It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dame Rosie. During the passage of the Bill, I have spoken extensively on the attacks on devolution, on the specific consequences for Northern Ireland and the Good Friday agreement, and indeed on the failure of the Prime Minister to deliver on his oven-ready Brexit deal.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for his speech, but I also wish to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the former Prime Minister, for her comments. I have disagreed with her courteously on many issues over the years, but she is a person of principle, public service and integrity. I am afraid that I cannot say the same about some of the others, including our current Prime Minister, our rubber stamp of an Attorney General or our now-compliant Lord Chancellor, who once stood up for the rule of law during his time in practice in south Wales, but who now seems willing, in his own words, to “fudge it”. Indeed, there are the contradictions of our Foreign Secretary, who one minute is rightly arguing for international law and human rights, such as the Magnitsky sanctions and everything that goes with them, but the next minute is undermining them.
I am afraid that the damage that the Government’s statements have done to our reputation is incalculable. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead, who is no longer in her place, said
“frankly, my view is that to the outside world, it makes no difference whether a decision to break international law is taken by a Minister or by this Parliament; it is still a decision to break international law. This can only weaken the UK in the eyes of the world… It will lead to untold damage to the United Kingdom’s reputation.”
I agree with every word.
We have heard many powerful speeches, from Members across the House, expressing deep concern about where the Bill is taking us. I urge those who have stood up with principle and questioned the Government and put forward amendments to think again. The Prime Minister has repeatedly broken his word: he has broken it to the Taoiseach; he has broken it to our negotiating partners in the European Union; and he has broken it to Members on his own side repeatedly. Do not trust him.
A number of arguments have been made that suggest there are some sort of special exemptions in the Vienna convention and various international treaties. That is simply not the case. The House of Commons Library—neutral, respected and authoritative—has been very clear, saying that this is a far-reaching power to effectively allow the violation of
“any international obligation that may be engaged in the creation of regulations under clauses 42 and 43.”
It notes that this is not limited specifically to a violation of the Northern Ireland protocol but to
“all international obligations that may have legal implications in this context.”
It also makes it clear that, under the Vienna convention,
‘“A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.’ This means that this Bill cannot change the legally binding nature, in international law, of the UK’s international obligations.”
It also makes it crystal clear that
“parliamentary sovereignty does not change the binding nature of the UK’s international obligations.”
It is there in black and white.
9.45 pm
Over the past six months, I have spoken to countless senior diplomatic and military figures who are appalled at the decline of our reputation, our international standing and the influence of our soft power—of global Britain itself. They are appalled at the arrogance of a Government who think they can simply impose their will, rather than negotiate and act in the global, international sphere in good faith with British dignity and the principle of fair play. We have seen that in recent days, with the resounding rebuff to the Foreign Secretary on every level from both sides of the United States Congress regarding this Bill. It was knocked down by Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, and, of course, presidential candidate Biden.
Beyond that, it is worth looking at the wider reputational damage that we are doing. The UK failed to get one of its own elected to the International Court of Justice for the first time since world war two. We are losing votes heavily and routinely in key United Nations forums. We lost the election for the director-general of the World Health Organisation. I am afraid to say that the candidacy of the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) is widely seen as a joke in international circles at the
World Trade Organisation in Geneva. Ambassadors attend receptions out of embarrassment, and support is generated from few other than the right-wing, authoritarian and homophobic Government of President Orbán of Hungary.
The UK currently does not have a single national on any of the United Nations human rights treaty bodies—zero. That is unprecedented in a place where once we were represented and influential. Just last week, we were publicly challenged and, in my view, humiliated, at the pledging event for candidates for the UN Human Rights Council. Comments made included:
“As a prospective member of the Human Rights Council, one crucial part of the role is to address violations of international human rights law.”
Recent comments by the UK Government “compromise this role”.
We are putting our decent diplomats in hugely difficult, embarrassing positions, but crucially ones that are not influential and do not have a role for global Britain. We do not have a role in the other organisations. That is why there has been so much criticism of the Government’s work, including by Amal Clooney—until recently the UK Government’s special envoy on global media freedom and a distinguished human rights barrister at Doughty Street Chambers—who said that
“I have always been proud of the UK’s reputation as a champion of the international legal order, and of the culture of fair play…However…it has now become untenable for me…to urge other states to respect and enforce international obligations while the UK declares that it does not intend to do so itself…It threatens to embolden autocratic regimes that violate international law with devastating consequences all over the world.”
When we make arguments about the Sino-British treaty over Hong Kong or the territorial integrity of Ukraine, when we say that those who have committed crimes against humanity and genocide should be brought to justice, when we make arguments for a world trade system—a legally binding international financial and trading system—about the Paris climate change agreement, or, in our own specific national interests, on Gibraltar, the Falklands and maritime claims, we are undermining our place on the world stage. That is what the Government have done and are continuing to do. I urge all those across the House of principle and conscience who believe in global Britain—we might have disagreements over other things—and believe that this is a country of fair play and decency, which keeps its word and can be respected and influential, not to support these clauses and to speak out against this Bill.