Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

William Cash Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 13th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Neill]

Amendments 1 and 2, the latter of which amends clause 26, relate to the commencement and operationalisation of the provisions in the Bill. I have drafted them in this way because of the nature of the Bill itself. We will come to amendment 2 on day three, but amendment 1 paves the way for it, so it may be convenient if I set out the thinking behind both amendments.

As was debated at some length on Second Reading—I will not repeat everything that was said—this is an unusual and rather exceptional Bill, and not necessarily in a good way. If fully brought into effect, the Bill would lead to the United Kingdom departing unilaterally from an international agreement and therefore breaking its obligations under both customary international law and the Vienna convention on the law of treaties, which is a grave and profound step for any Government to take.

I recognise that there are circumstances in which that step can be taken, and the Government asserted on Second Reading that the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol gives rise, or potentially gives rise, to those circumstances. The essence of it, though, depends on applying a factual evidence base to a legal test. The legal test in this case is essentially the international customary law convention of necessity, which is now enshrined in article 25 of the articles on state responsibility, which were adopted by the International Law Commission in 2001 and are recognised by the UN General Assembly, by our Government and by the international community as an authoritative statement of the law. Article 25 sets out that necessity may be invoked if certain tests are met. The point of these amendments is to say that if the Government, or any Government, were to take that step, they should do so upon the most compelling grounds, so that the factual basis for their actions met the legal test. The reputational consequences, politically, internationally and legally, are very significant, so this should be done only when that is thoroughly tested and set before this House to be tested.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is referring to certain tests of a reputational character, so I would be grateful if he would tell the Committee what those tests are right now.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I will be happy to talk about the essential tests of necessity, which are well recognised and well set out, as my hon. Friend knows. But the principle behind the amendment, which I will then go into the detail of, is precisely to say, “If you are invoking that doctrine, a most unusual thing to do, you ought to come to the House and set out the basis upon which you seek to do so.” The House would then have the chance to say whether or not we were prepared, on the basis of what the Government had put before us, to take the very exceptional step of putting ourselves in breach of a treaty obligation. That is the point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Neill]

Let me return to that once I have set out the tests, because that is one issue that, with respect to the right hon. Gentleman—I do have much respect for him—the House ought to consider on the factual basis that is set before it. The first test is that departing from the treaty is the only means available to the state party

“to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril”.

I quote from the case law and the text of the convention. Let us just break that down. On “an essential interest”, it might be that the Government could, at some point, make a case to say that the disruption in Northern Ireland, be it economic, societal or political, gets to a stage where it could threaten an essential interest of the UK. I concede that, but I have not, as yet, seen the evidence to justify that.

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Sir Robert Neill]

Forgive me, but my hon. Friend asked me to set out the tests and I am doing so. The second test is the necessity to safeguard an essential interest against a “grave and imminent peril”. The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law has helpfully provided a briefing, setting out that that imports something that very grave indeed—it is a high test—with a degree of urgency to the matter. A possible, contingent or proximate risk does not come within the test of being a “grave and imminent peril”, and that is a risk with the way in which the Bill is drafted at the moment. Again, evidence might be produced to show that it does apply, and the Government might be able to make their case—they ought to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Neill]

With respect, I do not think the amendment would put another hurdle in the way, because it would not prevent the Bill from proceeding and it would not prevent what I know my right hon. Friend wants to see, which is a negotiated settlement. By far the best thing, which everyone in this Committee wants, is for the protocol to be renegotiated. I concede at once that the protocol is not working properly or as it was intended. I also readily concede that part of that is due to a rather intransigent stance taken by the European Commission and its refusal, for example, to give greater flexibility to Vice-President Šefčovič in his negotiating mandate. This is not an issue where all the fault is on one side at all. The EU has not acted wisely or helpfully in these matters, but that is not the same as saying that the international law test is therefore automatically made out as of now.

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Sir Robert Neill]

I will give way to my hon. Friend, probably for the last time.

[Sir William Cash]

I think that would be fine at this stage. My hon. Friend refers to “grave and imminent peril”. Does he not agree that at the heart of this entire problem lies the issue of the democratic deficit? I will not go into it now, but I will explain later that I think this is about the manner in which legislation is pouring into Northern Ireland from every side, like a tsunami, as we said in our European Scrutiny Committee report; we talked about starting with a small number of cars and turning into a motorway. The bottom line is that that is a grave and imminent peril, because of the constant and perpetual legislation, week in, week out, with no time or opportunity for people in Northern Ireland to say anything at any time.

[Sir Robert Neill]

The difficulty that my hon. Friend has is that that is an assertion. I am not sure that, as yet, we have had set out to the House the evidence base that the Government say they have and are working on. I referred the Foreign Secretary to that point on Second Reading, asking when we would see the evidence base that will set out the Government’s case and their reasoning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

Of course that is a matter for the Government, but I am all in favour of proper scrutiny of this Bill. That is why we welcome the fact that the Committee stage will take place over three days on the Floor of the House. I commend the Government for the way in which they have handled this. They are not running away from scrutiny. I invite the hon. Member to come to Northern Ireland, when he has time, and I will gladly introduce him to the businesses that are being harmed by the protocol. He can meet consumers who find real difficulties in purchasing goods from businesses in Great Britain. Indeed, some businesses in Great Britain—many of them, now in the hundreds—have decided no longer to trade with Northern Ireland, because it is all too difficult.

[Sir William Cash]

On Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman and I had an exchange on the democratic deficit. There is also the question of scrutiny. In terms of the political institutions and the voters of Northern Ireland, the situation is perfectly clear, as was indicated in the McAllister case where the judge used the word “subjugation”. The fact is that people—the voters—in Northern Ireland are being subjugated to the laws of the European Union in a manner that is inconsistent with our leaving the European Union. Does he not therefore agree that that democratic deficit is absolutely crystal clear and does not require evidence because it is so self-evident coram populo?

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

That brings me to my final point, which is on the democratic deficit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

Forgive me, but may I move on to the issue of necessity, since a number of Members have mentioned that and it may be relevant? On amendment 6, I understand the desire of the hon. Member for Foyle for the Bill to be clear about the powers that it confers to the Government. However, it is essential that the Bill confers necessary powers for the Government to deliver a durable solution to the serious difficulties that the current implementation of the protocol is causing. Those include, as we know, the undermining of the functioning of institutions established by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

Amendment 6 confuses an international law concept—the doctrine of necessity, which is long established and well understood—and a domestic statutory one, which concerns the appropriate tests for Ministers exercising powers given to them by Parliament. It is essential that the Bill delivers clarity and certainty for the people of Northern Ireland, and amendment 6 would undermine that. I add the caveat that it is the responsibility of Government to deliver a durable solution to the issues the protocol is causing, in order to protect the Belfast agreement. Any unnecessary additional conditions to the exercise of the powers necessary to deliver that solution will only reduce the clarity and certainty of the Bill and what it does to provide for the people of Northern Ireland. That would undermine our ability to get the Executive back up and running, which is a desire I know we all share. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Amendments 7 and 14 were also tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle. The Bill will fix the practical problems that the protocol has created in Northern Ireland. That avoids a hard border, protects the integrity of the UK and safeguards the European Union single market. I am therefore entirely sympathetic to the sentiment behind the amendments. The Government are motivated by the same concerns that underlie them. We are moving quickly with this Bill—as quickly as possible. That is our focus, because the situation is pressing.

The power in clause 15, which among other things would allow Ministers to reduce the amount of the protocol that is excluded, is designed to ensure that we are able to get the final detailed design of the regime right. Its use is subject to a necessity test against a defined set of permitted purposes. It is essential that that power can be used quickly if needed. Amendments 7 and 14 would pre-emptively prohibit certain uses of the power, but I submit to the Committee that the proper way to scrutinise its use is in this place. All regulations are subject to scrutiny, under either the negative or the affirmative procedure, so it is not as if anything would be set aside without that scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman’s amendments would also do nothing to resolve a potential clash between the permitted and the unpermitted—for example, a security and global market access intention—so they would risk tying the Government’s hands behind their back just when they would need to be most agile. For those reasons, I ask him to withdraw amendments 7 and 14.

[Sir William Cash]

I am listening with great interest to the series of amendments that my right hon. and learned Friend has been dealing with and asking Members to withdraw. Has he noticed that amendment 1 is neither chicken nor egg, and that there is no reference in it to any evidence test? I am slightly surprised that at the moment, we are not quite clear as to whether it is going to be suggested that that amendment be withdrawn.

[Michael Ellis]

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will have heard what my hon. Friend has said.

I will now turn to amendment 27 and new clause 9, tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). The Bill is designed to provide swift solutions to the issues that the protocol has created in Northern Ireland. Those solutions are underpinned by the legal designation of elements of the protocol as excluded provision. Put simply, it is by excluding some elements of the protocol and withdrawal agreement in domestic law that the Bill can introduce the changes that are needed in Northern Ireland with the necessary certainty. Through the conditions they would impose, the hon. Lady’s amendments would undermine the ability to exclude elements of the protocol, and therefore undermine the entire operation of the Bill. I would also argue that they are unnecessary, because the actions they require are already being taken in practice during the passage of the Bill. By voting on its passage, both Houses of Parliament have an opportunity to indicate their approval for the principle of excluding elements of the protocol.

The Government have already clearly set out in the statement of 13 June that we consider the legislation to be lawful in international law. We have also already been clear on why we are not using the article 16 safeguard mechanism: it has inherent limitations on its scope, in that such safeguard measures could address some trade frictions but not the broader identified impacts of the protocol. It is therefore unnecessary to oblige the Government to repeat those statements before exercising the powers conferred by the Bill, which is why I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

I am grateful that you are in the Chair today, Dame Eleanor, and that I have the opportunity to speak in this debate. As the new Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Shailesh Vara), is in his place, may I start by welcoming him to the job? I hope that we will have the chance to have exchanges into the future. As I have already reassured him, when this divisive period—which includes the contents of this Bill—passes, I hope that there will be more opportunity to find common ground. His predecessor, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), was present a little earlier; that would have been a good opportunity to pass on my sincere gratitude for the way in which he dealt with me when he was in the Department.

Clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill deal with the intention and the main powers. New clause 10, which I will be pushing to a vote, attempts to inject at least some respect for the rule of law into the Bill. The Opposition are also supporting the SDLP’s amendment 8.

The Bill tells us everything we need to know about the Tory party of today, because it represents an abdication of all responsibility—the responsibility to play by the rules, the responsibility to be honest about our actions and their consequences, the responsibility to honour our commitments made on behalf of our country. On Second Reading, the Foreign Secretary declared herself a patriot. Patriotism includes our flag, of course, but it is also about our values. To me, those values should unite all democratic politicians, irrespective of political party. They include respect for the rule of law and equality before it; respect for human rights and the institutions that defend them; and respect for commitments, foreign and domestic, voluntarily entered into and collectively applied.

It says a lot that simply describing those values sounds like a criticism of the Conservative party, the current Prime Minister and almost certainly the next. It is most certainly a criticism of the Bill, which not only breaks convention—the law—but betrays our values as a Parliament and as a country. The Bill exists because the Prime Minister was not honest about the full nature of the Brexit deal. That was followed by a manifesto that promised that his deal was “oven-ready” and vowed to the public that there would be no renegotiations of it.

It is easy for Ministers to dismiss my criticisms, because they are the words of an Opposition spokesman, so how about the words of one of their leadership contenders—of someone running to be their next leader and our Prime Minister? All the contenders have trashed the Tory record in office, so let us take just the most recent example. This morning, the right hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) said:

“The British people…are fed up with us not delivering, they are fed up with unfulfilled promises”.

She is right, and the Conservative manifesto promise not to renegotiate is presumably part of the problem that she describes.

[Sir William Cash]

Can the hon. Gentleman explain how it is right for the voters of Northern Ireland to be subjugated to laws that are passed in the Council of Ministers behind closed doors, without even a transcript? How does he justify that? Does he not agree that that is a grave and imminent peril to the people of Northern Ireland?

[Peter Kyle]

The question that the hon. Gentleman is asking is three years too late. It should have been asked as the Government were negotiating, proposing and delivering the protocol in the first place. The debate here today is not about the nature of the protocol as signed into international law; it is about the way in which the Government have failed to negotiate their way forward, and seek to break the commitment that they made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her thoughtful contribution; I know that she cares deeply about these issues. Since I have been in this job I have striven, as I hope my friends in the DUP will acknowledge, to take them on their own terms when they express so strongly the existential challenge they face in the protocol. I have also tried to do so for other parties representing other communities in Northern Ireland. It is a shame that, to date, the Government have not striven so hard to take other parties on their own terms and engage with them right the way through. If they had done so, I simply do not believe we would be in the position we are in today.

This afternoon we will quite simply be voting on whether to uphold the rule of law. Expecting a Government to keep their legal obligations should not be partisan. Many Members on the Conservative Benches spoke powerfully on Second Reading about the weakness of this Bill. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the former Prime Minister and former leader of the party, said the following:

“My answer to all those who question whether the Bill is legal under international law is that…it is not.”

She went on to say:

“As a patriot, I would not want to do anything to diminish this country in the eyes of the world. I have to say to the Government that this Bill is not in my view legal in international law, it will not achieve its aims and it will diminish the standing of the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world. I cannot support it.”—[Official Report, 27 June 2022; Vol. 717, c. 64.]

The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said:

“The Bill risks economically harmful retaliation and runs the risk of shredding our reputation as a guardian of international law and the rules-based system. How in the name of heaven can we expect to speak to others with authority when we ourselves shun, at a moment’s notice, our legal obligations?”—[Official Report, 27 June 2022; Vol. 717, c. 55.]

The right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) said that

“the Bill we are proposing to put through this House tonight will be a gross breach of international law if it is enacted and implemented.”—[Official Report, 27 June 2022; Vol. 717, c. 88.]

We also have the views of experts such as the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, which said:

“The Bill is in clear breach of international law as it seeks to change unilaterally the domestic effect of an international agreement that the UK has signed up to, without legal justification.”

New clause 10 is intended to prevent the Government from breaking our legal obligations by requiring either of two conditions to have been met before they can use powers to start to exclude parts of the protocol.

[Sir William Cash]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Kyle]

No, I have given way once. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to catch the Deputy Speaker’s eye, and I look forward to his contribution.

New clause 10 would ensure that all legal avenues are pursued, which I hope is entirely in line with the intervention made by the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox). He sought to clarify this point with particular reference to article 16, which I will address momentarily. I am pleased that he is still in his place.

The condition must be either the agreement condition or the article 16 condition:

“The agreement condition is that the United Kingdom and the EU have agreed following negotiations that the provision is excluded provision.

The Article 16 condition is that the United Kingdom is unilaterally taking appropriate safeguard measures, in accordance with Article 16 of the Northern Ireland Protocol”.

New clause 10 does not wreck the Bill or prevent its provisions from ever being used; it simply ensures the Government stick to our legal obligations before taking action.

It is wrong to rely on the doctrine of necessity to justify this Bill, as the Government’s legal position does. For necessity to be applicable, the Bill would have to be the only way for the UK to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent threat. Uniquely, the Government’s position is that the protocol they designed and agreed is a grave and imminent threat. By their own admission, this Bill cannot be the only way to address the protocol because Ministers still say they are seeking a negotiated solution with the EU. It just does not make sense.

Labour has been clear all along that we want the EU to show more flexibility in the negotiations. The Government must think progress is possible, too, because they are still pursuing negotiations even at this point. The agreement condition of new clause 10 recognises that, as a legitimate starting point for improving an international settlement that we have signed up to, article 13.8 states that the UK and the EU can supersede the protocol, so long as any subsequent agreement indicates the parts that will be altered—in other words, if it is negotiated. The Government should be focusing all their energies on reaching an agreement instead of wasting time on this Bill, which will do more harm than good and is never likely to make it into statute anyway.

The article 16 condition is another route the Government could take if they were going to act within the law. Negotiation should be the top priority for addressing the protocol challenges but, if the point comes where negotiation is no longer viable, safeguard clauses already exist in the protocol itself. Let me be clear that necessity cannot be relied on if the safeguard clauses have not even been attempted by this Government.

Article 16 sets out what either party can do in circumstances where one party to the protocol feels it needs to take unilateral measures to prevent serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties, or diversions of trade, that are likely to persist. It would be in compliance with international law if the Government sought to use the safeguard clauses of the agreement they signed. Instead of following the process in that agreement, however, they are unilaterally scrapping the agreement altogether.

New clause 10 would ensure that the extraordinary powers in this Bill, which will otherwise breach the terms of the protocol, are exercised only in accordance with the UK’s international obligations. All Members who respect the rule of law should vote for it.

Time and again, Labour has called for the EU and the Government to get back around the negotiating table. There are large areas of common ground that have shown that successful negotiation is possible. Indeed, this is the only negotiation in history that is failing because all sides seem to agree. The way to unlock progress on the protocol is through negotiation and leadership, the very things that Britain used to be good at.

A Labour Government would get around the negotiating table, because “negotiation” is not a dirty word—it is just statecraft, diligence and graft. Statecraft and commitment are needed to deliver for our country, alongside a determination never to be blown off course by internal partisanship. As Churchill put it, we should “put country before party.” That is not a slogan but a principle, at least on this side of the Committee. Where this Government see challenges as an opportunity to have a row, Labour sees the imperative to rebuild. While this Government walk out of negotiations, Labour will be around the table, staying the course and delivering for our country. While this Government play politics with Northern Ireland’s fragile progress, a Labour Government would engage, respect and deliver.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

I will be quick. I have listened with fascination to the contributions and speeches made this afternoon. If I thought that the Bill would produce a durable and permanent solution, I would support it, but I do not believe it will produce a durable and permanent solution. The fact is that we cannot impose on Northern Ireland, or on any other party to a treaty that we signed, unilaterally a political solution. A political solution has to be reached politically; it cannot be imposed by this House through legislation. The EU—like it or not—and the Irish Government are a party to these negotiations. Unless we are able to achieve assent to the arrangements that we propose, they will not last. It will have to be resolved ultimately by agreement. It is much the same as the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill—another attempt by the Government to impose a political solution on Northern Ireland, without first having reached the solution and then produced the legislation that works out and implements that solution. I do not believe that this legislation will produce a permanent solution.

We come to the question of necessity. I am not prepared to say that there is an impossibility that the basis of necessity could not justify the actions that the Government are taking. I have the gravest of misgivings about it, and the deepest of scepticism about whether or not it affords a proper legal basis as a matter of international law, but we have not seen the evidence. It is possible that the Government and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General have seen some evidence that we have not seen that could crystallise at least the plausible case that this action needs to be taken.

I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), but the fact of the matter is that even necessity is not a legal basis for a permanent solution. The doctrine of necessity in international law requires the measures that have been implemented as a necessity to answer the urgent and imminent peril to be removed as soon as the basis for taking action on the grounds of necessity has gone. Indeed, necessity does not even remove the breach; one is still in breach of the agreement. Necessity simply removes the wrongfulness, which further emphasises the fact that necessity cannot produce a permanent solution as a matter of international law. Only agreement—only the reaching of a political solution—can do so.

Nobody need tell me about the politically tone deaf intransigence of the European Union in negotiation. I recall vividly in my visits to Brussels in the early months of 2019, saying to Michel Barnier, “But do you not see, Michel, that this produces an anomalous situation? If a farmer in Northern Ireland wants to take up the issue of cattle tagging, to whom does he go? When the law is imposed by the European Union, the only place he can go is either to Brussels itself or to Dublin, and how will that feel for one whole section of the community of Northern Ireland?” I must tell the Committee that the European Union representatives reacted as if they had been stung by wasps. We have to understand that those at the European Union believe the protocol to be the very zenith of creative diplomacy. They cherish and prize it, as if it were their own child. But that does not mean that we do not need to engage in the patient effort—maybe it will take months, maybe years—gradually to make them see that this is an unsustainable situation.

What we should not do is reach immediately for a solution, over which there are the gravest doubts as to its efficacy as a matter of international law, over which there are the gravest doubts about the sincerity and good faith of the Government—for I take it that the Government have advanced their case on the basis of necessity sincerely. I assume that they must mean, and genuinely mean, that they genuinely believe that there is a respectable case on the basis of necessity. If they do, why should we not at least be told the evidence—the evidence! We can gist it, we can summarise it if it is security sensitive, but at least let this House acquit itself of the doubt that exists over its legal efficacy as a matter of international law. It is no light thing for this House to take a step—

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

No, I will not give way. Too many need to speak.

It is no light matter for this House to take a step that is in contravention of its international obligations. The dignity of this nation rests upon its word being seen to be implemented once it is given. Therefore, I think it a small thing—a reasonable thing—that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has asked.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary talked about Members as patriots. I do not believe that there is a person in this House who is not a patriot, not a person in this House who does not believe—[Interruption.] There may be some exceptions on the Opposition Benches, but I certainly do not believe that of those on the Labour Benches. The fact is that I want to give credit and the benefit of the doubt to everybody, but patriotism can also be the belief that we should stand by our word and that we depart from it only if there is a proper legal basis for doing so.

There is plenty of precedent for the Attorney General coming to the House—I should know, I did it—to answer questions about the international law compatibility of a measure in this House. Indeed, it goes way back, I think, to either the Wilson Government or the Heath Government. Attorneys General would come to the House to answer questions on the compatibility of statutes with international law. I invite the Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), to invite the Attorney General to come and answer those questions, because, in my judgment, it is an obligation to the House. The Attorney General has a residual duty to advise the House on matters such as this.

I say to my right hon. and learned Friend that I will not be able to support this Bill—that comes as no surprise—but I sympathise with the plight in which the Government find themselves. We should all be a lot better if we united in this House to besiege the European Union with requests so that it sees that it must effect real change in this protocol. That is why I asked the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) what is his solution to the democratic deficit of which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has properly and accurately spoken.

These are really intransigent, intractable problems. It is no use sitting, as the hon. Member for Hove does, attacking those of us on the Government Benches for not having solutions if he just talks more and does not propose constructive, new replacement agreements that might fulfil the legitimate wish of the Unionist community to feel that they are not separated and segregated from the rest of the kingdom, while doing justice to the European Union’s desire to protect its single market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Thomson]

Yes, I think untold additional harms could befall Northern Ireland—and not just Northern Ireland, but all parts of the UK. That is why it is important that the Government’s stated position of preferring negotiation is the one that they pursue wholeheartedly. I am very concerned at the suggestion that there has been no direct dialogue between Her Majesty’s Government and the European Union on this since February; I sincerely hope that is not true.

Time does not permit me to speak on further amendments, but I am particularly attracted to amendment 1 tabled by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who seems to be rapidly becoming the critical friend that this Government perhaps do not deserve, and whose argument is very sound. We also fully support new clauses 7, 8 and 10.

The only way forward on this is negotiation, and the Bill will risk our ability to take that forward. I urge the Minister to accept the amendments that have been tabled in good faith but fundamentally to put the Bill on ice until the Government are back in a stable position, and then proceed on the basis of that reorganised mandate to achieve the negotiated settlement that each of us desperately needs.

[Sir William Cash]

Section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 includes the word “notwithstanding”. In relation to section 38(2)(b), the use of that word applies to direct effect and direct applicability. I have some experience over the past 38 years of dealing with a lot of these treaties. We have had to implement every one of them as they have gone through, much to my regret—Maastricht and so forth. If there is the necessity, to use that expression, to have to pass legislation in order to implement a treaty into domestic law, I see no reason at all why we should not introduce legislation when that treaty does not work, as in this case, to disapply it. It cuts both ways.

There is a lot of huffing and puffing over this international law business. I was shadow Attorney General during the time of the Iraq war, and I saw things going on with the then Prime Minister, now Sir Tony Blair, implementing arrangements and bringing forward the Attorney General’s opinions. In fact, it was I, on the Opposition Front Bench, who instigated the necessity for him to bring forward his truncated opinion, which was done in order to assuage Labour Back Benchers.

I do not get too worried about the idea of disavowing treaties where they necessarily have to be disavowed in the sovereign national interest of a country. There is a lot of pretty rank huffing and puffing going on about how solemn and sacred all this is. If a treaty does not do something that it is in the interests of the voters and is seen to be doing damage, it requires review. The Bill will do a great deal of good in mitigating the damage. It does not rip up the protocol; it amends it in a sensible manner.

I do not need to repeat my point about the democratic deficit. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox) for acknowledging that this point needs to be made. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) made the same point himself. He and I have had long discussions about all this. It is unanswerable, perfectly clear and self-evident. It is coram populo. It has nothing to do with an evidence base—the amendment does not even refer to one; it talks about parliamentary approval for a Bill. It is neither chicken nor egg, nor are there any feathers on the chicken. For practical purposes, with great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the amendment is not worth pursuing, but I leave it to him to make his own decision.

When I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) attack this Bill, I was reminded, because I have been watching these matters as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee for a very long time, that the Northern Ireland protocol had its origins in her Administration. Let us not think for a moment that the protocol was an invention of the Prime Minister; it was conceived of over a long time. The pass was sold during the previous Administration. That is the point I needed to make.

I have heard the condemnations from the former Prime Minister, which I find to be completely unjustified in the circumstances. I was privy to the negotiations going on when Lord David Frost and Oliver Lewis were involved. I know a little about the background, and I suspect my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox) knows a great deal more than me. I can tell the Committee that the whole thing was conceived in the previous Administration. Let us not put up too much—or at all—with criticism made of this Government, or as it proceeds, a new Administration with a new Prime Minister reasonably shortly, on the basis that they are responsible for the protocol, when it was the previous Administration in the first place.

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)]

I rise to speak to the amendments tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), in which we hope to address some of the issues around consent, protection of the Good Friday agreement, environmental protection and the economy of Northern Ireland, because those are the stated aims of the Bill. While the Social Democratic and Labour party believes that the Bill is damaging, we are in the business of finding and providing solutions, and that is what we have tried to do throughout this process. Our amendments offer a constructive way forward that is negotiated, is compatible with international law, is genuinely square with the Good Friday agreement and is in the interests of the people and the economy of Northern Ireland. Anyone who shares those aims should have no issues with the amendments.

The Minister in fact made the case for a number of our amendments by indicating that the Government have no intention of doing some of the things that we are trying to guard against. I respectfully advise him that taking assurances from this Government, who pinball about on this issue and pinball about on their legal obligations, would be, to quote the SDLP founder Paddy O’Hanlon, like asking Atilla the Hun to mind your horse. We will press ahead with our amendments to try to get some of those commitments in the Bill.

The irony will not be lost on people that in Committee of the whole House, considering a Bill that is supposed to be about stability and consent in Northern Ireland, no amendments will be entertained from elected Members for Northern Ireland. Once again, in Committee of the whole House, Members of Northern Ireland are scrambling to barrel through their points in the scraps of minutes at the end of the debate.

The recent focus on the distortion of the principle of consent in Northern Ireland has been a bit of a political earworm since supporters of the Bill picked it up a few years ago, but it was not always so. Until the plans for a very hard form of Brexit finally collided with reality, Brexit was being presented as a consent-free adventure. My party and others, in this House, in Stormont and through the courts, attempted to insert mechanisms to give a voice to the people of Northern Ireland. They were dismissed by some champions of the Bill, who were adamant that there could be, should be and needed to be no role for people in Northern Ireland and insisted that the Good Friday agreement was irrelevant to these procedures.

The SDLP is content to acknowledge the frustrations of some people, but it is annoying that some of the arguments about consent are “Now you see them, now you don’t”. People are left with the view that the consent of certain parts and certain voters are all that a party is concerned about.

The result of our efforts on consent and the belated acknowledgement of that by others in this House was the insertion of article 18 into the protocol, so it is bizarre that the Bill seeks essentially to override the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. Under our amendments, once the bulls are allowed into the china shop—as they would be with the extravagant powers that Ministers are being granted in this Bill—the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland would be protected. That would be further enhanced by our amendment 14, which would provide that a Minister cannot harm either the Good Friday agreement or the economic interests of Northern Ireland. Again, that should not pose a problem to anybody who seeks to protect those issues.

In a similar vein, amendment 10 would provide for consultation with human rights groups, business groups and other civic voices before powers are exercised. The Minister made some comments about the sociopolitical impacts and damage in Northern Ireland, and I ask him to clarify that, because bringing in those groups would in fact ensure much more consent and consensus in Northern Ireland.

In addition to consent and protecting the agreements, supporters of the Bill suggest that they seek a negotiated outcome, and we are told that the EU is engaging insufficiently. Our amendment 5 would include in the Bill the requirement that the powers can be used only after good-faith, documented negotiations that are endorsed by this House and by Stormont. It would be useful for us to see exactly what is being discussed—not just that people have tabled the same paper 17 times—and to be allowed to see past the spin to see which parties to the negotiation are in fact moving their position.

With our amendments, we are offering Members the chance to make the protection of the Good Friday agreement, in all its parts, a real and reliable standard, not a vague and variable part-time application. We offer a way to uphold international law and abide by the treaty while using the flexibilities and room for adjustment within the treaty. Instead of the destructive abandonment of the rule of the law in the Government’s clauses, we are outlining a pathway of constructive adjustment, applying both the structures of the protocol and the ethos of the Good Friday agreement.