Northern Ireland Protocol Bill - Amendment 38, Amendments 39 and 42-49, Clauses 14, 18 and 20

Points out an irony: many people who voted for Brexit aimed to strengthen parliamentary sovereignty, yet the proposed Henry VIII powers are seen as weakening it. Emphasises that these powers strengthen the hand of government and weaken parliament.

Challenges the official Opposition's stance by highlighting a democratic deficit in Northern Ireland due to regulations imposed without parliamentary or assembly approval. Argues that at least the government is attempting to address this issue.

Critiques the focus on regulations as an exaggerated concern, questioning what specific powers people do not want to have. Emphasises that withholding the Northern Ireland Assembly creates a broader democratic deficit by preventing elected members from addressing important issues.

Mr Ellis outlines why the government supports clauses aimed at excluding EU oversight in Northern Ireland, promoting UK governance. He rebuts amendments proposed by opposition MPs as unnecessary or unworkable.

Intervened to argue that dual regulation provisions in the bill ensure firms' access to the single market without ECJ oversight, contrary to opposition claims.

Intervened to highlight rejection of the Bill by nationalist MLAs and questioned cross-community consent when two traditions oppose it.

Asked for specific references in the Good Friday agreement to support Minister’s position, implying disagreement with interpretation of cross-community consent requirements.

Donaldson supports the Government's proposal, emphasising its fairness and balance in addressing the needs of both nationalists and Unionists, while respecting EU regulations and ensuring free trade within the UK.

Intervenes to highlight that it is unfair for one side to have the power to adjudicate disputes, questioning why the EU should be the final arbiter in this situation.

Intervenes multiple times to challenge Donaldson's support for the Good Friday agreement, questioning his conversion narrative and the feasibility of achieving cross-community consensus with this Bill.

Intervenes to question Donaldson's consistency regarding amendments that sought consent for the people of Northern Ireland in previous Bills, suggesting a lack of regard for the agreement.

Ms. Villiers opposes all amendments and supports clauses standing part of the Bill, arguing that the Northern Ireland protocol causes unacceptable disruption to the UK’s internal market. She cites a court ruling suggesting Parliament has partly suspended Article 6 of the Acts of Union due to the protocol. She criticises EU demands for full compliance with its regime as unreasonable given Northern Ireland's standards and raises concerns about democratic deficits affecting Northern Ireland’s governance under the protocol. Ms. Villiers also emphasises that the Bill will deliver a system to address practical disruptions while maintaining the integrity of the EU single market without new infrastructure or checks on the north-south border.

Ms. Hanna interjected to highlight that every Assembly Member opposes the Bill, reflecting concern over societal disruption and product availability in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Shannon intervened to assert that representatives from constituencies with different political aspirations support the Bill as it would advantage all people of Northern Ireland, not just Unionists.

Mr. Wilson interjected to point out that while EU law is retained for the rest of the UK, the specific provisions in the protocol can be changed and apply uniquely to Northern Ireland, highlighting a democratic deficit.

Supports the Government's position on the Bill. Emphasises the complexity and sensitivity of the situation in Northern Ireland. Highlights the importance of referring disputed matters to the UK-EU Joint Committee as envisaged by the withdrawal agreement. Expresses optimism about revisiting negotiations for a reset in relationships with the EU, aiming for solutions that support stability and economic development in Northern Ireland. Acknowledges concerns raised by the opposition but argues for equivalent oversight mechanisms post-Brexit. Supports carrying out checks on goods and services traded within the single market to protect integrity.

Amendment 49 seeks to protect the Good Friday agreement by formalising its principles, arguing that consent should rest on the will of the majority in Northern Ireland. She criticises the misrepresentation of Hume’s teachings and highlights the democratic opposition to Brexit. She also questions the impact of the European Court of Justice on UK sovereign areas and calls for the Government to table a report reflecting business feedback.

Intervened multiple times, clarifying that consensus applies to power-sharing institutions and is required for their functioning. He highlighted the absence of cross-community consensus leading to no power-sharing Executive.

Farry argued against removing ECJ jurisdiction, stating it is essential for Northern Ireland businesses and their access to the single market. He cited a conversation with an export business in his constituency that benefits from protocol access, highlighting economic implications of losing ECJ oversight. Farry also raised concerns about the democratic deficit regarding EU law evolution and proposed solutions like direct consultation or representation for Northern Irish political voices.

Benn interjected to support Farry's argument, questioning the logic behind allowing cases to be referred to the ECJ while also stating that it should have no role in the matter. He suggested this power may benefit businesses under EU rules by ensuring they comply with regulations and protecting them from potential non-compliance claims.

Shannon opposes clause 13 and related amendments. He argues against SDLP and Alliance party Members' attempts to devolve power from the UK Parliament to the Northern Ireland Assembly, stating that such moves undermine Brexit's democratic will and circumnavigate this House’s authority. Shannon requests specific clarifications on regulatory aspects if the Bill passes, including medicine regulation, health technologies, vaccines, and pharmacovigilance. He highlights the need for certainty in trade, agricultural commerce, daily living costs, and democratic rights.

Stephen Farry interjects to clarify that Lakeland Dairies aligns with the Dairy Council's public stance on dual regulation, countering Shannon’s earlier comments. Farry asserts the pragmatic and open-minded position of businesses regarding protocol adjustments.

Mr Farry raised a point of order regarding the use of the term 'pan-nationalist front' as inflammatory, leading to threats against individuals. He emphasised the need for temperate language during debates.

Mr Evans responded to a point of order, reminding Members about the importance of using temperate language in all debates as requested by Mr Speaker.

Mr Ellis addressed concerns regarding CJEU provisions and pharmaceuticals, clarifying that the Bill aims to fix issues with the Northern Ireland Protocol without removing effective parts. He explained that clause 18 removes potential confusion about how Ministers can act in support of the Bill.

Mr Doughty proposed amendment 12 to remove the Minister’s power to engage in any conduct related to the Northern Ireland Protocol unless otherwise authorised by this Act.

Mr. Nigel Evans outlined several amendments designed to impose stricter parliamentary oversight before regulations can be made under the Act, ensuring regional and international legal consistency is maintained.

Intervened to ask for assurance that regulations brought forward as a result of this Bill will not harm the integrity of the United Kingdom and will respect Northern Ireland’s place within the Union.

Mr Doughty argues that the bill is incompatible with international law, undermines trust in negotiations, and risks damaging Britain’s global reputation. He supports new clause 12 to ensure compliance with legal obligations.

Mr Redwood questions the Labour Party's efforts to lobby the EU for changes in a sedentary intervention, highlighting their perceived lack of engagement.

Mr Neill supports amendments that ensure parliamentary approval for operationalising provisions of the bill but does not press his amendments to a Division, hoping instead for negotiated changes.

Critiques the lack of majority support for the bill, expresses concern over economic and international implications. Proposes amendment linking commencement to Northern Ireland Assembly's consent.

[INTERVENTION] Challenges Farry on his support for previous agreements and the Northern Ireland protocol, questioning when issues will be resolved in Northern Ireland.

[INTERVENTION] Questions consistency of Farry's stance on various issues related to the protocol and power sharing, expressing frustration over unresolved problems in Northern Ireland.

Argues against the bill, stating it breaches international obligations, represents a power grab by ministers without proper scrutiny or consent from Northern Ireland communities. Highlights that Labour would seek practical solutions through negotiation.

Defends the bill as essential to addressing the democratic deficit created by EU legislation affecting Northern Ireland without local input, emphasising its importance in protecting the constitutional integrity of Northern Ireland.

Opposes the bill, noting it disregards Scotland's legislative consent and highlights how Brexit prioritises over the Union, undermining principles of international law and equality within the UK.

The DUP supports this Bill, arguing that it addresses a real issue and is necessary due to the breakdown of consensus in Northern Ireland, necessitated by the protocol. Mr. Donaldson highlights that other parties which initially supported the protocol now recognise the need for change, but the EU's refusal to alter its negotiating mandate leaves no alternative but for the UK Government to act. He emphasises that the Bill aims to protect the integrity of the United Kingdom and uphold Northern Ireland’s right to trade freely with the rest of the UK, thereby respecting Article 6 of the Belfast Agreement.

Mr. Eastwood argues that the Bill breaks international law and is a violation of an agreement made with the EU. He contends that it will lead to trade disputes and negatively impact prices, furthering his argument by stating there has been little consensus in decision-making within Northern Ireland's political structures. He also warns against unilateral actions and calls for negotiations with the European Union instead.

Mr. Benn acknowledges there is a problem with the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol but believes that the Bill will exacerbate matters by damaging trust, which is crucial for resolving issues. He concludes he will not vote in favour of the Bill.

Mrs. Lockhart supports the Bill as it has potential to restore devolution in Northern Ireland and preserve constitutional balance. She criticises SDLP members for failing to recognise why the Executive is not sitting, highlighting the mandate of Unionist parties to ensure restoration of Northern Ireland's place within the UK and scrapping economic impediments to trade. Mrs. Lockhart asserts that there is no alternative to the Bill since negotiations with the EU have failed.

Mr. Millar interjected to reassure Mrs. Lockhart, stating that Conservative leadership candidates have given strong undertakings on the importance of Northern Ireland within the UK and addressing the protocol.

Mr. Cash interjected to mention historical precedent, referencing de Valera's breaking of the Anglo-Irish treaty in 1938 and A. J. P. Taylor’s assertion that the treaty was ripped up by de Valera.