(Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern
Ireland if he will make a statement on the UK’s commitment to its
legal obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland ()
We are fully committed to implementing the withdrawal agreement
and the Northern Ireland protocol, and have already taken many
practical steps to do so. The protocol was designed to maintain
the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the gains of the peace
process, and to protect the interests of all people in Northern
Ireland, and that is what this Government will do and will
continue to deliver on. Throughout the last year, as we have
taken steps to comply with our obligations under the protocol, we
have always sought to honour both our international obligations
and our commitments to the people of Northern Ireland.
The protocol itself states that it should
“impact as little as possible on the everyday life of
communities”
and it explicitly depends on the consent of the people of
Northern Ireland for its continued existence. As we continue to
implement the protocol, this overriding need must be kept in
mind. The Government have consistently said that people and
businesses in Northern Ireland will have unfettered access to the
whole of the UK market. Our manifesto made a very clear
commitment to that. The approach that we will take in this
legislation builds on that commitment and on the specific
commitment that we made in the “New Decade, New Approach”
agreement, to legislate for unfettered access by the end of the
year. This has been one of the most consistent asks from Northern
Ireland businesses since the protocol was agreed, and we are now
moving to provide certainty.
Our approach guarantees that we will be able to deliver the
objectives that we set out for implementing the protocol in a way
that protects the interests of the people and the economy of
Northern Ireland. We are working hard to resolve any outstanding
issues through the Joint Committee and will continue to approach
those discussions in good faith, but we are taking limited and
reasonable steps to create a safety net that ensures that the
Government are always able to deliver on their commitments to the
people of Northern Ireland and in line with the protocol.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.
This week starts a crucial period in our trade negotiations with
the EU. Labour wants the Government to succeed—to secure a deal
in the national interest and to protect the Good Friday
agreement—so it is very welcome to hear the Secretary of State’s
confirmation of their commitment to the protocol. But it has been
deeply concerning ahead of these talks that the Prime Minister
has appeared to undermine our legal obligations and his own deal.
The resignation of the Government’s chief legal adviser this
morning suggests that concern over the Government’s approach runs
to the very top. It risks jeopardising the progress of the
negotiation and the chance of securing a much-needed deal.
The protocol was not foisted on the Prime Minister by Brussels,
by a previous Government or by Parliament. The Prime Minister
personally renegotiated it, campaigned on it, legislated for it
and ratified it in an international treaty. With these latest
moves, some fear that the Prime Minister is once again using
Northern Ireland as a political football to suit his wider
political means. We cannot forget that at the heart of this are
the people and businesses of Northern Ireland who risk paying the
price. For them, this is not the latest episode in a Brexit drama
but a profoundly worrying moment that will shape their
livelihoods, their businesses and their future. It reopens the
uncertainty that they hoped had been settled, takes us backwards
in negotiations and undermines trust with the European
Commission.
Ultimately, this is about trust. How can the people of Northern
Ireland trust this Government with the careful progress made over
the past two decades when they tell them that the protocol is
necessary to protect it and then suggest that the protocol
undermines it? How can the British people trust a Government who
swore that they had an oven-ready deal only 10 months ago and now
tell them that the deal was ambiguous and contradictory? How can
our partners and allies around the world trust us to enter trade
negotiations on multilateral arrangements?
Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the Treasury
Solicitor resigned today in response to the Government’s plans to
bring forward legislation that will undermine our legal
obligations? Will he confirm whether a ministerial direction has
been given on the internal market Bill? Will he further outline
what legal advice he has seen and whether the ministerial code
will be breached if MPs are asked next week to vote on provisions
that will undermine those legal obligations?
There was no need for it to come to this. The elements of the
protocol left to negotiate are not insignificant, but neither are
they insurmountable. With trust, progress could easily have been
secured. At the start of a new chapter for our United Kingdom, we
cannot afford to be seen as a country that cannot be trusted. As
Margaret Thatcher said,
“Britain does not renounce treaties. Indeed, to do so would
damage our integrity as well as international relations.
In those interests and in the national interest, I urge the
Government to stop the posturing, rediscover their responsibility
and secure the deal that was promised to the people of this
country.
The hon. Lady should wait until she sees the legislation
tomorrow, because I hope she will then see that we are delivering
on the very promises to which she just referred. She commented on
the Prime Minister’s campaigning and our manifesto pledges, which
I referred to in my opening remarks. The Bill, as she will see,
will absolutely deliver on them.
The UK internal market legislation that we will bring forward
this week delivers on our commitment to legislate for unfettered
access, which Northern Ireland businesses have consistently asked
us to do to ensure that we deliver certainty. The legislation
will give the certainty that the people, businesses and economy
of Northern Ireland have been asking for, and supports the
delivery of the protocol in all circumstances, in line with the
approach we set out in our Command Paper in May.
The safety net that we will implement, which we will outline this
week, will deliver on the commitments made in the general
election manifesto. Specifically, we will implement the provision
in the protocol that Northern Ireland is fully part of the UK
customs territory by ensuring that goods moving within the UK
will never even inadvertently have to pay EU tariffs. We will
ensure that businesses based in Northern Ireland have true
unfettered access to the rest of the United Kingdom without
paperwork, and we will ensure that there is no confusion about
the fact that, while Northern Ireland will remain subject to the
EU state aid regime for the duration of the protocol, Great
Britain will not be subject to EU rules in that area.
Those steps are rightly part of the UK internal market Bill, the
overriding aim of which is to ensure that the UK’s own internal
market operates effectively, and I hope all Members will support
that endeavour. The House will of course have an opportunity to
debate these matters when it sees the details in full when
considering the Bill. Further, the Bill will strengthen Northern
Ireland’s place in the UK customs territory and ensure that the
UK does take back control of its laws in an organised way after
31 December—exactly as we promised in the manifesto that won a
resounding victory and mandate from the people of this country at
last year’s election.
I cannot comment on the details of the Treasury Solicitor’s
resignation because I have not seen his resignation letter, but
we wish him well. We will continue to work at pace with the EU in
the Joint Committee, and I stress to the hon. Lady that she
should not presume what the outcome of the Joint Committee will
be. We continue to work with the EU on that to ensure that we can
reach a fair and positive outcome for Northern Ireland. That has
always been and continues to be our priority.
(Maidenhead) (Con)
The United Kingdom Government signed the withdrawal agreement
with the Northern Ireland protocol. This Parliament voted that
withdrawal agreement into UK legislation. The Government are now
changing the operation of that agreement. Given that, how can the
Government reassure future international partners that the UK can
be trusted to abide by the legal obligations in the agreements it
signs?
We have worked with the EU in a spirit of good faith, and both
sides continue to work in that spirit to implement the
arrangements that uphold the fundamental principles that lie
behind the protocol. Of course, our first priority continues to
be to secure agreement on the protocol on the Joint Committee and
on the wider free trade agreement, but the withdrawal agreement
and protocol are not like any other treaty. They were written on
the assumption that subsequent agreements could be reached
between us and the EU on the detail—that is the entire purpose of
the specialised Joint Committee—and we continue to believe that
that is possible, but as a responsible Government we cannot allow
our businesses not to have certainty for January. The reality is
that the UK internal market Bill and the Finance Bill are the
last legislative opportunities we have to give the people and
businesses of Northern Ireland the confidence and certainty that
we will deliver what we agreed in the protocol, what we outlined
in our manifesto and what we set out in the Command Paper.
(East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The Prime Minister referred to Northern Ireland and said, “This
is a good deal”, when he struck it last year. Now he seems to
disagree with himself. There are U-turns everywhere, but this is
something else. No wonder it is reported today that the head of
the UK Government Legal Department has just quit because of the
rowing back in respect of the withdrawal agreement and Northern
Ireland. The internal market Bill is taking a wrecking ball to
devolution. The Government are hellbent on a poor deal or no-deal
Brexit—and hang the implications—but using the Bill to renege on
parts of the withdrawal agreement is extraordinary and dangerous.
Can the Minister explain what discussions he has had with Cabinet
colleagues about the impact of these plans on Northern Irish
businesses and the Good Friday agreement? What advance
discussions did he have with the Northern Irish Executive? I
suspect the answer is: precious few. We have all seen the
Government’s wilful disregard for devolution and their own
international reputation. Who will want to do business with a
Government who cannot stick to an agreement with themselves,
never mind anyone else, and who make it up as they go along, as
we heard just now and as people in Scotland are only too aware?
The hon. Lady and I have a distinct difference of opinion,
because whereas the SNP want to hand powers straight back to
Brussels, we, the UK Government and the Conservative party, have
been clear that we want to take back those powers for the
residents and citizens of the United Kingdom, and indeed we will
be devolving power to the devolved authorities, as we have
outlined in our discussions with those authorities, including the
First Minister of Scotland just this week. This is about taking
back power from the EU, as people voted for, and giving it back
to the people of the UK, including the Scottish Parliament. I am
just sorry that the SNP does not share the desire to see
democracy exercised here in the UK.
(Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I wonder if my right hon. Friend recalls that in clause 38—the
sovereignty clause—of the Act that gave effect to the withdrawal
agreement the Government reserved to themselves the right to make
clarifications. Given that, and given that when the protocol was
signed, the Government recognised that state aid rules would
apply to Northern Ireland, their extension to the rest of the
Great Britain is an interpretation by the EU, and the Government
are quite within their rights to dispute that interpretation and
use clause 38 to explain that they do not agree with that and
will not implement such an agreement.
My right hon. Friend has spoken about these issues over the last
year or so and has been clear about his position, and he is
absolutely right. The UK internal market Bill will make clear
what will apply in January if we cannot reach a satisfactory and
mutually suitable conclusions through the specialised Joint
Committee and the wider free trade agreement. It is reasonable
and sensible for the Government to give that certainty and
clarity to businesses and people in Northern Ireland, which in
itself will ensure that we abide by and deliver on the Good
Friday agreement by ensuring that there will be no borders
between east and west and north and south. He is also absolutely
right that Great Britain will not be subject to EU rules in a
state aid area while recognising the unique position of Northern
Ireland.
(Leeds Central) (Lab)
I am afraid the Secretary of State’s protestations of innocence
will not wash, because over the past two days—the right hon.
Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) addressed this question—the
Government have given the impression that they may not be trusted
to honour obligations they have freely entered into.
I wonder whether the Secretary of State can answer a very
specific question relating to the Northern Ireland protocol,
which he had some trouble answering in the summer when he
appeared before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Will
goods moving from GB to Northern Ireland be required to complete
export declarations, import declarations or entry summary
declarations—yes or no?
As I assume the right hon. Gentleman knows, that forms part of
the discussions that are going on in the specialist committee,
between us and the EU, to deal with these issues. Our view is
that the regime should be very flexible, as has outlined,
in terms of respecting the unique position of Northern Ireland,
because those goods going from GB to Northern Ireland are, by
definition, very low risk, and we must ensure that we do not end
up in a situation where it is presumed that 100% of the goods
going from GB to Northern Ireland are what the EU would refer to
as “at-risk goods.” That would be inappropriate for Northern
Ireland businesses, would drive up prices in Northern Ireland and
would restrict supply to Northern Ireland. That does not fit with
the protocol’s outline of Northern Ireland remaining an integral
part of the UK customs territory and single market.
(North Dorset) (Con) [V]
At the moment, for Northern Ireland, there appears to be no
certainty for businesses, and no certainty for the long-term
future of the Good Friday agreement, as clearly any transporting
of goods between north and south will now need to be checked
somewhere and somehow. Also, in echoing the remarks of my right
hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), there appears to
be no certainty for the continuity of our country as a country
that keeps its word and abides by the rule of law and
international obligations. What certainty can my right hon.
Friend give me that the Government understand the seriousness of
these issues?
We, as a country, stand for international law and the order of
the international system, and we always will. I think countries
around the world are aware of that. They are equally aware that
we are in these negotiations with the EU. Our focus is on
concluding those in a satisfactory and suitable way in order to
get a good outcome with a free trade deal, and good outcomes from
the specialist committee that work for Northern Ireland. We must
remember that delivering on the Good Friday agreement is not just
about north-south; it is also about east-west and ensuring that
there are no borders, north-south or east-west. That is why we
have made the commitment on unfettered access, and that is what
we will deliver through the UK internal market Bill.
(Belfast South) (SDLP)
There are those in this House who say that the protocol is the
problem here, when in fact the protocol is a symptom of the
problem, which is four years of terrible political decision
making. It is now the law and the Government are obliged to
implement it in full. A Member of the House told the BBC
yesterday that his party had been engaged with the Government
since January to achieve the change. Given that the Government
are legally bound to rigorous impartiality, and given that they
have cited the peace process among their motivations, I hope that
they will indicate what engagement there has been with all the
parties, and whether they value better the guidance of their top
legal adviser or the DUP. May I caution the Secretary of State,
please, not to use the threat of a border on the island of
Ireland or the hard-won impartiality of the Good Friday agreement
as a cat’s paw in this or any other negotiations?
In large part, I agree with what the hon. Lady just outlined. We
had a letter from her party and others yesterday, outlining the
issues around the Good Friday agreement. The point is that this
is also about ensuring that we continue to deliver on all the
gains of the peace process in Northern Ireland, and ensuring that
we are able to give Northern Ireland businesses the certainty
that, no matter what happens over the next couple of months, at
the very least in January they can be assured of having the
unfettered access that we have promised. That is what we will set
out in the UK internal market Bill, to ensure that Northern
Ireland remains an integral part of both the customs union and
the single market union of the United Kingdom.
We shall continue to have conversations with Northern Ireland
businesses and parties, as we did around the Command Paper
earlier this year, as the hon. Lady knows from the conversation
that I had with the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
(East Antrim) (DUP)
My party has voted against this withdrawal agreement. We have
warned Ministers about not just the impact that the withdrawal
agreement has on Northern Ireland but the foot in the door for
the EU for the rest of the United Kingdom. I am pleased that we
now have a Bill that—at least, according to reports—appears to
deal with some of those issues. But I am disappointed to hear
from the Secretary State today that we still do not know the
depth and width of checks for goods coming into Northern Ireland
and that we will still be left with state aid rules applying in
Northern Ireland, which will stop us defending ourselves against
predatory behaviour from the Irish Republic and other European
countries. I want to emphasise to him that we will judge this
Bill on whether it delivers on the issues that he and his
Government have promised to address, in trying to undo the damage
that the withdrawal agreement has caused. But ultimately, this
agreement, which damages the whole of the United Kingdom—this
Union splitting, economy destroying and border creating
agreement—has to be changed and replaced. It can be replaced and
should be replaced.
The right hon. Gentleman has had a strong, consistent view on
these issues from the very beginning. I think that there is a
huge opportunity for the whole United Kingdom and businesses in
Northern Ireland as we leave the European Union. I think there
are big opportunities for growth in the Northern Ireland economy,
including in areas such as cyber. I believe that the EU will
continue to act in good faith, as we are acting in good faith, in
these trade negotiations and the specialist Joint Committee to
get a good, mutually beneficial outcome for the EU and the United
Kingdom. We are very focused on that. That is our priority and
our desired outcome. If that does not succeed, we want to ensure,
through the internal market Bill, that Northern Ireland
businesses have confidence and clarity about what the situation
will be in January. That is a reasonable, sensible step for the
Government to take, and it will deliver unfettered access.
(Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
This Government were elected on a manifesto which guaranteed that
Northern Ireland would truly remain in the UK customs territory
and committed that EU law would not get in the way of other
elements of essential Government business. Does my right hon.
Friend agree that these changes are simply delivering on that
landslide winning, red wall smashing manifesto commitment?
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We outlined very clearly—I do
not think anybody can be under any misapprehension about it—our
position at the general election: that we would deliver
unfettered access, that we would deliver for the people of
Northern Ireland and that we would continue to deliver on the
Good Friday agreement. That is exactly what we are still focused
on doing. We are doing that through the negotiations, but we also
want to ensure that we are taking reasonable steps to be prepared
for January should we need to be. We will do that in the UK
internal market Bill, delivering on that manifesto pledge.
(North Down) (Alliance) [V]
Any unilateral change to the very necessary protocol risks
undermining the Good Friday agreement, risks a hard border
returning to the island of Ireland and places Northern Ireland
businesses in a very uncertain legal position. Do the Government
recognise that, in the event that they make unilateral changes to
and, in particular, undermine the agreement, they will reduce the
prospects of a future relationship with the European Union? In
particular, there will be zero chance of negotiating a trade deal
with the United States under a Biden Administration and with a
Democrat-controlled Congress.
On the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, quite the
opposite—we are focused on coming to an agreement through the
trade negotiations and the specialist Joint Committee, to ensure
that we are able to deal with the detailed issues that were
always, as set out in the protocol, to be worked out by the Joint
Committee. That is exactly what the Committee is there to do. All
we will be doing in the UK internal market Bill is giving clarity
to the businesses and people of Northern Ireland about what
happens on 1 January if that does not come to a satisfactory
conclusion. I say to him gently that that is the best way to give
certainty to the people of Northern Ireland.
(North West Durham) (Con)
Given the sovereignty clause, the need for certainty and clarity
for businesses and the timeframe involved, does my right hon.
Friend agree that it is absolutely right for the Government to
use domestic legislation—the UK internal market Bill—to ensure
that Northern Ireland truly remains part of the UK customs
territory after the end of the transition period?
Yes. My hon. Friend makes a hugely important point. We should be
clear that the UK internal market Bill and the Finance Bill are
the last two legislative opportunities for us to put into law
what we will need to do if the Joint Committee and the
negotiations do not come to a satisfactory conclusion. It is
nothing more than that. It means that we have a sensible and
reasonable position and can say to people in Northern Ireland,
“If that is what happens, this is what the situation will be in
January.” It gives confidence and certainty to businesses and
people in Northern Ireland that we will deliver for them.
(Orkney
and Shetland) (LD)
What authority do we have to criticise China for not keeping her
side of the bargain under the joint declaration on Hong Kong if
we are seen to approach our own treaty obligations to the
European Union in this way?
As I said earlier, specific issues in the protocol were always
designed to be worked out through the Joint Committee. It is
right that the Government are taking reasonable, sensible and
limited actions to make sure we have that certainty for people in
January should the Joint Committee and the withdrawal agreement
negotiations for the free trade agreement not come to a
satisfactory conclusion.
(Wokingham) (Con)
The EU signed a withdrawal agreement and political declaration
with two things at its core: it would respect the restoration of
UK sovereignty, and it would work for a free trade, tariff-free
agreement. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the EU kept
its word on those two colossally important points, the problems
it has created in Northern Ireland would disappear?
This is exactly why it is important that we are clear about our
intentions to ensure that we are delivering for the people of
Northern Ireland. As I say, I am sure that the EU negotiating
team will continue to be negotiating in good faith. has said that
peace in Ireland is due
“thanks to the open border”,
and that this process
“should not and must not lead to the return of a hard border,
neither on maps nor in minds.”
He is absolutely right on that and we are determined to ensure we
deliver on it. I am sure that the negotiations will be able to
get us to that point, but it is right that we are able to say to
the people of Northern Ireland that should those not succeed, we
will legislate in UK law to ensure that.
(Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
I did not hear an answer to the question put by my hon. Friend
the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (), so I
will ask it again: can the Secretary of State explain whether a
failure to uphold international legal commitments would breach
the ministerial code?
I think I did outline earlier that, as a Minister, my focus is on
ensuring that we are delivering for the people of the United
Kingdom and, within that, the people of Northern Ireland. As
Northern Ireland Secretary, my focus is on ensuring that we are
delivering for the people of Northern Ireland, as we said we
would both in the Command Paper and in our manifesto.
(New Forest West) (Con)
For the avoidance of any doubt, is it the case that if the EU
negotiators, including those on the Joint Committee, are prepared
to move forward to implement the existing agreement in a workable
way, these provisions will not be necessary?
My right hon. Friend, as often, is absolutely right; these
provisions will be in the Bill to take effect if other things do
not come through. I think that with both parties acting in good
faith we will get to a position where these provisions become, in
effect, irrelevant, exactly as he has outlined.
(East Ham) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State recognise that, as others have
reminded him, there would be terrible future consequences for
Britain if the Government fail to abide by an international
treaty they have signed? Does he recognise that—yes or no?
As I said earlier, I absolutely recognise the importance of
following international laws and the rule of law. We have a
unique situation with this treaty. Listening to what some Members
have been saying from a sedentary position, it seems that there
is a fundamental misunderstanding here; there are items and
issues in the protocol that were always designed to be worked
through in the Joint Committee, because they were not able to be
agreed and worked through at the time of the protocol. What we
will be outlining in the UK internal market Bill is what the UK
Government’s position will be if that does not succeed, in order
to ensure that we are delivering for the people of Northern
Ireland as part of the internal and integral market of the United
Kingdom.
(Blackpool South) (Con) [V]
This Government have been clear that they will work flat out
during September to agree our future relationship with the EU.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no reason why these
clarifications as to how the protocol is implemented should
undermine our negotiations in any way whatsoever?
My hon. Friend is right on that. Those negotiations are
ongoing—they are ongoing today, in fact. As I say, I am confident
that our negotiating teams and the EU negotiating teams are all
focused on getting a good outcome for both our friends and
partners in the EU and us in the UK, and that they will come to a
solid and good conclusion. We are simply taking reasonable,
limited steps to outline what the position will be if that does
not succeed, but I am with him in being confident that it will.
(Arfon) (PC)
What assessment has the Secretary of State made of how the
failure to implement the protocol in full will impact on the flow
of Northern Irish goods exported to Great Britain necessarily
through the Republic of Ireland and then through the port of
Holyhead?
The purpose of the clauses we will be putting into the UK
internal market Bill is to ensure that we continue to have good,
free-flowing trade across the whole of the United Kingdom,
including for Northern Ireland—I have mentioned the issue of
unfettered access before. I hope that when the hon. Gentleman
sees the clauses in the Bill that we will publish and introduce
tomorrow he will see that that is a positive and sensible step.
(Vale of
Glamorgan) (Con)
What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give that the UK
internal market Bill will provide the certainty needed in
Northern Ireland to ensure that it remains within the UK customs
territory, and that there is no reason whatsoever that the
negotiations should be detracted from or undermined by such an
Act?
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The clauses we will put
into the Bill are very clear about ensuring Northern Ireland’s
place within the United Kingdom customs territory and single
market. The EU has recognised that that is important, and it is a
key thing that we will be delivering. There is respect for that
point. Acting in good faith by both parties will, I am sure,
bring us to a good and sensible conclusion to the negotiations.
(Glasgow North) (SNP)
We know that people in No. 10 like to move fast and break things,
but I do not think we knew that that extended to the Northern
Ireland protocol, with the consequences that will have for the
Good Friday agreement and the devolution settlement as a whole.
Does the Secretary of State accept that these are not just bits
of paper, but that they affect people’s lives and livelihoods?
Who, once all this is broken, is going to pick up the pieces?
I suggest the hon. Gentleman waits until he has seen the detail
of the text tomorrow so that he can support us, as this is about
delivering on ensuring that people in Northern Ireland stay part
of the United Kingdom, regardless of whether he wishes to or not.
(Clwyd West) (Con)
Article 6 of the Act of Union provides, in essence, that no
duties will be applied to goods passing between Great Britain and
Ireland. Does my right hon. Friend agree that these are
constitutional rights still enjoyed by the people of Northern
Ireland, and that unless the protocol is clarified and adjusted,
those rights may possibly be infringed?
My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point. He is right in
the sense that Northern Ireland is and has been an integral part
of the United Kingdom for almost 100 years—as we know, next year,
we celebrate the centenary of Northern Ireland. It is an integral
part of the United Kingdom. The negotiations have recognised that
Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom customs
territory and single market. The clauses we will put in the UK
internal market Bill to be published tomorrow will confirm that,
regardless of the outcome of those negotiations.
(Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) [V]
A little over two months ago, the Government in their Command
Paper defined the Northern Ireland protocol as existing
“to ensure that the progress that the people of Northern Ireland
have made in the 22 years since the Belfast (Good Friday)
Agreement is secured into the future.”
It went on to say:
“Whilst the Protocol is in force, both the UK and EU must respect
and abide by the legal obligations it contains, as well as our
other international law obligations.”
Does the Secretary of State stand by that commitment, and if not,
why not?
Yes, and I suggest to the hon. Lady that paragraph 19 states:
“The Protocol is clear that nothing in it prevents Northern
Ireland business enjoying unfettered access to the rest of the UK
internal market. We will ensure this. As set out in New Decade,
New Approach, we will legislate to guarantee unfettered access
for Northern Ireland’s businesses to the whole of the UK internal
market”.
(Dudley North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no indication that
the UK is at this stage seeking to leave the withdrawal
agreement, and that it is right and legitimate that adjustments
are made so that UK courts have jurisdiction in the UK and the
Northern Irish economy is protected from otherwise punitive
tariffs?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said in my opening
remarks, we are still determined to deliver on the withdrawal
agreement and the protocol. We hope the negotiations come to a
suitable and sensible conclusion. This is purely a set of clauses
that we are putting in place so that, should that not happen, we
are clear about what the position will be in January and so that
there are legal structures in place to be able to deliver on
those issues, including unfettered access.
(North Antrim)
(DUP)
On 20 May, the Government outlined their four key principles for
supporting Northern Ireland through this process. They said that
we would have unfettered access for businesses across the Irish
sea, that there would be no tariffs on internal UK trade, that
there would be no new customs infrastructure, and that Northern
Ireland would benefit equally from the trade deals that are
currently under negotiation. I hope the Secretary of State will
agree that any customs arrangement that affects trade, or impacts
in any way on trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the
United Kingdom in either direction, is unacceptable and must be
stopped. Do this Government have the mettle, or do they have a
tin foil spine when it comes to standing up to our detractors in
Brussels and our debtors in the Republic of Ireland? Give the
people and the businesses of Northern Ireland the certainty that
they deserve and let us have certainty in those four key
principles.
Our determination and desire is to be able to deliver that
certainty through the free trade agreement negotiations and the
Joint Committee work. What we will be outlining tomorrow in the
Bill is how, if that does not succeed, we will be giving that
certainty to Northern Ireland businesses about what the framework
and the legal structures will be from January to ensure that we
do deliver on unfettered access. Let me just say that we are
continuing to deliver on the protocol. With the issues around
live animals, with the agrifoods work that we have done, with the
EU settled status scheme and with other such issues, we are
delivering on what we have agreed. We will continue to do that,
and we will do so in good faith.
(Broadland) (Con)
The much hyped Financial Times story has caused understandable
concern right across the island of Ireland and more widely, so
can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the measures
being introduced tomorrow are solely a safety net to the work of
the Joint Committee, do not in any way prevent the Government
from complying with the Northern Ireland protocol in full, and do
not compromise the Good Friday agreement?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are doing this in order to
ensure that we can always deliver the wider objective of the
protocol, which is to protect peace in Northern Ireland and the
Good Friday Belfast agreement, and to do so as part of the
protocol, outlining, as we did in the Command Paper, how we would
deal with those issues that are still outstanding—if they are
outstanding—at the end of December.
(Foyle) (SDLP)
The truth is that, whatever reassurances the Secretary of State
gives today, the people in Northern Ireland simply cannot trust a
word that comes out of this Tory Government’s mouth. At every
single turn, they have used us as a bargaining chip, as a useful
tactic and as part of a cynical game. Rather than taking his
steer from cosy chats with the Democratic Unionist party, will he
once and for all accept that people in Northern Ireland—the
majority voice in Northern Ireland—will accept nothing less than
the full implementation of the protocol?
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.
(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?
I would say to my hon. Friend that yes, this does break
international law in a very specific and limited way. We are
taking the power to disapply the EU law concept of direct effect,
required by article 4, in certain very tightly defined
circumstances. There are clear precedents of this for the UK and,
indeed, other countries needing to consider their international
obligations as circumstances change. I say to hon. Members here,
many of whom would have been in this House when we passed the
Finance Act 2013, that that Act contains an example of treaty
override. It contains provisions that expressly disapply
international tax treaties to the extent that these conflict with
the general anti-abuse rule. I say to my hon. Friend that we are
determined to ensure that we are delivering on the agreement that
we have in the protocol, and our leading priority is to do that
through the negotiations and through the Joint Committee work.
The clauses that will be in the Bill tomorrow are specifically
there should that fail, ensuring that we can deliver on our
commitment to the people of Northern Ireland.
(Denton
and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
I am astounded that the Secretary of State has just conceded that
he is proposing to break international law. Perhaps for the first
time I agree with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May).
It is a question of trust when it comes to signing international
treaties. We cannot condemn others for seemingly breaking the
international rules-based order if we are prepared to do the
same. It is incredibly damaging to our reputation if we are
seeking to acquire trade treaties and the UK internal market Bill
tomorrow seeks to disapply section 7A of the European Union
(Withdrawal) Act 2018. That would be a clear breach of our
international obligations, and for that reason should he not rule
it out?
As I have said several times today, obviously our focus is on
ensuring that none of these clauses is required because we are
able to secure a free trade agreement through the negotiations,
which are ongoing this very day in London, as well as through the
work of the Joint Committee. These clauses will simply put in
place reasonable and limited structures to ensure that, should
those negotiations not come to a satisfactory conclusion, in
January we are able to show that we are delivering unfettered
access for the people of Northern Ireland and ensuring that
Northern Ireland remains an integral part of the UK customs
territory and single market.
(Stockton South) (Con)
The Prime Minister was clear yesterday that an agreement with our
European friends must be made by 15 October if it is to be
enforced by the end of the year. Can my right hon. Friend confirm
that under no circumstances will we agree to any demands that
would force us to give up our rights as an independent state?
Absolutely. That was very clear in the votes in 2016 and the past
two general elections, arguably in 2017, as well as the
overwhelming mandate in 2019, bearing in mind that people, even
Labour voters, were at the time voting for a party that said it
would deliver on leaving the EU. I appreciate that Labour has
changed its position somewhat over the past year or so. There has
been a regular, clear mandate from the people of the United
Kingdom that we should get on and deliver on what they asked for:
to leave the European Union, to bring back sovereignty to the UK
Parliament, and, where we can—as we will be doing through the UK
internal market Bill—to devolve more powers to the devolved
authorities as part of the United Kingdom.
(Rutherglen
and Hamilton West) (SNP)
described the proposed changes to the Northern Ireland protocol
as being
“in breach of our international treaty obligations”.
Can the Secretary of State confirm that he agrees with his Tory
colleague’s analysis, and does he accept that the UK internal
market Bill demonstrates a complete failure of the negotiating
strategy that gives Scotland a raw deal that it did not vote for?
I appreciate that the nationalist party in Scotland wishes to put
a border between Scotland and England. The reality is that what
we are looking to do is to take powers back from Brussels. We
feel that people in Scotland can exercise them better than people
in Brussels. That is what we will do through the UK internal
market Bill.
(Wycombe) (Con)
Is not the right way forward to reach a free trade agreement of
the kind that the EU proposed to us back in the spring of 2018
and of the kind that the Government want to reach, combine it
with the border arrangements set out in Prosperity UK’s excellent
report—arrangements of the kind that the DUP supported—and use
that to supplant the protocol? Is not the key to doing that a
spirit of good will that accepts that the whole UK is leaving and
has left the European Union?
My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a really powerful point. The best
way forward—this is what we are all focused on, and I am sure our
partners and friends in the EU are, in good faith, as well—is to
get the agreement on a free trade deal that delivers on all those
issues in the right and appropriate way. I say to Members across
the House that it would be wholly wrong for the UK Government not
to take this approach to ensure that, should that fail, there is
a safety net to ensure that in January businesses and people in
Northern Ireland know that they have the confidence of a
structure in place that delivers on our promises. He is
absolutely right. Our focus remains on getting that positive
agreement.
(City of
Chester) (Lab)
Hon. Members across the House have talked about the importance of
trust and how this will damage the trust of our European Union
partners in the trade negotiations that we are currently
undertaking. The timing is strange, as we head towards the crunch
point for those negotiations. Was it an intentional effect or an
unintended consequence that we have put this torpedo into the
confidence of the European Union just as we are heading towards
that point, making it much more likely that we have destroyed its
trust in us and that the no-deal scenario that so many
Conservative Members want to achieve is actually achieved?
The hon. Gentleman may wish to look back in Hansard at what my
hon. Friends and other hon. Members have said this afternoon and
previously. Our desire, as I have outlined, is to get a free
trade agreement, as the previous question asked by my hon. Friend
the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) specifically outlined. We are
still working on that, but I have confidence that the negotiators
of the UK and EU will be able to do that in the full knowledge
that what we will outline in the UK internal market Bill tomorrow
is a safety net should they not succeed. It is good practice for
the Government to be ready for all scenarios. It would be
inappropriate for us not to prepare the UK for all scenarios
should those negotiations fail, but they are where our focus is
and they are the way we want to go forward. I am confident that
they will do so positively. As a responsible Government, the
internal market Bill is simply a necessary and precautionary step
to ensure that good government is maintained in the event of a
no-deal Brexit. Does the Secretary of State agree that the best
way to avoid the need to implement those measures is for the EU
to finally get a grip and negotiate a free trade agreement that
will benefit all the people of the island of Ireland?
My hon. Friend makes a good point in that the best way forward is
for us to agree that free trade agreement. I am confident that
that is the EU’s overriding position and focus, and that that is
why it is at the negotiations. I hope that we will be able to
come to a positive conclusion that will be good for people across
the United Kingdom and Europe—and, from my point of view as the
Secretary of State, for the people of Northern Ireland.
(Ilford North) (Lab)
The Conservative party manifesto described the withdrawal
agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol as “a great new deal”
that was “signed, sealed and ready.” It explicitly stated, “No
more renegotiations.” It also promised to take our
“whole country out of the EU as one United Kingdom.”
Given that none of those things has proven to be true, and given
that the Secretary of State has just conceded that the Government
are proposing arrangements that would break international
treaties, why should anyone at home or abroad trust a single word
the Government say?
Apart from the fact that countries around the world will look at
our wider position, as I said earlier, on international law and
the rule of law, for which we are a beacon around the world, if
the hon. Gentleman looks back at his question, he will see that
it reinforces the reason we are taking this position, which is to
ensure that we deliver on the points that we included in our
manifesto, where we specifically outlined the issues that are in
the Command Paper published in May this year, which businesses
are supportive of—businesses asked for that certainty—and said:
“We will ensure that Northern Ireland’s businesses and producers
enjoy unfettered access to the rest of the UK and that in the
implementation of our Brexit deal, we maintain and strengthen the
integrity and smooth operation of our internal market.”
That is exactly what we will be doing in the UK internal market
Bill when we publish it tomorrow.
(Bracknell) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend concur that this complex issue is
ultimately about the good people of Northern Ireland and that any
future protocols will be agreed with their best interests at
heart?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That has to be at the core of
what we do and at the heart of that is why the concept of consent
is important. It is right that we remember that for the people of
Northern Ireland.
(Cambridge) (Lab)
Signing an international treaty is not a game; it is a
commitment. Catherine Barnard is professor of European law at the
University of Cambridge, and she warns that we agreed to a
dispute resolution mechanism that could lead to heavy fines or
further sanctions. What legal advice have the Government taken?
If Ministers choose to ignore that advice, can the Minister spell
out the consequences for those Ministers?
As I said in response to an earlier question, our focus is on
ensuring that we are delivering on the protocol or delivering on
securing a free trade agreement and the discussions in the Joint
Committee. That is our priority and that will ensure that we go
forward in a sensible and agreed manner with our partners and
friends in the European Union. The hon. Gentleman should wait and
see the clauses tomorrow, which will deliver, as I have outlined,
on the promises that we have made to ensure that the people and
businesses of Northern Ireland have the certainty that they need
should that not succeed. I am confident that it will, but should
it not, it is sensible and reasonable for the Government to have
that safety net in place so that people have confidence in what
the situation will be in January.
(West
Bromwich East) (Con)
My constituents and I are clear that we want our obligations to
Northern Ireland to be upheld and for there to be no delays or
extensions. If a deal cannot be reached with Brussels by the
middle of October to ensure that we are a truly independent
country, we have no choice but to walk away from the table. Can
my right hon. Friend confirm that under no circumstances will the
country agree to any demand that does not give us sovereignty
over our laws, land, sea and borders?
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. When people voted to leave
the European Union in 2016, they were giving us a very clear
message that they wanted us to return powers and decision making
to the UK Government, and that is what we are doing. We are also
moving those processes closer to people directly in their
everyday lives by then devolving powers, as we will outline
through the process of the UK internal market Bill.
(West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Mr Speaker,
“Whatever form it takes, Brexit cannot be allowed to imperil the
Good Friday Agreement, including the seamless border between the
Irish Republic and Northern Ireland”.
That is a clear statement of intent from your counterpart in
Capitol Hill, the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Given
that they make it clear that the Secretary of State’s Government
can rip up international agreements to suit their own version of
Brexit or they can have a US-UK trade deal, but not both, what
will it be?
I am not sure that I quite follow the logic of the hon.
Gentleman’s question, bearing in mind that his party is arguing
for a border between Scotland and England; it seems more than
ironic. Our top priority will always be to preserve the huge
gains from the peace process and the Belfast/Good Friday
agreement. We will not do anything or take any risk that may harm
that. In fact, as we will be outlining in the Bill tomorrow, we
are seeking to take actions through which, should the trade
negotiations not come to a satisfactory and positive conclusion,
we can ensure that we are delivering on the Good Friday agreement
and keeping not just peace in Northern Ireland but prosperity and
economic growth for the people of Northern Ireland as part of the
internal structure of the United Kingdom.
(Beckenham)
(Con)
It seems to me that these measures for contingency planning give
clarity and make sense in the case that we do not get an
agreement. It would make sense for officials north and south of
the border to have something they can put their hands around in
case it does not work out as we hope it might.
My hon. Friend succinctly makes an excellent point: this is about
having a safety net and contingency planning. These measures will
not prevent the Government from complying with our commitments.
They will provide Ministers with the powers needed for the UK
Government to comply with the Joint Committee’s agreed decisions.
As he outlined, they will provide a safety net, so we avoid
activating any harmful defaults, even inadvertently, that could
jeopardise the peace process or create confusion, by giving
certainty about the fact that we will deliver as we said we would
on unfettered access and issues that protect Northern Ireland’s
place in the United Kingdom.
(Putney) (Lab)
With the UK at the foothills of a new era and a raft of trade
negotiations ahead of us that will affect the lives of people in
Putney and across the country, what message does the Secretary of
State think it gives about our word that the UK is prepared to
break international law at times, to override treaties and
rewrite commitments that we signed up to only months ago?
I am sure that the hon. Lady will appreciate that, as I said
earlier, there are some precedents in very specific, technical
circumstances. Countries around the world, including some of
those that we will be looking to and are working to secure trade
deals with, vary their position on international laws, as I have
outlined that we will be doing in this situation. As our trade
negotiations start and are ongoing, countries around the world
will be looking at the UK as a country that is outward-looking
and global, that believes in free trade and that wants to deliver
that for the benefit of economies around the world and for the
United Kingdom. I want to make sure that Northern Ireland
benefits from that. The clauses that we put in the Bill tomorrow
will ensure that, regardless of anything else, Northern Ireland
will benefit from those kinds of trade deals.
(Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his earlier answers to my
colleagues, which have given me and my constituents in
Newcastle-under-Lyme reassurance that, although we all want a
deal, we will not compromise in the negotiations on the things
that make our state independent. On Northern Ireland, does he
agree that we need “flexible and imaginative solutions”? Those
are not my words, but the words in the EU negotiation guidelines.
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Those kinds of flexible
outcomes are exactly what we need. I am sure that the negotiators
on the EU side, as well as on our side, are determined to ensure
that we deliver on that because that is how we get the right
outcome for people across the United Kingdom. Importantly, it
means that we can continue to deliver for the economy of Northern
Ireland and to continue to protect the peace process.
(Luton South) (Lab)
The purpose of the protocol is to protect the Good Friday
agreement. Will the Secretary of State outline what discussions
he has had with parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly and with
the Irish Government about the new clauses in the internal market
Bill?
Obviously, I am having conversations with party leaders, party
members and indeed the Irish Government all through, but the
clauses in the Bill will not be published until tomorrow. We will
be having ongoing conversations with partners and colleagues on
that. However, I would just say to the hon. Lady that in order to
ensure we can continue to deliver on the Good Friday agreement,
it is important to ensure there are no borders, north-south or
east-west. That is all part of ensuring that we deliver on the
Good Friday agreement. We are determined to do that. We will do
that. The clauses that will be in the UK internal market Bill are
important in ensuring that, even if we do not come to an
agreement on the free trade agreement, and even if the Joint
Committee does not come to positive conclusions on how we manage
the protocol, we, the UK Government, are able to show that we are
delivering on that and there will be no borders.
(South West
Wiltshire) (Con)
In the technical note on the implementation of the Northern
Ireland protocol earlier this year, the European Union suggested
that its rules, quotas and tariffs might be imposed on fish
landed from Northern Ireland vessels into Northern Ireland that
was destined for Great Britain. That runs contrary to the Command
Paper earlier this year, certainly, but does my right hon. Friend
agree that it also drives a coach and horses through the Northern
Ireland protocol itself?
My right hon. Friend makes a really important point and that is
one of the key areas the Joint Committee is continuing to work
on. It is important that it comes to a satisfactory, sensible and
positive conclusion for both parties, to ensure that we can
deliver on the protocol in a way that we can all agree on in a
positive way. That is the perfect outcome. That is what we are
focused on and want to see achieved.
(Newcastle
upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State knows that the north-east has
traditionally sent proportionately more of its young people into
the armed forces than any other region. As a consequence, we have
many veterans who served during the troubles. They, their loved
ones and indeed all of us are proud of the hard-won peace. At the
heart of the protocol is protecting the Good Friday agreement. Is
he seriously contemplating using it as a bargaining chip in a
trade deal?
If the hon. Lady looks through my answers throughout this
afternoon, she will see that I have been absolutely clear that it
is quite the opposite: we are determined to ensure that we have a
structure and a situation for the United Kingdom and the people
of Northern Ireland that continues to deliver on the Good Friday
agreement. We are determined to ensure we do that. That is a
peace that has been hard won and it must be protected and
delivered in the future as well.
(Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon () worked tirelessly to get the Northern Ireland Assembly
back up and running—something people said could not be done. My
right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken out key
members of the New IRA because of his commitment to peace and the
hard work he is doing. He is also a very successful businessman
who understands that business needs certainty moving forward.
Does he agree that it is hubris in the extreme to doubt this
Government’s commitment to the governance of Northern Ireland,
the protection of Northern Ireland and the peace in Northern
Ireland?
My right hon. Friend makes a very generous point about a number
of my predecessors. They all worked hard—across this House, to be
fair—in terms of the gains from the peace process. He is
absolutely right that one message that consistently comes from
Northern Ireland businesses across all sectors is the desire for
certainty and understanding of what the situation will be for
them in terms of trade, as Democratic Unionist party Members have
outlined as well today, should we get to January and a free trade
agreement has not been agreed. We have outlined the matter in the
Command Paper and the guidance notes, which was positively
received. The work we have done on the UK internal market Bill
will go further to ensure that they have confidence in what the
situation will be, even if we are not able to succeed in a
positive outcome to those agreements and discussions of the Joint
Committee.
(East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the Secretary of State agree that what was used as a
negotiating ploy over the first few years was the concept of a
hard border on the island of Ireland, when most people should
know—if they are in the real world—that it is inadvisable,
unworkable and undoable? No one wants it to happen and no one is
going to construct it. Will he ensure his colleagues know that we
must not allow something that is not going to happen to impede
the need to get something that must: a good deal?
The hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful point, and he is
absolutely right that nobody wants to see, and there is no reason
for there to be, a border either on the island of Ireland or
between the island of Ireland, Northern Ireland and Great
Britain. We are determined to deliver on that. As I have said,
the clauses in the UK internal market Bill are there as a safety
net to ensure that, even if we do not reach a satisfactory
conclusion to the free trade agreements, although that is
something that I am sure both parties, acting in good faith, will
be able to do in the coming weeks and next few months.
(Aylesbury) (Con)
May I ask a very simple question, in case anybody is still
unclear? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is of paramount
importance to protect the peace process and that, to do so,
unfettered access is essential between Great Britain and Northern
Ireland?
In the spirit in which the question was asked, yes.
(Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Listening to the debate today, would I be right in summarising
that the oven-ready deal we were promised by the Conservative
party at the general election is missing a cooking apparatus?
I would say that the apparatus we are using is working through
the Joint Committee on the free trade agreement deals and the UK
internal market Bill. As anything, this is all part of a package
of things that mean we are able to ensure that, when we finish
the transition period at the end of December this year,
companies, businesses and the people of Northern Ireland have
confidence about what the situation will be in January, even if
we are not able to conclude those negotiations satisfactorily.
Mr Speaker
We are now heading to , who is about
to land his question. [Laughter.]
(Harrow East)
(Con) [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome the statements made by my right
hon. Friend. Clearly, we hope that there will be a comprehensive
free trade deal with our friends from the European Union,
negotiated in good faith. But does he agree that it would be
wholly irresponsible of the Government not to take measures to
ensure the integrity of the United Kingdom and to preserve the
ability of Northern Ireland businesses to trade with the rest of
the United Kingdom by publishing this draft Bill tomorrow, and
that the Government will ensure that we preserve that integrity
while always preserving the sanctity of the Good Friday
agreement?
My hon. Friend has put the situation absolutely perfectly. The
Bill, as we will publish it tomorrow, as colleagues and Members
across this House will see, will set out how we ensure the
integrity of the United Kingdom trading markets—that customs
union and the single market that has been so much a part of the
United Kingdom for hundreds of years, in reality. It will ensure
we are delivering on our determination to ensure we continue to
see the benefits of the peace process, we deliver on the Good
Friday agreement and we deliver on our promises to ensure that
there are no borders, that we have unfettered access to Northern
Ireland businesses, and that we deliver on exactly what we said
in our Command Paper and in our manifesto.
