenient, has shown that it will.

[Peter Dowd]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s position, but again, I disagree with his assertion.

[Robin Swann]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Peter Dowd]

Just a moment. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to call a Westminster Hall debate in relation to a whole series of breaches of treaties—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will be in his place for a Westminster Hall debate whoever secures it. If anyone wants to secure a Westminster Hall debate to tease out those matters in a little bit more detail and in an atmosphere that is a little less fraught, I would be more than happy to be there either as the Chair or as a participating Member.

[Robin Swann]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Peter Dowd]

I am coming to a close, but I will give way. I have found this subject to be crucial to the wider constitutional and democratic process of which we are all supportive. There are times when people are unhappy with decisions, and I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will continue to be unhappy, so I will let him speak.

[Robin Swann]

It is not that I am unhappy, and I applaud the hon. Member for the tone he has brought to the debate in opposition to the Bill; it is that we want to see a resolution to these things. He talks about breaking agreements and when trust is removed, which brings me back to my intervention about the Belfast agreement and how Lord Trimble said that the protocol

“demolishes the agreement’s central premise by removing the assurance that democratic consent is required to change Northern Ireland’s status.”

I gently remind the hon. Member of that persuasion.

I am also reminded of the contribution that Lady Sylvia Hermon made when she was in this place in challenging the former Deputy Prime Minister about the Belfast agreement. When he started to talk about it, she simply asked whether he had read it. I simply encourage any hon. Members in opposition to the Bill to ensure that they have actually read the Belfast agreement before quoting it.

[Peter Dowd]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I was going to quote from the Belfast agreement in detail, but I decided not to do so. I did read it, and I remember it at the time as well. I implore him not to push me on that matter.

There are times when I have been unhappy with the decisions made. I have been perplexed when, during the Parliaments I have been part of, conventions and understandings that had been in operation for decades were pushed aside for short-term political expediency. It is one thing to go down that path in the operation of the workings of this House, but it is another to invoke that type of approach when dealing with agreements and treaties, especially when those are with trading partners and neighbours.

I was tempted to explore the Bill clause by clause—all 25 of them—in this contribution, but I resisted—[Interruption.] I did, and it was born out of discipline and willpower. I decided not to test the patience of the Chair and hon. Members on both sides of the House. I will draw my contribution to a close, and hope that hon. Members across the House take what I have said in good faith and without any rancour.