Northern Ireland

Robert Neill Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows that I rarely rise to speak in debates that he leads, not because I disagree with what he is doing but because I think it is important that predecessors do not comment too often on their successors’ work. I know how hard the job of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is. Today though, I rise to speak because I support wholeheartedly what he and the Prime Minister have achieved and want the statutory instrument to go through with the support of the overwhelming majority of this House.

Two weeks ago, the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, which I co-chair, met in Belfast to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We met in the currently empty Assembly Chamber in Stormont. We met representatives of legislatures across the islands that make up the British Isles, and we reflected on the leadership that had been required to deliver that deal 25 years ago—leadership not just for a few weeks, but for years. People made sacrifices and went above and beyond, because they were prepared to recognise that, while no deal is perfect, the result of achieving the Belfast/Good Friday agreement for the people of Northern Ireland and people across these islands was so significant that the sacrifices were worth making.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that another great virtue of this framework agreement, which is much to be commended, is that it enables us to resolve the issues in a way that does not lead us into breach of any of our international law obligations, as would have been the case had we proceeded with the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill? That has to be a win for the UK’s reputation, as well as for the people of Northern Ireland.

[Karen Bradley]

I agree wholeheartedly. My hon. Friend always speaks with great wisdom.

When I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, it was clear to me that leaving the European Union without a deal would have been devastating to Northern Ireland—devastating economically and devastating to community cohesion. That is why as Secretary of State and subsequently I have tried to find a way to make sure a deal was reached that we could all get behind. We reached a deal whereby the whole United Kingdom left the EU together, but that deal was not acceptable—not to those on the Opposition Benches and not to many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I recognise and acknowledge the reasons for that: they felt it would leave us too close to the European Union, and I fully respect their view.

Then, a deal was presented to us by the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). The deal had many faults, but I believed my right hon. Friend when he said that he wanted me to vote for it because it was important for the people of Northern Ireland. I was willing to do that, even though I knew that it would result in checks on goods in the Irish sea—that was clear in the agreement—because it was so important for Northern Ireland and because my Prime Minister asked me to vote for it.

Remember that when the Belfast/Good Friday agreement was drawn up and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 implemented, the United Kingdom and Ireland were both members of the EU. As a result, many of the issues did not have to be codified. We did not have to set out what happened to goods travelling to and from Northern Ireland, or set out rights, because those rights came from both of us being EU members. Leaving the EU means that some of those issues now need to be codified, and that can be done only through negotiation and accommodation being made by both sides. The Windsor framework demonstrates enormous accommodation on the EU side; the Stormont brake is an extraordinary thing for the EU to agree to. People around the world are looking at the agreement and congratulating my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on what he has achieved.

My question for this House is this: what is the alternative to the Windsor framework? What do we think we will get? There is nothing better on the table. This is a significant step forward, and I urge my right hon and hon. Friends to vote for it.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Robert Neill Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 24th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I do not recognise that description of events from the hon. Gentleman. There has been wide engagement on this, both with the political parties, including his own just last week, and with parties more widely.

The first part of the Bill provides that, for the purposes of this legislation, the period of the troubles is defined as beginning on 1 January 1966 and ending on 10 April 1998—the date of the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Part 2 provides for the establishment of a new independent commission for information recovery, tasked with carrying out robust, effective and thorough investigations into the deaths and injuries that occurred during the troubles, for the primary purpose of information recovery.

We recognise the importance of the new commission being able to deliver its functions with absolute independence. This will be crucial to gaining the trust of families, survivors and individuals who decide to engage in the information recovery process. That is why the UK Government will have absolutely no involvement in the commission’s decision-making process. The new commission will have all the necessary policing powers to conduct its own thorough investigations, including the ability to compel witnesses and test forensics. The body will be supported for the first time by a legal requirement for full disclosure from UK Government Departments, security services and arm’s length bodies to make sure that it can gather all the evidence that it needs to establish what happened in each case.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I recognise that my right hon. Friend and the Government are doing their level best in good faith to deal with a sensitive and intractable situation. Does he recognise that the establishment of the Goldstone commission in South Africa, which is not an exact parallel but has similarities, was itself beset by considerable controversy at the beginning, but its ultimate success was largely due to the stature and integrity of Justice Richard Goldstone as its chair? He was a former Supreme Court judge of South Africa and a former prosecutor for the international tribunals in both Yugoslavia and Rwanda, so a man of impeccable integrity and independence. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that, when we look for someone to be the chief commissioner, that is exactly the sort of person we will seek—someone with experience in these jurisdictions, but not necessarily even from the UK jurisdiction? Having someone of that level of standing will be critical, will it not, for the credibility of the decisions that the commission will be entrusted with?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend is right in the example that he gives. I will reference another one later. Operation Kenova has been successfully led and was also regarded with some scepticism at the beginning. It has shown that a piece of work, if properly done by the right people, can gain credibility, acceptance and understanding. My hon. Friend gives a good outline of exactly how this can be taken forward in a successful way for people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am not going to comment on particular cases, but I will say again that the so-called on-the-run letters have no basis in law and will not prevent or play a part in the process that we are outlining in this Bill. If somebody is in possession of one of those letters, they will still be subject to this legislation and, potentially, to prosecution.

As I have outlined, as a country we have already fundamentally altered the criminal justice model in Northern Ireland for troubles-related offences. We have seen the early release of prisoners under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 and the process of secretly decommissioning weapons, and of course there is already an effective amnesty for those who provide information to the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains. Although the Government believe that the difficult decisions taken at those points were absolutely right for the peace process, the overall approach to addressing legacy issues has not since been adjusted to reflect those very decisions.

We cannot simply pretend that things did not happen or that challenging compromises were not rightly made. As a result, the context in which we approach these issues is fundamentally different from that for any other crime across the country. The Bill strikes a balance between a focus on information recovery through an investigative process that is compliant with international obligations, and ensuring that those who choose not to engage will remain liable to prosecution, should the evidence exist. The provisions will apply to everyone equally.

Part 3 of the Bill details the impact of the proposals on ongoing and future proceedings within the current criminal, civil, inquest and police complaints systems. From the date the Bill comes into force, no other organisation in the UK, apart from the new information recovery commission, will be able to take forward a criminal investigation into a troubles-related incident.

[Sir Robert Neill]

Will my right hon. Friend give way on the criminal justice point?

[Brandon Lewis]

Just a moment.

Any existing cases in which a decision has been taken to prosecute will be allowed to continue to their conclusion. Future prosecutions will remain a possibility for those involved in offences connected to a death or serious injury, if they do not actively come forward. We have listened to the concerns expressed, following the publication of our Command Paper, about active civil claims and inquests, which is why we no longer propose to bring them to an immediate end. Civil claims that had already been filed with the courts before the Bill was introduced will be allowed to continue, but new cases will be barred. Inquests that have reached an advanced stage by 1 May next year, or the date on which the new commission becomes operational, will continue. New and existing inquests that have not reached an advanced stage by that point will not continue in the coronial system, but may be referred to the judge-led commission for investigation.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way again. Will he help me on two matters? First, will he explain—this harks back to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—how he envisages the interaction between clause 7, which will set limitations on the admissibility of certain material in criminal prosecutions, and the provision in clause 22 on the commission’s power to refer material? By the sound of it, compelled testimony and other types of material will be excluded, in meeting what I take it will be the full code test that will be applied by the relevant prosecuting authority.

Secondly, has the Secretary of State assessed the risk of satellite litigation by means of legal challenges to the decisions of the commission to make referrals? How will such challenges be dealt with?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend, as ever, makes insightful points. We are cognisant of those things and will go through them in Committee and in the guidance that we will issue. That is why it is important, referring to his earlier point, that this is a judge-led commission, which involves very highly respected investigative individuals in the process.

While addressing the legacy of the past rightly focuses on those most directly affected, it is a sad fact that the troubles have touched the lives of everyone in Northern Ireland, and across the rest of these islands in different ways, including many of those born after the Belfast/Good Friday agreement was signed. It is therefore important that we think of reconciliation and remembering in a societal as well as in an individual context. That is why, under part 4 of the Bill, an expert-led memorialisation strategy will lay the groundwork for inclusive new structures and initiatives to commemorate the tragic events of the past—to help us all collectively remember those lost and ensure that the lessons of the past are not forgotten.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Neill]

I appreciate the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to achieve, but may I put this to him? It follows from my earlier intervention. I get the sense that he is suggesting that we return, where possible, to allowing a normal criminal justice process to take its course. Is not the difficulty that once immunities have been given, for whatever reason, there will have been a departure from the norms in any event? We are not, therefore, in exactly the same territory as we would be in relation to other offences in other places. That being the case, what alternative do the Opposition posit as a solution?

[Peter Kyle]

The alternative, clearly, was in the Stormont House agreement. Plus there is the additional learning from Jon Boutcher’s work on the Kenova investigations and inquiries, and the real desire among victims to make progress.

Of course victims are realistic about the chances of prosecution in some cases—what a lot of them want is often quite different—but the great thing that I have seen from talking to families who have been subject to investigations by Jon Boutcher under the Kenova system has been how it has been tailored and sensitive to the needs of victims, while being realistic about the prospects of prosecution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

There was no need for such an endorsement; it is nice to see the collegiate nature of the Select Committee burgeoning on the Floor of the House.

As I was saying, I cannot envisage this or any other Government, or any other Secretary of State, devoting future time and energy to trying to resolve these issues, so I am tempted to say that although the Bill needs some amendment, it will be this or it will be nothing at all.

As we know, the politics of Northern Ireland can be different and difficult and testing. I am inclined to think—this may be a strange way of looking at it through the wrong end of the telescope—that it is possibly a good thing that no one and no constituency of interest in Northern Ireland is claiming absolute victory or absolute defeat. To me, that would have suggested that the Government had got it wrong. There is within the Bill the potential for something for everybody who has a legitimate interest in this issue.

I will turn to a couple of specific points. On the programme motion, eight hours for Committee, albeit on the Floor of the House, and one hour, as I understand it, for Third Reading is simply not enough. Physically, this is not a huge Bill in terms of the number of clauses, but it is a mammoth Bill in terms of history and issues. A sceptical Northern Irish audience needs to be given full comfort that full scrutiny will be given to the Bill and the proposed amendments to it. I suggest to the business managers—such as the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, who is on the Treasury Bench—as much as to the Secretary of State that the Bill should be given at least four days for Committee and half a day for Third Reading. That would give comfort to those people who want to make sure that the solution is properly scrutinised.

My Committee will be looking at the Bill, so I do not want to prejudice its deliberation, but I will make a few observatory suggestions. The Secretary of State appoints to the independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery. I would like to see a parliamentary vote affirming those appointments, which would give the body extra legitimacy. On the commissioners, I would certainly like a seat to be reserved for an international participant; I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee. He referred to South Africa, but there are lots of people with United Nations experience. Again, they will add credibility, independence, a new voice and a perspective that should give extra help to those people who are looking to get the proposals over the line and to invest their faith in the commission. There also needs to be an oversight panel to the commission, as we have with Kenova, which could include groups representing victims, the Veterans Commissioner and others.

We need to accept, with regret—I am perfectly honest about that—that Stormont House is dead. We can flog it as much as we like, but it is a horse that will not get out of the stable. It is gone. It is that ex-parrot. That is unfortunate, but it is true. The need for coalition building remains alive, however, and the need for the Government to take people with them is as strong as ever.

Clearly, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said, the Bill will work better if the Republic is engaged and on side. I agree with him that north and south are two sides of the same coin on this, which have equal weight and responsibility to bring forward solutions that are binding and that can command support and confidence. I hope that the Irish Government will try to meet in the middle, and I would urge them to do so, to try to build that consensus and that joint approach.

[Sir Robert Neill]

It is a quick one. Building on that point, does my hon. Friend agree that the importance of our relationship with the Republic reinforces the importance of the quality and international nature of the commission’s membership? Given that the Republic adheres to the same common law jurisdictions and has the same approach to criminal jurisprudence as we do, that would surely be a means of rebuilding trust in that regard.

[Simon Hoare]

I agree fundamentally with my hon. Friend. I urge the Secretary of State to continue his conversations with Minister Coveney. It might be a step in the right direction to say that one of the commissioners could or should be a nominee of the Irish Government. I know that that would be contentious for some, but in trying to build that consensus and share the obligation, it may—there is no guarantee—pay a dividend.

Patrick Finucane: Supreme Court Judgment

Robert Neill Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I am afraid that I would say quite the opposite. I am saying clearly that there is a process that we will go through and that we want to ensure that we abide by and meet our article 2 obligations. We will assess this again following the PSNI investigation and the police ombudsman’s work. That is a clear message about following proper due process and letting those investigations work through to see what information we can bring out. Ultimately, the aim of all the work we should be doing on the legacy is to ensure that we secure information for families who have been waiting for it for far too long.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]]

I appreciate that these are very sensitive issues and that this was a difficult decision for my right hon. Friend to make. I was pleased to hear him say just now that the Government accept their obligations under article 2. Will he confirm that they also accept their obligations under section 6 of the Human Rights Act? I was a professional friend and colleague of the late Sir Desmond de Silva. Would my right hon. Friend accept that the difficulties with his inquiry were related not to any lack of professionalism or integrity on Sir Desmond’s part but to the procedural constraints that were placed upon him and that that was what caused the Supreme Court to find that, thus far, the article 2 obligations had not been met? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that no such procedural constraints will be placed on the ongoing inquiries and investigations and that the Government will ensure that the article 2 obligations, as set out by the Supreme Court’s judgment, will be complied with fully and in a timely manner?

[Brandon Lewis]

We are absolutely committed to our obligations under article 2. That is why I have said that I will reassess this, following the work by the PSNI and the police ombudsman. On the question of scope, as a police-led investigation, this obviously has different connotations and different powers from those that Desmond de Silva had, and that is quite right. This is a matter for the PSNI, which is independent of the Government, and it will be for the Chief Constable to outline the remit and the process of the review. As I said, he intends to start that early next year. In fact, he told me that he hoped it would start in January. The PSNI will be engaging with the Finucane family around that work, and we will ensure that it does so ahead of the work beginning in early 2021.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Robert Neill Excerpts

Monday 21st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

I take no lectures from the SNP on this issue. It is clear that the reason why the SNP opposes the withdrawal agreement is that it opposed our leaving the EU in the first place. With regard to the development of technological solutions, I agreed with Michel Barnier when he said that it is important that both sides look at innovative and flexible solutions. When it comes to the future debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly on consent, it may be that technological progress can help with delivery, so I think that many of these arguments stand. We are committed to the protocol and to all our commitments to Northern Ireland, including the unfettered access as part of our United Kingdom.

I turn to two amendments regarding the commencement of these provisions that have been subject to much debate and attention, including a number of powerful and persuasive speeches on Second Reading. Amendment 4, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, the Chair of the Justice Committee, and is signed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, seeks to provide in essence that break-glass mechanism on the key safety net provisions in relation to the protocol by stating that clauses 42, 43 and 45 of the Bill may not come into force until a motion in this House is passed.  Since that amendment was tabled, I am pleased that there have been constructive talks between my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and Ministers, and the Government have tabled amendment 66, which provides for substantially the same break-glass mechanism, with the additional requirement for a take-note debate in the other place. I hope that that amendment will demonstrate to hon. Members, including the Chair of the Justice Committee, that we are committed to ensuring that any decision to use the powers is explicitly approved by Parliament.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for the constructive tone that he and members of the Government have adopted in these matters. It enables some of us who otherwise would not have been able to support these clauses to proceed, on the understanding that there is a specific parliamentary lock that bad faith on the counter-party’s side must be proven to the House before these powers are brought into operation, which of course all of us hope will never be the case. I welcome that, and it enables us to support the Government’s amendment.

[Mr Walker]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. A fundamental principle of our constitution, and one that lies at the very heart of our exit from the EU, is that this Parliament is sovereign. As set out in clause 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, that means that it can choose to legislate to deliver an interpretation of the protocol consistent with our understanding, while recognising that to do so is a significant step. The parliamentary procedure set out in amendment 66 recognises that, and provides a clearer, more explicit democratic mandate for the use of the powers. I therefore commend amendment 66 to the Committee, and urge my hon. Friend and all Members to support it and not to press amendment 4.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

The first aspect of that question is the intended breach, and the answer is clearly no, because amendment 68 talks about “new requirements”, and if the hon. Gentleman reads the content of the amendment, he will see that. The Northern Ireland Assembly has cross-community voting mechanisms not to provide vetoes but to encourage consensus. The hon. Members on the Benches to my left know exactly why those provisions were brought in, and they know the importance of them, but they tend to believe that they are worthy of use only when there is an issue for which they wish to use them. That is hugely regrettable. When I talk about the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly, I know that there are cross-community mechanisms to ensure that we get to a place of consensus. I do not believe in stalemate or in logjams. I have spent my political life trying to resolve them. I hope that when I contribute on issues in this House, people respect the fact that, although I do not necessarily agree with everyone, I try to get to a place where we can agree.

Businesses in Northern Ireland that buy from GB and wish to sell to GB want to know what their trading position will be. They were promised the best of both worlds, yet day after day they are learning about the bureaucratic and administrative burdens that are going to be placed upon them. They want answers. I know that the Minister will respond thoughtfully to the debate, and that he will pick up on some of the additional issues that I have raised on amendment 68. I hope he does that. I hope he offers some clarity and comfort for businesses in Northern Ireland, and I hope he outlines just how the Bill will assist them. I believe that it will not do so, however, so I hope that he gives us some clarity as to what steps the Government are prepared to take in the Finance Bill to resolve these overarching and burdening issues, which remain unresolved, through the Joint Committee.

[Sir Robert Neill]

This has not been the most edifying spectacle for the House of Commons over the past few days, but I hope that, at the end of the day, we can find a constructive way forward. I say that it is not edifying because, although much of the purpose of the Bill is important and valuable, to act in contemplation of something that most of us would regard as unworthy—namely, to breach an international obligation—is not something that one should ever seek to discuss lightly. Equally, it is not something that can ever be an absolute, because there can be certain extreme and pressing circumstances where such a derogation is permissible, but the bar has to be a very high one. That is why the discussions that have taken place between some of us and the Government, and the Minister’s response, are important, as far as my thinking is concerned. On the face of it, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) observed, without safeguards and caveats, clauses 42, 43 and 45 would without more ado be unconscionable, and we could not support them.

I want also to speak to my amendment 4 and the Government’s amendment 66, which I hope will provide a means of reconciling that position with the need to find a constructive way forward.

[Sir William Cash]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Robert Neill]

If my hon. Friend will allow me to develop my point a little, I will of course give way to him in a moment.

Without a parliamentary lock, I do not believe that it will ever be appropriate for a sovereign Parliament to contemplate breaking an international obligation. There has to be a test for the parliamentary lock to be met. I welcome, therefore, the Minister’s comments on Government amendment 66 and the test that he has adopted—and that was previously put out by Downing Street—at the Dispatch Box in respect of the high bar that would have to be met before the House could or should be persuaded to support such a course of action. For me and, I suspect, many other Members, the bar would have to be a high one.

[Sir William Cash]

Does my hon Friend agree that that bar becomes very apparent when dealing with the essential question of sovereignty and whether the EU is recognising sovereignty in the negotiations in the way that was clearly stated in the protocol and in the essential elements of the agreement? We are sovereign and our constitution is special in that respect, compared with some other countries that have provisions in written constitutions.

[Sir Robert Neill]

Let me put it this way: if my hon. Friend is saying that the test is something akin to that in article 46 of the Vienna convention on the law of treaties, which permits a departure from an international obligation if the violation that causes it is

“manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of fundamental importance”,

I am not a million miles away from him. It is not an exact analogy and I do not think my hon. Friend was trying to make one, but it would have to be something similarly fundamental.

From my point of view, one could conceive—I use my words carefully—that a Government might be able to persuade the House that there was such a threat to the position of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom, and to the welfare of its economy and people, that one might take such a step. That is why, having thought and hesitated for some time, I am prepared to allow the Government the opportunity to make that case. None the less, it is a high bar, and I have to say that the fact that other jurisdictions—be it the EU or others—may have derogated from international treaties is not of itself persuasive. Many of us would need to be persuaded by the evidence that was brought in relation to the specific circumstances that might trigger the bringing into force of the three clauses under the arrangements set out in Government amendment 66. That is the point and will be the only test that will be relevant.

[Mr Carmichael]

I have sympathy with the argument that the hon. Gentleman is making, but I have to say that the practicalities will take us in a very different direction. Last week, No. 10 Downing Street was briefing out that the hon. Gentleman and those who agreed with him would have the Whip removed if they followed through on his amendment. That is the pressure under which Government Members will be put. May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it is possible the Government have accepted his proposition because they see it as something that in practice will not cause them any difficulty?

[Sir Robert Neill]

I shall make two points to the right hon. Gentleman. First, he knows my record does not indicate that I am always in terror of voting against the Whip. Secondly, if anything like that was being briefed out, I never heard it, it was never said to me and I am shocked that any Government would brief such a thing without saying it to the face of the Members concerned.

[Rehman Chishti]

I can confirm that when on the Sunday I conveyed to the Government my concerns with regard to aspects of the Bill and said that on Monday I would be resigning as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief because of real concerns about aspects of the Bill, no one at all from No. 10 ever said that the Whip would be withdrawn; instead, they said that they understood and accepted my decision.

[Sir Robert Neill]

That does not surprise me; it is consistent with my own experience. I say gently to Opposition Members that the issues at stake are too serious to be part of what might otherwise be an understandable bit of partisan knockabout. That is not what we are talking about.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the seriousness of the issue; it is that serious that the British Government’s senior Scottish Law Officer, the Advocate General, has resigned. Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that Scottish constituency Members, based on that premise, should walk through the Lobby and vote with the Government?

[Sir Robert Neill]

It is presumptuous, it seems to me, of the hon. Gentleman to try to suggest how any of my hon. and right hon. Friends might choose to vote, just as it would be presumptuous of me to take a view as to why any Member does or does not remain a member of the Government. I have a very high respect for the noble Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. I just observe that his resignation came before the terms of the Government’s amendment were announced and it was tabled, and before the declaration which the Minister has read out from the Dispatch Box was in the public domain; I perhaps regret the timing of that, but I respect Lord Keen’s position, and that is unchanged, and I do not think relevant to the case that we must make here.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Robert Neill]

I must press on now, and not take any further interventions for some time out of respect for others who wish to speak in this debate.

The Government now accept that they must come to the House and make their case. I think that they recognise that that case would have to be a persuasive one, and that the level of breach by the EU—which would have to be a breach of its obligation of good faith, which in turn would be a breach, it seems to me, of the obligations under article 26 of the Vienna convention to operate in good faith—would have to be made out before I and many others would be prepared to vote for such a course, because of the potential consequences for our international reputation and standing. That is why I am prepared to adopt the formulation of the Lord Chancellor that such a thing might be acceptable in extremis. This is not a carte blanche for the Government, and, in fairness, I do not think Ministers have ever taken it as such; I think they know that it weighs heavily to do such a thing. If the Government move amendment 66 at the relevant stage tomorrow, I will be prepared not to press my amendment, but it is to give the Government the chance to make their case as to why such an exceptional step should be necessary.

It is not wise or constructive to conflate the positions of domestic and international law in this debate; they operate in different spheres, and much of what we are looking at would be in relation to treaty law. A test that is not dissimilar—although it can never be exactly the same—to those considered in the Vienna convention is, therefore, not out of the way.

I welcome, too, the fact that the Minister indicated that the measures that would be initiated would include the arbitral provisions under the protocol to the withdrawal agreement. To try to oust those provisions would be a material breach of the agreement on our part, and would be unconscionable. Under certain circumstances the timeframe for that might not be capable of being resolved in such a way that we might not have to take some proportionate and temporary action ourselves to safeguard a vital interest, but I am sure the Minister and the House will note that I choose my words carefully in all those regards. This is not a green light to treating our international obligations lightly or cavalierly; it is an opportunity for the Government to justify why it might be necessary. One cannot give undertakings as to what that might be until we have seen the evidence at the appropriate time, and I am sure the Government know that, too. But I hope that in practice this also has the desirable effect of enabling the negotiations to proceed and, at the end of the day—with good faith on both sides, which I hope, underneath, is still there—we can get an agreement with the European Union and leave on the terms of a deal. That may not be as good as I would have liked, but much of what I have been doing ever since the referendum is trying to mitigate a circumstance that I did not wish for but which I believe has to be addressed head-on for the sake of the country. If we can achieve an agreement, I hope these provisions will be otiose and we will see no more of them. The rest of the Bill is necessary because we need a proper and efficient working of our internal market once we leave the European Union. Therefore, my other motive for adopting the course that I have is not to obstruct the rest of the Bill needlessly.

It is in that spirit—which has, in fairness, been reflected in my exchanges with the Minister—that I set out the case for why the amendment is important to debate and to consider. If the Government are able to deliver in the terms that we have discussed, I will give them the chance to make their case, if it ever be necessary, in the profound hope that we never actually get to that.

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)]

I rise to commend to the Committee amendments 46 to 48, amendment 41 and new clause 7, which stand in the name of the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry).

There has been so much invocation of the Good Friday agreement, in favour and against the measures in the Bill, that I think it bears repeating some of what is and is not contained and implied in that generation-defining agreement. Those who have read the agreement will know that it does not really talk all that much about borders, trade and internal markets, because, frankly, the EU had settled all those things, and in 1998 the prospect of either Government choosing to leave the security, opportunity and prosperity of the EU would have been considered insanity.

Violence was the reason for the continuing fortifications. The Good Friday agreement was the document that articulated most clearly the argument, which had been made by John Hume and others for so many years, that violence was neither needed nor justified. It took the gun out of Irish politics and ensured that the purported justification of those behind the violence was addressed. The agreement was then endorsed by the people of Ireland, north and south, in overwhelming numbers, and endorsed by both Governments, as the only way to achieve your politics. It took away the excuse and put peaceful constitutional views to the fore. It meant that Unionists, nationalists and others could have their views with dignity and that we all had a decent pass forward.

The Good Friday agreement does not say much about borders and trade, but it does say a lot about relationships, aspirations, consensus and respect, and I think that those are the values that unfortunately have been most damaged and will be most damaged by the Bill. The declaration that accompanied the agreement—

Northern Ireland Protocol: UK Legal Obligations

Robert Neill Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

If the hon. Gentleman looks at what we have been doing on the protocol, such as the dedicated mechanism, the settled status scheme and the live animals and agrifoods work that we have done on sanitary and phytosanitary checks, he will see that we are delivering on the protocol and delivering on what we said we would do, as we did with the rules and regulations that we passed this year, not least on victims’ pensions. We have a good track record of delivering and doing exactly what we say we want to do. One thing that we said we would do, that we outlined we would do, and that we have a manifesto pledge and a mandate to do was to deliver unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses, and we will do that.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has said that he and the Government are committed to the rule of law. Does he recognise that adherence to the rule of law is not negotiable? Against that background, will he assure us that nothing that is proposed in this legislation does, or potentially might, breach international legal obligations or international legal arrangements that we have entered into? Will he specifically answer the other point: was any ministerial direction given?

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Robert Neill Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons & Committee: 2nd sitting
Wednesday 8th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. For clarification, and as the hon. and learned Lady indicated, although a considerable number of amendments and new clauses have been grouped for debate under this group, only the lead amendment at this stage is moved, so the Question is that amendment 38 be made. It gives me pleasure to call, for what will be his maiden speech in his capacity as a knight of the realm, Sir Robert Neill.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Thank you very much indeed, Sir Roger. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair and to follow the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). I do not share her political analysis, but I do have sympathy with some of the legal points she raises, which I will address.

I will start with the interpretation of retained EU law, which raises an important issue. As the hon. and learned Lady has said, concerns have been raised by many lawyers, regardless of their political views. I speak as someone who supported the Bill’s Second Reading, who will support it on Report and on Third Reading, and who stood on a manifesto commitment to implement the Bill. The lawyer in me, however, says that it is particularly important that we get this detail right. That is why I hope I can press Ministers for a little more detail and explanation as to why they have chosen a particular course to achieve their objectives.

I accept that there will be circumstances in which it will be necessary for courts to depart from EU law once we have left the European Union. I have no problem at all with that. I am concerned, however, that the Government’s chosen formulation for clause 26 has the potential to upset the well-established hierarchy and system of binding precedent that has characterised English common law and, to a greater or lesser degree, that of the other jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. The system of binding precedent is important because we have always regarded it as a benchmark of English law that gives certainty, in that lower courts cannot depart from the decisions of higher courts. That has served us well for centuries and is not something from which we should lightly depart.

It is going to be important for the future, too. If we are to advance Britain’s position as an international legal centre and an international financial and business centre—as I hope and am confident we will—certainty of law is important. I am a little concerned, however, that, without more explanation, the Government might risk getting to a stage where—inadvertently, I have no doubt, and perhaps for the sake of speed—they may undermine that valuable asset. That would have perhaps two consequences, which I will touch on.

Judgments made over the years by the European Court of Justice have been embedded in domestic judgments of our courts, including those of the Supreme Court. It seems odd that power should be given to a lower court to, on the face of it, depart from a Supreme Court judgment interpreting the European law as it then was. On the face of it, and without more explanation, that seems to me to upset the doctrine of binding precedent and risks driving a coach and horses through a fundamental part of our system. That is not something we should undertake lightly. Will the Minister explain the rationale behind it and precisely how the Government will go about it? Why is it necessary?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

I am alive to my hon. Friend’s concerns—indeed, I share them—but does not clause 26 provide protection by giving the Minister the power to make regulations that will have to go through this House? That is a statutory intervention, albeit not an Act of Parliament. It is by the will of this House that those intrusions would be made.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I say to my right hon. Friend: yes, up to a point, Lord Copper. Although it may be by the will of the House, I urge the Committee to be cautious in going down such a route, which profoundly changes the centuries-old approach to English common law. Secondly —this is a point that I will make in a moment—there is an issue with the way in which we scrutinise regulations that the Committee may be asked to make. That relates to clause 18, to which I will return briefly. It is about getting those two bits right.

I am conscious that elsewhere in the legislation, there is an obligation upon Ministers to consult the senior judiciary when making some of those regulations. I welcome that important safeguard—it must be a very full consideration. With every respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), I do not think that we have a complete answer as yet. In particular, we need an explanation about the departure from the position as it was in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. As the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West alluded to, there is a concern that we run the risk of an increase in judicial review were there a deficiency or uncertainty in the way in which we deal with those matters.

I hope the Minister will confirm that, as well as the commitment to consult the judiciary, there will be very wide and early consultation under the provisions of clause 26. That should obviously include the senior judiciary throughout the UK, but I hope it will also take on board the broader concerns of legal practitioners to find the right formula. For example, it could include experts like those who serve on the Law Society’s Brexit law committee—that is fundamental to the workings of our financial services—and who work for other such organisations. By pressing the Minister in this way, I seek to make sure that we get that right.

That brings me to my second and final point, which relates to clause 18 and the way in which we consider delegated legislation. I note that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West hinted that amendment 39 is a probing amendment, and I am glad of that. I have some sympathy with it, but I accept that the Minister might want to reconsider, between now and the passage of the Bill through the other place, how best to deal with the issue. On the face of it, it is surprising to substitute an objective test with a subjective one when dealing with matters of such importance.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

When dealing with issues of interpretation of European law in the context of our own previous methods of judicial interpretation, those of us who are familiar with Maxwell as compared to Craies know what the differences are. Does my hon. Friend believe that we should be moving towards the stare decisis system—in other words, a system based on precedent—rather than to purposive interpretation, which is the basis on which European law currently operates? Professor Richard Ekins of Oxford University and others are very conscious of that. He has written a very interesting paper.

[Sir Robert Neill]

It is indeed a very interesting paper. Having been brought up as a common lawyer myself, my preference is inevitably to move towards a stare decisis approach. I think that that is something that we all wish to move back to as we reconstruct our statute book and legal texts thereafter. My hon. Friend and I will be entirely in accord on that.

The question is really about the route that we choose to get there and ensuring that we have proper scrutiny of that route, because any deficiencies in regulations would likely result in a judicial review. That is another irony: I am sure that the Government would not want greater risk of judicial review of their actions than is absolutely necessary. It would be a funny Government who made work for lawyers in relation to judicial review. That might be interesting for some of us, but I am sure that it is not something that the Government wish to do. However, without more explanation as to why we are going down that route, that is the risk.

First, I suggest to the Minister that he should seriously consider whether we move to a “necessary” as opposed to “appropriate” test—an objective test—which is much more likely to withstand challenge in the courts, because it is more likely to be readily evidenced and, I would have thought therefore, to the Government’s advantage. If the Government get their ducks in a row early when making regulations and have evidence to back the objective test, they are much more likely to withstand legal challenge.

Secondly, the Government would be much less likely to face challenges and we would get better scrutiny if we moved—certainly for the majority of policy considerations —to using the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. That would perhaps be a fair balance in the House. We will not necessarily be able to do primary legislation for all of our withdrawal, because there is too much of it. Sensible use of secondary legislation, to remove references to the European Union or something of that kind, can of course be done by the negative procedure. When policy considerations are involved, however, the use of the affirmative procedure would be consistent with the Government’s objective of bringing back control to the House, and with the movement towards our traditional UK approach to legal matters. I hope that the Minister will say something about that when he responds.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger, and I look forward to serving under your guidance. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who has given the Treasury Bench much to think about on the difference between subjective and objective tests, which I will bear in mind in my remarks.

I rise to speak to the official Oppositions’s amendments in this group. Amendment 1 relates to full transparency on the implications of the Northern Ireland-Ireland protocol. Amendment 4 would restore the clauses from the previous version of the Bill that related to negotiating arrangements for the protection of unaccompanied child refugees. New clause 1 would restore to the Bill the process of parliamentary scrutiny—it has been removed since the previous version of the Bill—over the process and outcome of negotiating the future relationship with the EU after we leave. I am sure that you will tell me if I stray from the topic of debate, Sir Roger.

The Opposition have tabled amendment 1 because the Government appear to be incapable of clarity about the implications of the Ireland-Northern Ireland protocol on the people of Northern Ireland and Great Britain, their jobs, their businesses and their way of life. That is too important to leave to chance. The people of Northern Ireland, and the people of the whole United Kingdom, need and deserve the transparency and accountability that the amendment proposes.

This part of the withdrawal agreement and the Bill have to be considered in the light of the historical context. The Good Friday/Belfast agreement was an extraordinary moment in the history of these islands and an awe-inspiring achievement of the incoming Labour Government of 1997 and of the latter period of the Major Government. Nobody my age could have thought that we would see peace in Northern Ireland in our lifetimes. The change to our way of life and the benefits to the people of Northern Ireland were unimaginable before the agreement. The Good Friday/Belfast agreement brought in a new era of peace and reconciliation.

The people of Northern Ireland, as well as its politicians across political and other divides, deserve our respect and admiration for how they have built the peace, worked to build united communities and created a way of life that seemed impossible a quarter of a century ago. Surely, no politician of any affiliation would want to destabilise that achievement—I am sure that that includes the Minister, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who is nodding. I am sure he needs no reminding—I will remind him anyway—that the Government have a legal obligation to adhere to the terms of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. That means no opt-outs, no wiggling and nothing other than solid, uncompromising adherence to and support for the spirit and the letter of the agreement, no matter how hard that may be. Too many people have sacrificed too much for peace for the Government to do otherwise.

These are no small matters, so it is troubling in the extreme that the Government do not seem to know their own mind or the implications of their own protocol. The consequences of a return to a hard border or divisions between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the fears emerging for people in Northern Ireland and the problems for businesses across the UK are all serious matters—hence our amendment. Businesses in Northern Ireland have spoken with one voice and are rightly concerned about the potential impact of border checks on goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. So, too, are businesses across other parts of Great Britain. Any business that currently sends goods to Northern Ireland should not have to expect border checks within the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

I will come to the hon. Lady’s new clause shortly, so perhaps I can give way to her then.

[Sir Robert Neill]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Walker]

I will also come back to the issue raised by my hon. Friend.

As is standard in international agreements, the withdrawal agreement sets out procedures for dealing with disputes concerning compliance with the agreement. Amendment 24 would require parliamentary approval for the payment of any fines or penalties under the withdrawal agreement. The withdrawal agreement is a binding agreement that will place the UK under a legal obligation to make those payments. We have to be clear that we will honour our international legal obligations, and we therefore cannot accept any conditionality on payments.

I turn to amendments 38 and 46 in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). It is essential that the powers in clauses 18 to 22 can be used to enable all appropriate measures required by the withdrawal agreement to be implemented by the end of 2020. Restricting the power in the manner proposed would limit the Government’s ability to implement the withdrawal agreement in the most sensible way. I remind the hon. and learned Lady that the use of “appropriate” in statute is not at all new. There are myriad examples elsewhere on the statute book of powers that use the term “appropriate” to describe the discretion available to Ministers when legislating. I remember well that we discussed the question of “appropriate” versus “necessary” many times during the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and Parliament accepted the use of the word “appropriate”. There is no persuasive reason why we should depart from that approach here.

[Mr Walker]

I obviously pay heed to those points when they are raised, but I am told that the term “appropriate” actually better allows us to take better steps to ensure that multiple options can be explored when the legal changes are complex and interact with numerous pieces of existing legislation; so there are other elements to take into account.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I have three points to make. First, perhaps the Minister could set out what those “better steps” are. Secondly, will he address the issue of consideration under the affirmative resolution procedure as opposed to the negative resolution procedure, which might put some of my concerns to rest? Thirdly, before he finishes, will he tell us why we moved from the formulation of the Supreme Court in clause 26 to the lower courts?

[Mr Walker]

I will absolutely come back to my hon. Friend on the latter point. There are a number of places in the Bill where it is very clear that there will be active consideration by the Commons of the secondary legislation. That is an important part of the parliamentary scrutiny process.

I turn to amendment 10 in the name of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford). It would inhibit our ability to implement part 3 of the withdrawal agreement and the protocol, particularly with regard to the ability to legislate for the consent mechanism and the provision of unfettered access. However, I reassure the Committee—this picks up from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill)—that any amendment to primary legislation through clauses 18 to 21 would have to be actively approved by votes of Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Neill Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Formal Brexit negotiations have now started. There was a very constructive and positive start to those negotiations, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and the Commission’s appointed negotiator, Michel Barnier. We have set up three working groups dealing with key issues initially, including citizens’ rights—I am pleased about that—and we have also started a dialogue on the issue of the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland and that relationship, which is important for Northern Ireland but also for the whole of the United Kingdom. We have set out our objectives. We have published our White Papers. We will be bringing the repeal Bill before this House. We know the plan we have got. The party that does not know what its plan is for Brexit is the hon. Gentleman’s party.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

The Prime Minister was crystal clear on Monday that the reciprocal agreements we seek on citizenship should include the people of Gibraltar. On Tuesday, the Spanish Foreign Minister sought yet again to suggest that Spain should have a unilateral veto on that. Will she make it quite clear that this posturing and game-playing is pointless and counterproductive, and that our commitment to Gibraltar is absolute, and perhaps send him a hearing aid?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. This Government’s commitment to Gibraltar has not changed and it will remain.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Neill Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly take this opportunity to pay tribute to carers across our country for the selfless work they do, for the immense amount of money that they save taxpayers every year through what they do, but, above all, for the love and commitment that they give to the people they are caring for. What we have done is try to help by, for instance, increasing the number of carers’ breaks, because many carers will say that the one thing they need to go on caring is an occasional break and time away from their caring responsibilities. We should continue to work on all those things to help our carers.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

The largest single source of employment and wealth in my constituency is the London-based financial services market. Does the Prime Minister agree that the opportunity to continue trading freely in a single market in financial services of 500 million people and a completed capital markets union is an unparalleled and optimistic opportunity for my constituents, and one that no sensible businessman would ever turn his back on?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Here, it really is worth understanding exactly what this single market means: it means that a financial services company based in the UK effectively has a passport to trade in 27 other EU countries. If we are to leave, and if we leave the single market, we lose that passport right, so, by definition, many of the firms would have to relocate at least some of their staff to another European Union country. HSBC has said it would have to scrap 1,000 jobs. JPMorgan said it would have to scrap 4,000 jobs. Lloyd’s came out and said that many jobs in insurance would be under threat. This is a concrete example of why the single market matters. I would make the point—because this does not just affect my hon. Friend’s constituency—that two thirds of the jobs in financial services are outside London, and this accounts for 7% of our economy, so when experts warn of effects on jobs, growth and livelihoods in our country, this is a classic example of why they are right to make that case.