United Kingdom Internal Market Bill — House of Commons, 2020-09-21
Topic: Civil Rights
Kirsten Frances Oswald (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I thank my hon. Friend that intervention. That is a key point for us. How can anyone trust a Government who do not stand behind the agreements they negotiate—a Government who cannot even agree with themselves The Prime Minister’s approach has led to several senior legal figures making a sharp exit. Sir Jonathan Jones, the head of the Government’s legal department; Lord Keen, the UK Government’s most senior adviser on Scots law; and David Melding, Shadow Counsel General in the Welsh Senedd, have all walked away. We have heard about Lord Keen’s letter of resignation, but it was particularly telling in respect of the matters that are before us today. He said: "I have endeavoured to identify a respectable argument for the provisions at clauses 42 to 45 of the bill, but it is now clear that this will not meet your policy intentions." That is a damning condemnation from a former chair of the Conservative party in Scotland. No Member representing a Scottish constituency can defend these clauses—or, in fact, this Bill—and expect to be taken seriously when they claim to stand up for Scotland in this place We have also heard that the Sir Declan Morgan, the Lord Chief Justice—Northern Ireland’s top judge—warned that when Governments break international law, that "might undermine…the administration of justice." That should concern us all. Even the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), who is a barrister, felt the need to resign as the Prime Minister’s special envoy on freedom of religion. These are telling actions and words that should give the Prime Minister pause for thought and reflection. This Bill is a grubby power grab that we cannot and will not support, and this part, as it stands, hangs like a badge of dishonour around this Prime Minister’s term of office—however long or short that might be Unfortunately, the Prime Minister’s approach is being propped up by those with somewhat flexible standards. The Attorney General’s take could most charitably be described as mince, and the Lord Chancellor says he will resign only if the Government break the rule of law in a way that is "unacceptable", which obviously, for a Law Officer, prompts the question: what is an acceptable way to break the law What of the effect of the Bill on the UK and Northern Ireland? In October last year, when he was still trying to convince us that he had negotiated a great deal, the Prime Minister said of his withdrawal agreement Bill: "For those who share my belief in the transformative power of free trade…a new deal, enabled by this Bill, will allow us to sign free trade agreements around the world."—[Official Report, 22 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 830.] By using this Bill to trash that deal, the Prime Minister has again exposed the ethical vacuum at the heart of his Government and undermined trust around the world—and all the time he has singularly failed to deliver what is needed by Northern Ireland. As Professor Katy Hayward of Queen’s University Belfast put it, "the one thing most hoped for from this bill—certainty—has become an even more distant prospect."