Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Bill

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 29th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank both the hon. Lady and my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) for their questions. I can give some clarity on this now, and later the Minister of State will be able to give a bit more detail. My officials have been working closely with the Northern Ireland Department of Health and I have instructed the permanent secretary to commission abortion services in Northern Ireland. I am also ensuring that the required funding is allocated for those services, and funding will be ring-fenced in the Northern Ireland budget, as set out by my written ministerial statement of last week.

That will mean that, in line with my statutory duty, health and social care trusts will have both the assurance of commissioned service and the guarantee of funding for that service, allowing them to recruit and plan for the full roll-out of services that this House decided women should have access to. The hon. Member for Walthamstow asked about dates. This is a service that is sometimes controversial, but also unbelievably important, and appropriate recruitment and training of staff needs to take place. Her amendment, which I know is a probing amendment, mentions 28 days, but I hope I can demonstrate to her that recruitment is already starting and training is going to start.

The hon. Lady also mentioned the period of 90 days. I would like to think that most services will be at least en route to being delivered by that point in time, but, if I may, I intend to write to those hon. Members who might be interested, maybe on a monthly basis, to give continual updates so that the hon. Lady and my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke can see what is happening and when.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that since the introduction of the new legislation to Northern Ireland, more than 4,000 babies have been aborted in the womb. That is 4,000 lives lost—a stark difference from the 100,000 who are alive today because of the life-affirming laws that we have. He will be aware that 79% of people opposed that legislation. This is being forced on the people of Northern Ireland against their will, and yet he can find funding for it and not for other important things in Northern Ireland.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

The hon. Lady and I have had this conversation before. I have a statutory duty to deliver that service and I will do so.

Lastly, the Bill provides for powers around the remuneration of Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, meaning that I will be able to take action to amend their pay when they are unable to conduct the full range of the functions expected of them. The Bill also provides for a number of other measures, including on the regional rate and public appointments, that I will speak to shortly.

Taken together, the measures in the Bill will help to plug the governance gap that has emerged in Northern Ireland. We recognise that the Bill is a stopgap and is not intended to be a long-term solution to the issues that Northern Ireland faces; that is a matter for locally elected politicians.

I will now go through the clauses in turn to explain the Government’s rationale behind some of the policy choices we have made in this process. Clause 1 makes provision for an extension of the period for filling ministerial offices, as set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and amended by the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act 2022—cannily nicknamed “MEPOC”. The clause retrospectively introduces a further six-week period during which an Executive can be formed. That means that the election duty previously placed on me from 28 October no longer applies and, through the Bill, would not apply again until 9 December 2022 at the earliest.

Clause 2 provides for a power to extend the Executive formation period by a further six weeks to 19 January 2023. That power is exercisable through a statutory instrument. I will just say a brief word about that, as I know that it is not necessarily conventional. The regulations made under clause 2 will not be subject to any parliamentary procedure— other than having to be laid after they are made—on the basis that the power is limited and exercisable only once. It is not a recurring power that allows me to extend the period for Executive formation indefinitely, but rather a very tightly drawn single further extension to a defined date.

All taken, the Government judge that this extension will afford political parties in Northern Ireland the time they need to get around the negotiating table, back to the Assembly and into the Executive. I have listened clearly and carefully to party leaders, who have all said publicly that now is not the time for a further Assembly election, and I have acted on those concerns. Right hon. and hon. Members with eagle eyes will note that the clause does not fully replicate previous legislation in that it does not provide for the extension or restoration of caretaker Ministers. The Government considered that, but we have come to the firm view that it would not have been appropriate to restore Ministers who left office on 28 October, even in a caretaker capacity. Instead, civil servants have been holding the tiller in Northern Ireland Departments since that date. They have done so admirably given the circumstances under which they have been working.

That brings me neatly to clauses 3 to 5, which clarify the decisions that Northern Ireland civil servants can take in the continued absence of an Executive. The Government have broadly mirrored the approach to these powers taken by the previous Administration but one in 2018, largely replicating the relevant provisions in the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018. We recognise that precedent is helpful both to Parliament and to decision-makers themselves. Northern Ireland civil servants will therefore be provided with the certainty to take a limited set of decisions when it is in the public interest to do so. That will enable them to address key issues facing Northern Ireland right now: a sustainable budget, the cost of living and—importantly—the delivery of public services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I take no pleasure in seeing this legislation before the House today, as it sadly represents failure between the Government and the EU to protect the cornerstone of the political institutions in Northern Ireland and the fundamental principle of cross-community consent. It represents a failure to the Unionist people of Northern Ireland and businesses in Northern Ireland, and it continues to put at risk the great Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Today, I want to make it as clear as I can that Unionism does not consent to the protocol or the institutions operating in a business-as-usual manner. Today, Unionism feels aggrieved by the sheer disregard for its concerns. Never before have I experienced such a groundswell of support for our position to hold the line, not give in and take a stand—all phrases we have heard so often from the people we represent. Let us not forget the words of the very author of the Belfast agreement, the late David Trimble, who said:

“Make no mistake about it, the protocol does not safeguard the Good Friday Agreement. It demolishes its central premise by removing the assurance that democratic consent is needed to make any change to the status of Northern Ireland.”

The protocol poses an existential threat to the Belfast agreement and the St Andrews agreement. Despite the time and space afforded by my party leader for the Government and EU to face up to the stark reality and find a new way forward, nothing was done. We had months of minimal action and tinkering around in the hope that the DUP would quietly let it slide. Well, the DUP can be accused of many things, but not of backing down and letting things slide. When we see the economic and constitutional damage the protocol is having on the people of Northern Ireland, we will not let it slide and we will continue to take our stand for the people who are impacted.

Our commitment to devolution throughout that window of opportunity was clear. While we urged people to face up to the political reality, others looked away.

[Ian Paisley]

Does my hon. Friend think it important that those who want full implementation of the protocol take cognisance of a recent report from this House and the House of Lords, which claims that that would halt east-west trade within 48 hours? Is it not the case that the reason why Unionists are staying out is that this protocol damages everybody’s livelihoods in Northern Ireland?

[Carla Lockhart]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend’s point is so well made. The takeaway from that is that it is the industry leads who are saying that the protocol will grind east-west trade to a halt within 48 hours, and that is a stark reality.

Last week I hosted the Minister of State on a visit to my constituency, and I thank him for that visit. He met Wilson’s Country potatoes. Wilson’s is a leading potato brand, but it faces ongoing difficulty arising from the protocol, because Scottish seed potatoes, needed to grow crops of certain varieties that the market demands, are banned from entering Northern Ireland.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I gently ask the hon. Lady to return to the legislation that we are considering. We understand why we are here discussing it, and that has been dealt with very well by Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, but I do not think that we need every Member to stand up and cover exactly the same area. The protocol will be debated again in the Chamber, I am absolutely certain, but let us not have lengthy speeches on it today.

[Carla Lockhart]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for bringing us back to the Bill. The fact remains that we would not need it if the protocol was resolved.

Moving on to MLAs’ pay, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who chairs the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, seems determined to punish MLAs for his party’s failures. His party gave us the protocol, and in doing so undermined the fundamental building blocks of the institutions and the Union which they claimed to cherish. His party failed to act when the DUP offered time and space to find a replacement and avoid the position in which we find ourselves. Does he accept any responsibility?

Let me be absolutely clear: DUP MLAs will embrace any pay cut that the hon. Member for North Dorset, or anyone else for that matter, imposes on them, whenever it comes. That will not change their stance or the stance of the DUP. As someone who was in the Assembly when pay was cut last time, I can assure the House that we are in politics because of our conviction, not for the pay that we receive.

Our refusal to enter the institutions has the support of our community, which will allow us to return to them only on the basis of respect for our constitutional position and the restoration of the integrity of the UK. The Minister of State knows that, because he heard the message loud and clear in Hillhall when he visited my constituency and the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) last week.

Today, Members are exercised about the pace and severity of a pay cut. They ought to be exercised about the reality that should a new way forward not emerge soon, there will be no MLAs, no Ministers, no Stormont and no devolution. Furthermore, should those who now seek to exclude Unionism from the institutions under the guise of reform continue to undermine the agreements they claim to cherish, restoring those institutions will be increasingly difficult. It is telling that the same voices fell silent for years when Sinn Féin refused to enter the institutions. Indeed, rather than demand their exclusion, Alliance and Social Democratic and Labour party representatives stood at protests shoulder to shoulder with those blocking government. The double standards, and the desire to exclude Unionism from the institutions, are not lost on my community.

[Claire Hanna]

Does the Member acknowledge that only three or four days ago I stood shoulder to shoulder, so to speak, with a member of her party when addressing provision by the education authority? Does she acknowledge that working with members of other parties on different issues is not the same as endorsing their entire policy platform? She made an accusation again about my party withholding government. Is she going to keep repeating that falsehood, or does she acknowledge that cross-party working does not mean that we buy into the entire manifestoes and approaches of other parties?

[Carla Lockhart]

We will have an opportunity to read Hansard and the Member’s contribution today, so we will be able to see that there is a clear ignoring of Unionist views and a clear sidelining of Unionism and the many people on whom the protocol continues to impact.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Get back to the Bill please.

[Carla Lockhart]

The onus is on the Government and the EU to bring about the conditions whereby power sharing can be restored. Should a new agreement be found that meets the seven tests that my party has outlined, we will not be found wanting in returning to office. The ball is in the court of the Secretary of State.

Northern Ireland Elections

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I am not sure whether I look back fondly on those times, but they were certainly very interesting. I had already lost my hair, so it is difficult to judge.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We now have time and space both to reflect and to understand everyone’s position. The Unionist community in Northern Ireland has articulated a principled position with reference to issues with the protocol, which I completely understand. To fix it, we need time and space to have those discussions with our European Commission interlocutors. That is part of what I hope to do with the forthcoming legislation.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

It is welcome that, latterly, the EU has seen the error of its ways and is showing a willingness to negotiate the wrongs of the Northern Ireland protocol with our Government. Seed potatoes, plants and medical supplies are no threat to the EU, so the restrictions are designed solely to punish the UK for voting to leave. Will the Secretary of State confirm to my constituents that the Government remain committed to achieving the same outcome through negotiations as would be delivered through the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, as promised by the former Prime Minister?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Yes.

Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Farry]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his comments, but I fear he has misunderstood what I am saying. I am not attacking the Bill in that respect; I am pointing out that there is already an in-built differential. What happened in relation to the Irish language was focused more narrowly on language and arguably went deeper in that respect, whereas what happened in relation to Ulster Scots and Ulster British is wider in NDNA and in the legislation, but does not go quite as deep. That is the fundamental differential—one is deeper, one is wider—and that is perfectly fine.

I am not seeking to diminish anything or remove anything from the Bill. I simply make the point that in the Irish language aspects there is not the same reference to the equivalent of an Ulster British identity. That reflects the different demands in the negotiations and confirms my point that what we have before us was hammered out extensively in negotiations over several years. All the arguments that hon. Members—the few of us who are here—are hearing today have been rehearsed many, many times. Very little has been said that is particularly new.

Let me move on from amendment 1 and touch briefly on some others. Amendment 6 addresses the use of the word “sensitivities”—a word that I think the Government should reflect on removing from the Bill. As the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) outlined, the qualifier for someone’s use of their rights should be someone else’s rights, as it is in international and domestic human rights law. “Sensitivities” is a very subjective term, and its use could be seen as implying that not liking what someone is saying or doing, in terms of culture, is a reason to intervene and stop it happening. The criterion for stopping something happening should not be simply whether someone is offended, but whether someone’s rights are infringed.

It would be a nice gesture if the public authority duty were extended to the Northern Ireland Office, not least because the new Minister of State is very active in Northern Ireland. If the Bill is good enough for public authorities in the devolved space, it should be good enough for the NIO, at least in terms of how it operates within Northern Ireland.

Amendment 13 concerns safeguards. Regretfully, I have to say that it is necessary to have an assurance that if there is no progress on the appointment of an Irish language commissioner, the Northern Ireland Office may need to intervene. The same applies to the publication of standards. My wish is for the devolved structures to be restored and to make quick progress on appointments and the approval of standards, but regretfully I must say that evidence from the past two and a half years or more and from what has been said today does not fill me with optimism that will happen. I have spoken to the Minister and I fully appreciate that it is not the Government’s intention to come in with a heavy hand, but it may well be necessary.

My final point relates to the Castlereagh Foundation. I have no issue with the foundation being referred to in the Bill along with the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression. The fact that we have the office reflects how the Bill is engaging with language and identity issues in Northern Ireland; it is broader than what we are doing with respect to the Irish and Ulster Scots languages. It is important to have proper transparency. I must point out to the Minister the lack of transparency in the appointments process whenever the advisory panel was put in place in relation to the Castlereagh Foundation. I seek assurances from him that that will not be the practice in future.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

You will know, Dame Eleanor, as we know, that Northern Ireland works best when our communities feel fairly treated. Our amendments are about offering that fairness to those with a Unionist background. They do not disadvantage those who genuinely cherish the Irish language. Instead, they are about ensuring that the provisions both on Irish and on Ulster British and Ulster Scots are equitable and can truly be described as fair by all, and that no identity recognised by the Bill can be seen through any prism as having any “for one” advantage.

Unamended, the Bill will be rejected by the Unionist community. We will reject it because the Bill places the community’s Ulster British and Ulster Scots identity on a plinth below that on which Irish language is placed. That is not the basis for successful consensus legislation, but the foundation for division, mistrust and agitation.

We have sought to engage positively with the Minister of State to address these concerns. It is a matter of deep regret that despite warm words, he has indicated that he will endorse this inequality. That is regrettable, but reflective of the trajectory to which officials in the Northern Ireland Office remain wedded when faced with Unionist concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Hanna]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Carla Lockhart]

No, I will not.

[Claire Hanna]

Will the hon. Member retract that?

[Carla Lockhart]

I will not retract what I have said. It is absolutely correct: you stood shoulder to shoulder during the time when the Executive were pulled down by Sinn Féin at the behest of its demands. The same political activists will adopt the same approach should they not be appeased again. Like many others, there is little faith in the Northern Ireland Office's ability to withstand such demands. That is a road to further instability and division in our Province.

Intertwined with this issue is the role of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and in that context we have tabled amendments 26, 27 and 28. These amendments underline the importance of political accountability and consensual ministerial agreement in the exercise of the functions of the headline offices and bodies established by the Bill. The two commissioners and the director of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression will ultimately be appointed by the First and Deputy First Ministers. Compliance with guidance or directions mutually agreed by those Ministers must therefore be a defining feature of their operation. We would point out that the wording “must comply” is drawn word for word from the three draft Bills published in the aftermath of “New Decade, New Approach”. The existing drafting in this Bill reneges on that provision, emphasising the power to direct rather than the duty to comply.

There is an urgent need to place consensus working and cross-community protections at the heart of our politics. That is the key to the parity of esteem that all parties claim to value and cherish. As I have said before, it is ignored in the Bill, and the Government have the opportunity to address that.

Amendment 1 and amendments 2 to 5 address the duty to have regard to Ulster Scots guidance, and the current imbalance in the enforceability and robustness of the functions of the commissioner for the Ulster British Ulster Scots tradition in comparison with those specified in the Bill empowering the Irish language commissioner. The amendments, if accepted, would extend the grounds on which a complaint can be brought to the commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition to cover the conduct of public authorities in relation to all the guidance that they issue. Importantly, it would deliver parity of esteem by applying a due-regard duty for advice and guidance to the Ulster British Ulster Scots commissioner comparable with that which applies to the Irish language commissioner. The Bill, as currently drafted, creates an office for Ulster British Ulster Scots in which the commissioner can be ignored. With no binding duty or incentive for public bodies to adhere to recommendations from the commissioner, the likely impact of such a commissioner is seriously restricted. To the Unionist community, such a toothless tiger is not acceptable. We will not be bought off with the image of a commissioner with the substance of a ghost.

It is window dressing to expand the scope of the Ulster Scots commissioner to arts and literature but not to include guidance issued in those areas as eligible for the purposes of complaints. Limiting the scope to language is not fair or balanced. It has always been recognised that in order for the Unionist community to be afforded a commissioner who is of equal value to it as the Irish language commissioner is to the nationalist community, it must have a broader focus than language, because the development of bilingual service provision in Ulster Scots has never been a priority for Unionists. If adding arts and literature to the scope of the commissioner was deemed necessary by the Government to offset the risk of the added value for Irish language trumping Ulster Scots, it follows that the parameters of the complaint’s mechanism should also be extended.

Amendments 21 and 22 seek to right a failure in the Bill as drafted relating to the Castlereagh Foundation. The amendments tabled by my party colleagues in the other place would have required the Secretary of State to take action and establish the foundation. The eventual provisions to be enacted are ambiguous and provide an escape clause for the Government to farm out the function to an outside body without a clear explanation.

Throughout my comments, I have cited instances in which there is a departure from NDNA, and we see this once again in relation to the Castlereagh Foundation. The NDNA obligation on the Government to fund the foundation is precisely that: an obligation on the Government. We do not believe it would be appropriate to vest this power on the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression irrespective of whether it is deemed an operationally independent branch. Moreover, the change ushered in by the Lords does not go far enough in respect of funding and establishment. It is not appropriate for clause 8 to rest as merely a permissive power which the Secretary of State may or may not use.

Let me now deal with our amendments relating to cost to the public purse. Amendments 31 to 35—again, in the names of my colleagues and me—address the fact that there is currently no mechanism in the Bill to ensure transparency and accountability with regard to public spending on each of the bodies and officers established. It would be wholly wrong for one office to run at a disproportionate cost to the other in fulfilling its duties. The existence of such a mechanism is therefore vital to ensuring parity of esteem between the various traditions.

An indicative £9 million is stipulated in the explanatory notes in relation to the establishment and operation of the two commissioners and the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression. However, there is no equivalent assessment of the likely financial implications for public authorities of having to give due regard to Irish language best practice standards and respond to advice on Ulster Scots. This is alarming: it is alarming for councils, who are looking at double-digit rate rises on hard-pressed householders; it is alarming for housing associations and our Housing Executive, who have record waiting lists and a homelessness epidemic to address; and it is alarming for our health trusts, who face unprecedented pressures.

[Jim Shannon]

I rise to reinforce what my hon. Friend says about councils. Newry, Mourne and Down District Council enforced Irish language signage in Saintfield town against the wishes of the people there. That is an example of pushing something that local people do not want.

[Carla Lockhart]

At a significant cost, no doubt, to the ratepayer.

Ultimately, in the delivery of visible and frontline public services, the measure will mean substantive added cost. The new Prime Minister has been elected on his handling of the public finances; let us have some management of public money in this Bill.

The last amendment I will address is amendment 29. This amendment would revise and expand the functions of the commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition. The commissioner would be responsible for developing the language, culture and heritage associated with the tradition, reflecting the body of established work and existing human rights law. It is clear that all of the 70-plus public authorities engaged by the legislation provide services using a language and that the bilingual objective of an Irish language commissioner is such that they could all logically receive guidance from the Irish language commissioner. By contrast, the fact that there is no objective or duty for the 70-plus public authorities to operate bilingually using the Ulster Scots language means that the comparative engagement by the Ulster Scots Ulster British tradition commissioner will be far less. The addition of “arts and literature” is likely only to result in a slight increase in guidance for Ulster Scots. Thus a fundamental inequality remains. In this context, the case for widening the scope of the Ulster Scots Ulster British tradition commissioner to “heritage and culture” is very strong. Such a function is more likely to cut across the 70-plus bodies and have a more substantive impact for the Unionist community.

Colleagues have addressed other amendments and I am sure some will be picked up in the winding-up remarks. I urge the Government and the Minister to take heed of our desire to make this Bill better by making it consistent with NDNA, and consistent with the principles that lie at the heart of our political process around cross-community consent. I ask the Minister to seize the opportunity and to support our amendments.

[Sammy Wilson]

First, I want to make it clear that, although the Bill was part of the NDNA agreement, the priority given to this issue at this time will bemuse many in Northern Ireland, and I suspect many in this House as well. A Government who say we have to tighten public expenditure and cut the number of quangos then promote a Bill which will have substantial costs attached to it and will set up three more quangos. At this particular time, people will ask whether that is a wise move.

I could understand it if the issues we are addressing today were being totally ignored in public policy in Northern Ireland, but they are not. As I pointed out in an intervention, the Irish language already attracts substantial public funds, and those who wish to speak the Irish language have lots of opportunities to learn it, speak it, promote it and enjoy it in Northern Ireland, running to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds.

Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

On behalf of our party, I offer our deepest sympathies to the families who lost loved ones in the horrific incident in Creeslough—it is heartbreaking to see those scenes and the funerals that are taking place. Our thoughts are very much with the families.

It would be remiss of me not to point out at the outset that this matter is devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, and it therefore ought not to be a matter of decision for this place. The deliberate move by the Government to bring the legislation through this place is yet another example of how the devolution settlement is set aside at the whim of the Government of the day if doing so is deemed politically expedient. It appears that this Government increasingly believe that the Northern Ireland Executive are best suited to performing a management-board function rather than acting as a democratically elected decision-making body. That weakens local democracy and, indeed, the very reason for a return of devolution in already very challenging circumstances.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does my hon. Friend also notice a correlation between matters being brought to this House and out of the hands of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the demands made by Sinn Féin for that to happen? Even though Sinn Féin Members refuse to take their places in the House, they are quite happy to lobby the Government to get the things that they want through the House. In most cases, the Government simply ignore things that concern Unionists, such as the protocol.

[Carla Lockhart]

Absolutely—kowtowing to the demands of Sinn Féin is often the way that it goes. For those reasons, we will vote against the Bill on Second Reading and table amendments. Should those changes not be made, we will continue to oppose the Bill.

Many Members have referred to New Decade, New Approach. It is almost as if that document consists of one issue—namely, that of language and identity. It does not, and I could list a range of commitments that the Government have given that are yet to be fulfilled. One, of course, relates to the UK internal market and Northern Ireland’s place in it. That remains unresolved, and I remind the Government that the Prime Minister has given quite explicit commitments to the House on the essential components of any solution to the protocol issue. Those commitments must be delivered upon.

Language and identity are extremely sensitive issues in Northern Ireland because they mean a lot to sections of our population, whether they cherish the Irish language and identity, or their Ulster Scots identity and language is fundamental to who they are and how they express themselves. It is of deep regret that there have been times when language and identity—whether Irish or Ulster Scots—have been denigrated, abused by derision or abused by the weaponising of such language and identity by those for whom they are simply vehicles to pursue an overtly political goal.

It is my belief that, rather than addressing the facilitation and respect for language and identity, the Bill is, in fact, a reward for those who have weaponised the Irish language for decades. Those people have neither love nor learning when it comes to the Irish language; rather, their motive is to use it as part of a wider cultural war. Indeed, imposing the legislation on Northern Ireland society will only result in language and identity being a more potent weapon that causes greater damage to community relations and cohesion at a time when many of us wish to see a more united community focused on healing divisions, not aggravating them.

When talking about the political dynamic of Northern Ireland in this House, it is very rare that we do not hear words such as “consensus” or phrases such as “cross-community support”, which are deemed the cornerstone of the political process and progress made to date. Yet the legislation removes that cornerstone, and the self-proclaimed guardians of the Belfast Agreement are those behind its removal.

[Colum Eastwood]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Carla Lockhart]

The hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunity to speak later.

Part 2 of the Bill is the very antithesis of cross-community consent. Specifically, clauses 6 and 7 provide carte blanche for the Secretary of State to do as he or she wishes in these deeply controversial policy areas—something that was not agreed in the NDNA. Clause 6 states:

“The Secretary of State may do anything that a Northern Ireland Minister or Northern Ireland department could do in the exercise of an identity and language function”—

anything; anything at all, regardless of the democratic mandate given to the Minister in that Department, regardless of the manifesto on which that Minister may have stood before the electorate and received his or her mandate. It is the power of direction taking precedence over the power of local voters: neither community consulted; rather, being instructed.

With increasing tendency, cross-community safeguards, at the heart of the Belfast and St Andrews agreement, are simply set aside when it suits the Government to do so. The word “disregarded” in the Bill stands out like a sore thumb. While Government figures and Members of this House may be ordering a birthday cake to mark the 25th year of the Belfast agreement next year, it is worth stating that the same people cannot have their cake and eat it—surely they cannot celebrate something while at the same time destroying it.

There is a deep-lying and justified suspicion within the Unionist community that such powers have only been taken, and will only be used, to appease the demands of the most vociferous and most divisive elements within the language and identity lobby. That being the case, it is not possible for us to support the legislation, in which there are no safeguards to address the concerns of Unionists and, indeed, those of a non-Unionist persuasion who do not subscribe to the radical agenda of the language and identity lobby. We rightly question whether the vast amount of public money set aside to satisfy those demands is the best use of finite public resources.

The data from the 2021 census of Northern Ireland shows that 228,617 people have some ability in Irish, with almost the same number—190,613—having some ability in Ulster Scots. On the basis of those numbers alone, it is hard to rationalise the disparity in this legislation between the status and powers of the Irish language commissioner, and that of the commissioner for the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British tradition. It is a matter of deep regret that amendments tabled in the other place that could have provided recourse for at least some of these legislative inequalities were not accepted. That further cements belief among Unionists that the Government are more concerned with the concerns of one community over the other. That is a dangerous mindset in the context of Northern Ireland.

If the Government are serious about providing some degree of balance in the Bill, they must look at a number of areas with reference to the powers of the commissioner for the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British tradition. The DUP believes that the functions of the commissioner should be extended to reference explicitly heritage and culture. Currently, the Bill provides only for language, arts and literature. If the ambition is to make this legislation as comprehensive as possible, such a change would be desirable to better reflect the extent and importance of the distinct traditions.

There are a series of shortcomings in the Bill relating to how the commissioners can respond to alleged breaches by public authorities of the requirements relating to Irish language and Ulster Scots. Should a public body face an alleged breach and is found to be culpable, the Irish commissioner can make recommendations on how a public body can

“remedy its failure and avoid future failures”.

In terms of the Ulster/British commissioner however, the remit is much more limited to giving advice only on how a body

“might have better regard to published facilitation guidance.”

That is insulting, to say the least.

Furthermore, the admissibility grounds for making merely a valid complaint are much weightier in relation to Irish. Even when it comes to devising an action plan on how a public authority will fulfil its obligations, there appears to be a requirement for Irish, but no similar requirement for Ulster/British. I ask the Secretary of State, in his summing up, to address that point specifically and to explain how such an imbalance is in the public interest and how it represents a balanced approach to both identities.

Let us not ignore the costs that will be associated with this Bill. If—and it is a big if—the Executive are restored, they will have an in-tray of issues that will come at unprecedented cost to the public purse: delivering on the Bengoa reforms to our health service; investment in schools; addressing historic underfunding of special educational needs; road and rail investment; and tackling the problems associated with a crumbling water network. Yet this legislation will take money away from those priorities, which have an impact on us all, regardless of identity, and add further strain to the budgets of public authorities. What is more important: a bed for a cancer patient or an Irish or Ulster Scots translation of a public document that can be read in English by all?

I urge the Government to think long and hard about the core message that this Bill sends to those in Northern Ireland—not just around the lack of balance, as I have outlined—and fundamentally to consider the wisdom of cultural supremacy being enshrined in law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the outset, I want to join others in passing on my condolences and sympathies to the families of those who sadly lost their lives in Creeslough and to the wider community. The tragedy they are currently dealing with is unthinkable.

On this occasion, I think it is appropriate to say a few words in Irish followed by the English translation. Tacaím leis an reachtaíocht seo. Tá sé an-tábhachtach Tá oidhreacht roinnte ag an nGaeilge agus Ultais i dTuaisceart Éireann. Déanfaidh muid ceiliúradh ar an oidhreacht sin. That is, I support this Bill. The Irish language and Ulster Scots are part of the shared heritage of Northern Ireland. We celebrate that heritage. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) has just said, that heritage can be seen in the place names and surnames that are evident right across the community in Northern Ireland. That very much cuts across the traditional divide.

The Bill delivers on a key commitment of the New Decade, New Approach agreement. That agreement broke the deadlock that had seen the institutions of the Good Friday agreement cease operation for almost three years. As is the case with the current impasse, my party did not believe that there was any justification for that impasse. However, it is a matter of record that frustrations around the non-delivery of legislation and other measures related to the Irish language and other language issues was a key factor in that stand-off. The achievement of a package of measures on language and culture was a key element in the breakthrough. Commitments to legislate for the Irish language and Ulster Scots go back much further, to the St. Andrew’s agreement of 2006, and reflect the more general commitments made in the Good Friday agreement of 1998.

Indeed, we want to see all aspects of the New Decade, New Approach agreement being delivered and a key element of that deal was the rightful expectation that the culture and language package would be a priority for the restored Executive and Assembly. It is a major disappointment and concern that that did not happen. Whenever I asked the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) to explain why, he rather flippantly discussed the issue of covid. Of course, I am aware that covid was a major issue for the world, but government did not grind to a halt in other places. A lot of other legislation happened in this place and, indeed, other legislation happened in the Northern Ireland Assembly, including Bills taken forward by his own ministerial colleagues. Frankly, there is and was no excuse for this measure not being done in the Assembly in a timely manner and that would have provided an opportunity for a much more rounded discussion. That said, we will listen to and take on board the DUP’s comments and reflect on them in Committee. We want to get this as right as we can in this place.

It is a matter of regret that it falls to the Government to take the Bill through Parliament. Generally, it would be far better if matters of equality and human rights were addressed in the devolved space. That would be a characteristic of a mature and responsible democracy. As has been said, that delivery has generally not been the case over the past 20 years. We have to ask why there is a constant blockage. Tension is already emerging over the powers that the Secretary of State may take in relation to the Bill. That reflects a lack of confidence in that, even if the Bill were passed without the powers, the implementation would be stymied back in the devolved space. That is a source of frustration and the pretext for why we are where we are.

Accusations are made generally about interference in the devolved space. I want to see the Northern Ireland Assembly addressing the full spectrum of issues under its remit, including equality and human rights. However, I think this legislation can be justified as a matter of political necessity to ensure that we have a more solid foundation for what will hopefully soon be restored political institutions. Moreover, this is also a matter of the Government ensuring compliance, in respect of Northern Ireland, with the UK’s international human rights commitments, particularly on language.

I was disappointed by some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) about the weaponisation of the Irish language. We appreciate that some people have made uncalled-for comments, but I think that does a huge injustice to the vast majority of people who have been campaigning for Irish language rights over many years. In Belfast recently, we saw close to 20,000 people on the streets calling for those protections. People from all backgrounds and all walks of life want to see language protections in Northern Ireland extending both to Irish and Ulster Scots.

[Carla Lockhart]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Gavin Robinson]

Will the hon. Member give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Lockhart]

The hon. Gentleman did not ask me to give way and I have taken many interventions from him in the past. No one can deny in this House that the issue has been weaponised. That has been done by a small number of individuals, but it has been weaponised, and I think we can all accept that fact. He talks about equality. Will he go further and support the amendments that we will introduce on the fact that the Ulster Scots commissioner will not have the same powers as the Irish language commissioner? Our amendments will aim to bring that in line.

[Stephen Farry]

I will say two things. If we can all agree a self-denying ordinance, let us move past the comments about weaponising language and relegate those to the small minority of people who have said that. Let us focus on those who are generally asking for protections in Northern Ireland for the right reasons.

On the hon. Lady’s second point, yes, I am happy to look at the DUP amendments. I am not prepared to give a commitment until we see them, but we will approach this issue with a genuine open mind in that regard. It is worth stressing that there is a different context relating to how Irish and Ulster Scots are recognised by the UK in terms of reference to the various international treaty bodies. It is not entirely a like-for-like comparison. None the less, we are happy to look at the points that she made about the powers.

That point leads me on to another point that is important to stress. There are those who would wish the Bill to go much further in its level of protection; the hon. Member for Belfast East referred to some issues that have been mentioned previously but have not been taken forward. Equally, there are some who may wish to dilute it. I think it is important that we reflect and respect the spirit and indeed the letter of what was agreed in New Decade, New Approach as far as practically possible, because we are conscious that that is the political agreement. Anything else, in terms of major amendments, would primarily be something for the Northern Ireland Assembly to take forward.

There are a number of issues that I think need to be teased out in Committee, in addition to some of the issues that have been mentioned. I note that Ulster Scots has been designated as an ethnicity by the Government. I think there needs to be some scrutiny of that, because there is some debate as to whether demand or the wider rationale warrants it. I am not sure that there is complete consensus among Ulster Scots activists on that line.

There is also concern about moving from having a single director of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression towards having more of a multi-member commission approach. Sadly, that brings up fears about a bit of a carve-up happening in relation to that office, given the history of other public appointments in Northern Ireland.

I agree with the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), that we need more transparency around what is happening with the Castlereagh Foundation. He also made a point about the use of the word “sensitivities” as a potential qualifier in relation to the exercise of language rights. I would perhaps suggest that we need to look instead at a more rights-based balance in taking that forward.

There are potential amendments to be considered in relation to the extension of what is meant by “public authorities”, moving from what at the moment refers entirely to those that fall within the devolved space. Reference was made to what happens with some applications within Northern Ireland, but with non-devolved functions, for example, Swansea offers bilingual driving licences in English and Welsh. There is a desire among some people in Northern Ireland to see them offered in Irish or Ulster Scots as well, so perhaps that could be addressed in an amendment.

I think that there needs to be some degree of sensitivity around the safeguards issue and that we should look at the issues around timescales for interventions. I do not relish the concept of Ministers intervening—I am sure that the Minister of State will confirm that the intention is not to be intervening all the time—but the contrary fear is that, if there is an impasse, it could become prolonged. It would be useful to have some timeline for when interventions should happen.

Finally, I want to respond to some comments about the background to where we are and the debate about culture and language in Northern Ireland. There has been a lot of misinformation, shall we say, and there are a lot of tropes out there about what this would mean for the fundamental reorganisation of society, from road signs through to employment quotas. None of those things has happened, because this was a negotiated package through the New Decade, New Approach system. That is where the value of negotiations came to the fore: in ensuring that there was a balanced package in that regard.

This is about public bodies responding to the needs of their client base in a proportionate way. It is not about a radical transformation of Northern Ireland society. To go back to what I said at the start, we have to accept that both Irish and Ulster Scots are part of the mixed overlapping fabric of what is our shared society in Northern Ireland, so whenever we talk about protecting what we have in Northern Ireland, protecting the language heritage and ensuring that we continue to promote those languages have to be very much a part of our shared and integrated future.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 4th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Johnny Mercer]

That is my point: the fact that it got there and those two soldiers went through that process for nine years of their lives from 2005 to 2014. The wife of one the soldiers died during the process. That is why we need this process. A lot of this could have been done better over the years, but we are where we are.

I have a concern that people in Northern Ireland will not engage with the process and that victims and other groups will not come forward. That is a legitimate concern—I can see that campaigns will be run to try to get people not to engage. The only people who will lose out will be the families in Northern Ireland. For some time, they have been taken on journeys that, at times, were unfair on them. That is not a popular thing to repeat given the side of the argument that I come from, but some of the practices have been unfair on them.

Finally, I turn to glorification, and I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to listen to Opposition Front-Bench Members on that. I know that there are provisions in legislation—[Interruption.] Not about crime but specifically about the glorification of terrorism. We must be very careful that those cowards who got up in the morning to murder women and children for their political aims are given absolutely no opportunities to glorify what they did. We must double down and ensure that there is no gap in legislation where those people could take advantage of their crimes.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Member support the amendment on glorification this evening?

[Johnny Mercer]

As I understand it, conversations are ongoing about how that objective can be achieved—[Interruption.] No, it is not as simple as that. I have been a Minister and seen amendments that, on the face of it, looked like they would improve a Bill, but the reality is that certain things cannot be done because of how other legislation bumps up against them. Legislation must to be crafted in the correct way. As I understand it, Ministers are looking at that with the Opposition and they will ensure that there is no gap in the legislation that allows for terrorism to be glorified.

I have sat through all the speeches and every minute of the Bill’s passage, and I am afraid that I repeatedly hear things that are not true. We all have a responsibility to deal with this issue not as though we are speaking to our home crowd but as it actually is. If not, ultimately, the people who will lose out are families, victims and veterans. For me, they have always been at the heart of the debate, and I hope that we can continue to hold them there as we progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Farry]

I will be generous in accepting what the Minister says about his intentions, but we have to be honest and say that the nature of how we got here has, in many respects, been extremely bad and flawed, which hampers that aspiration. Who knows, people may well engage with the process in due course, but at the moment there is a lot of suspicion around it and people do not feel that it will address the needs of their families.

That brings me to the wider concern around the use of the term “reconciliation” and how it could well be used to almost legitimise the process around immunity—or, as many people see it, a de facto amnesty. There is an expectation that down the line many measures in this legislation could be challenged through the courts, including the European Court of Human Rights, which is not part of the European Union, as we keep saying. The key piece of case law in this respect is Marguš v. Croatia. The broader lesson I take from European law, and wider international law, on this is that there is a general tendency to move away from the concept of immunity or amnesty. It might well have been in vogue at certain times in the 1980s or ’90s, but it is certainly not in vogue in the contemporary approach to the issue of justice in conflict societies or divided societies.

If there is to be a chance of immunity getting some degree of acceptance or being seen as legitimate, it would need at the very least to meet one of two tests: the process would either have to be agreed as part of an overarching peace process or agreed subsequently by the key stakeholders and other parties in the society. Where we have a Government unilaterally imposing an outcome on Northern Ireland, it is hard to see how either of those tests could be met if we found ourselves in a legal challenge down the line.

My second broad point relates to civil cases, which have been mentioned by other hon. Members. I am not going to labour this point, but I want to stress that the notion of an arbitrary cut-off is incredibly unjust, particularly when it is linked to the timing of the Bill’s First Reading. Many people simply did not have the opportunity to lodge the papers they were working on at the time. Some people were able to lodge papers and some solicitors were able to act very quickly, but others were not, which creates a hierarchy in what happens in those civil cases.

In a similar light, we have touched on the inquests themselves. These proposals go back to my dear friend the Lord Chief Justice back in 2016. The process was not fully formulated until 2019, but we now have the prospect of some cases being taken through to conclusion and others being arbitrarily dropped because they are not at a so-called advanced stage when this legislation becomes active. I think this will create a real sense of grievance among families, particularly when they have been given hope of seeing their loved one’s case go through that process.

Although the Minister referred to the ICRIR potentially providing a process that encompasses legacy inquests, the reality has to be clearly understood. The level of interrogation that will take place as the ICRIR looks towards the immunity process is nothing close to the coronial system’s interrogation of evidence. They are fundamentally different concepts, so the fear is that the interrogation will be lost.

The Minister referred to the six months, nine months or a year before the knife falls and said that people can get on with it, which belies the reality in two respects. First, there is not the resourcing to accelerate the process any faster. Obviously, we would like to see more resources, which is something the Government could deliver.

Secondly, we have to acknowledge that the Government have not always been as co-operative as perhaps they could have been—I put it as diplomatically as I can—in how these inquests were taken forward. People express frustration that the Ballymurphy inquest only reached its conclusion 50 years after the event, but there were many battles beneath the surface, particularly with the Ministry of Defence, on co-operation. Things could have happened a lot quicker. In that respect, there are still ongoing battles and disputes on full Government co-operation with these inquests. If they are genuine about accelerating the process, they should reflect on that.

Finally on inquests, beyond what has been set out by the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, if this Bill is passed, any inquest anywhere in these islands in relation to what happened in the past will be cut off, but there may well be circumstances in which those inquiries should take place.

The oral history, memorialisation and academic research is an important aspect of the legacy process that perhaps does not get the same attention as others, but it has always been regarded as a core element. In some respects, it could stand on its own two feet but, in practice, it is tied to what happens with the other institutions as part of the wider legacy framework.

Although I certainly trust the academics who would or could be involved in this process to do a great job, we have to recognise that a number of hurdles will be set in their path. One of those hurdles is the power of the Secretary of State to make appointments. I believe the appointments should be delegated to another body so there is no perception of political interference.

There also has to be a concern that the evidence to the ICRIR will be piecemeal. There are fears about both ends of the process. First, there is a fear that the perpetrators themselves will not be incentivised to engage with the process until the knock on their door is about to happen and they feel a self-interest to do so. A very select group of people will come forward in that respect. Secondly, which families will engage with the process? Again, it may be a very select group, so the evidence base may be piecemeal. There are also issues with the documentary evidence that comes forward and whether it will be properly opened up. There is scepticism or cynicism about how effective that will be. Again, this evidence may well be partial and piecemeal.

It is worth sticking with this process, even if it is outside the Bill. We have to learn important lessons and listen to the practitioners from Northern Ireland, such as Dr Anna Bryson from Queen’s University Belfast and others, who have expressed concern about how this has been set up.

It is my intention to support both the amendments on which the Labour party seeks to divide the Committee, and both the DUP amendments, too.

[Carla Lockhart]

The Government and the Committee are very aware of my party’s reasons for opposing this Bill, as so eloquently outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson).

This Bill, at its core, is about injustice, evading justice and denying justice, which makes it very, very wrong. Through amendment 107, we seek to ensure that those who engage with the panel and receive immunity will, at least, have their crime considered if they are in the dock for a post-1998 offence. Surely this is a fair ask. Surely this Committee and the Government acknowledge that, by not agreeing to this amendment, they would be erasing the past from our legal process.

If a terrorist is granted immunity for carrying out a murder and commits murder again, he or she ought to be considered for sentencing by the court in the knowledge that he or she has clearly shown neither rehabilitation nor regrets for the act of taking a life. He or she should therefore be sentenced as such.

New clause 4 and amendment 120 touch on the issue of glorification, and they would be a vital addition to this Bill. We tabled these amendments with victims at the forefront of our mind and because we desire a society in which glorification of terrorism is not seen as normal, and in which those who planted bombs and killed men, women and children are not venerated as some kind of heroes.

I sometimes wonder how many Members are aware of the perverse activity of some of our elected representatives in Northern Ireland and how they regularly glorify terrorism. If the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition attended the unveiling of a memorial to three terrorists, it would be headline news and would be raised in this House—there would be a media and press outcry, and their position would be untenable—yet in Northern Ireland the leader of Sinn Féin brazenly attends events celebrating IRA activity. It is a reflection on our society and our media that such activity, in the main, goes unmentioned and, more disturbingly, goes unchallenged.

If an MP from any other party named their constituency office after a terrorist, it would be dealt with by this House, but nothing was done when the Sinn Féin Member for South Down named his constituency office after IRA terrorists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Lockhart]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention and agree entirely with what he is saying. It is abhorrent that this House funds an office that is a cold house to all members of the constituency that that individual represents. Every day, it retraumatises the victims of the terrorists after whom that office is named. I raised this point in this House in an Adjournment debate and have consistently raised it with Mr Speaker and a number of Ministers, asking them to take action. I will continue to do so until we have that dealt with appropriately. If we are to educate our future generations about the futility and evils of terrorism, we need to ensure it is never sanitised and never celebrated. That is why we ask Members to accept our amendment.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Amendment 107 is, of course, about addressing whether serious offences should be excluded, for example murders that occurred after 1998. Would it not be appalling if the people who murdered two soldiers at Massereene barracks in the South Antrim constituency and seriously wounded two civilians in the same gun attack walked away free if the case ever came again before a court? Surely that is not what this Bill should be doing.

[Carla Lockhart]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It is well made and has been noted.

New clause 4 seeks to ensure that terrorists receiving immunity cannot proceed to laud their evil activities; it is about ensuring that the book deals do not follow, and the fundraising tours and storytelling events cannot happen. Vitally, it is about protecting victims, for whom such events cause huge hurt and distress. The terrorists gave no thought to the victims and survivors before they made them such, and the activities of terrorists and their political proxies to this day show that they still have no regard for victims and the trauma they continue to inflict upon them. This Bill would be plunged to even deeper depths of moral despondency if it were to facilitate the further glorification of terrorism by those granted immunity in this process. I hope the Government will consider whether this is an outcome they would allow in England and, when they answer that question, act accordingly to amend this Bill to eradicate this extolling of evil in Northern Ireland.

Let me touch briefly on new clause 5, which stands in my name and those of my colleagues. The Bill is lacking in many areas, but it certainly lacks in the whole sphere of the revocation of immunity. It is vital that this Bill does provide for situations where new evidence emerges showing that condition B in clause 18 was not met because the terrorist has lied. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that such instances will occur, given the types of people we are dealing with. Let us not forget that for many years senior members of the IRA have denied ever being members of the IRA; the truth is very much secondary to the cause. The granting of immunity is in itself abhorrent, but just how abhorrent would it be if someone had been granted immunity on the back of a tall tale and then the appropriate mechanism was not in place to revoke that ill-gotten immunity on the back of new evidence? This must be addressed, and we ask that the Government consider it carefully.

My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East covered our other amendments in his contribution, passionately setting out why we believe they can at least make the Bill more robust. I reiterate his remarks, especially on the need to cut off at the pass any idea that immunity will give terrorists a platform to revel in their deeds and inflict more pain on victims who are already hurting so much because of this Bill.

[Tony Lloyd]

Let me begin by saying that this is an astonishingly important Bill and this is an incredibly incompetent way for this House of Commons to deal with it: to have had two days, in which we have been unable to get into the detail of the Bill, is frankly no way to deal with legislation of this import. The Minister is making valiant attempts to move a little with the mood of the Committee, but he must realise that we have not had the opportunity to get into the level of detail that we ought to on a Bill of this import.

I establish that because, interestingly, people from every party represented from Northern Ireland have spoken, at one stage or another, strongly against what this Bill seeks to do and indeed against individual parts of the Bill. That reflects the mood not only of victims and victims’ groups—I have talked to many of those over the years—but the opinion across the piece of the north of Ireland. It is important that we establish that because one problem with that the position is that it plays into different parties’ existing concerns. We have heard DUP Members say that they see this as a get out of jail free card for those who committed acts of terrorism, and I understand why. Those from the nationalist community will see this, again, as simply another attempt to gloss over the action of the state and the collusion that took place. In that context, the real danger is that rather than being something that moves us towards reconciliation, the Bill will establishes in people the rectitude of their own views of the injustice of the situation. That is very, very dangerous.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). The issues surrounding this Bill, I suppose, can be traced back to 1994—rather than to 1998, as many people allude to unrepentantly over and again—because that was when paramilitary groups decided, in various ways, to call it a day. Those who had inflicted pain, misery and mayhem on all of us in Northern Ireland said that the game was up and that terror was going to finish. Political negotiations then came about. Four years later, unfortunately, terror was then legitimised. Those were the unfortunate origins of where we are today. We might try to rehearse history or to rewrite it, as others have tried to do, but that is what happened.

We then had a period of diminishing violence. All of us tried to come to terms with what we hoped would be a much better future. I fully understand, accept and share the view that many have on the Conservative Benches: that the problem now is that IRA terrorists, by and large, are not pursued, but there are the soldiers and former police officers caught in very difficult circumstances who, in many instances, had a split second to decide whether their lives were at risk or to take action to try to preserve an innocent life by taking someone else’s—a split second to decide whether a person was a threat to themselves or to their colleagues. Therein lies the difficulty.

Again, I fully understand the views of Conservative Members, especially those who have served, who say that we have to try to draw a line under this, and that this Bill is a way of doing that. Several Conservative Members have alluded to, for example, the late Dennis Hutchings. His case would, I believe, have collapsed, as did those of Soldier F and several others. There are different reasons for each case, but the underlying reason is that the passage of time has meant that even where the Public Prosecution Service thinks there is a possibility of a successful prosecution, it finds that for a variety of reasons it is not able to bring it to a successful conclusion, no matter how much it presses.

The passage of time has occurred and people’s memories are dimmed, and it is almost impossible to get an accurate recollection of what happened on a particular day. For example, I was on the city streets of Londonderry on the very day of Bloody Sunday. I have a reasonably clear recollection of what happened, even though I was a very young teenager at the time, but I could not give a second-by-second, minute-by-minute account of everything that happened on that day. I do remember that three days before two police officers had been gunned down with a machine gun. We will never know whether it was the same machine gun that the Saville inquiry said Martin McGuinness held on Bloody Sunday.

We come to the point now of assessing whether the Bill—even with some of the amendments that we hope, if passed, would make it a less bad Bill—will draw a line under what is happening. My view is that it is unlikely to do so. There are many people in Northern Ireland and a whole range of victims. Some have moved on, while some find it difficult to move on. Some have come to terms with the loss of loved ones, while others continue to grieve. What they all know is that even before this Bill is considered, there is very little likelihood of any successful prosecution.

The problem the Bill presents is that, if it is passed—even in slightly amended form—it slams shut the possibility of any potential prosecution or any justice ever being brought to bear on the cases involving loved ones. For that reason, my colleagues and I will be opposing the Bill.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Like other Northern Irish Members, I live among so many people who, through no fault of their own, are victims of terrorism. Those victims have approached me, while going about their daily business, to express how hurt they are by the Bill and how it extinguishes that glimmer of hope of any form of justice—although they know all too well that justice has already been grossly perverted in Northern Ireland.

We table our amendments in recognition that the Bill is likely to be made law. It will never be good law; it will always be fundamentally flawed and will always represent injustice and pain. However, it can be made to be better law, and we urge hon. Members to give serious consideration to what we believe are measured, constructive and victim-focused amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) has eloquently outlined the rationale for the amendments in our names and the names of our colleagues, and I wish to reiterate some of the thinking behind some of the amendments.

Much of the public cynicism, certainly within the victim’s community, is based on the belief that if someone is willing to put a gun to a person’s head and take their life, lying about their actions will not disturb their moral compass. Amendment 97 would offer some form of recourse for lying to the panel. It is also, we believe, appropriate that such cases at the very least be directed to the Public Prosecution Service. If this process is to have any semblance of credibility, surely the Committee will agree that making a mockery of the process should come with an appropriate penalty.

We must also consider the situation of those who have deliberately evaded justice. That is our rationale for amendments 96, 98 and 99. The DUP utterly rejects the idea of immunity for any terrorist, but the Bill needs to offer specific provision for cases where those terrorists fled from justice. Whether they have scuttled off to the safe haven of the Irish Republic, the United States or elsewhere, those subject to active proceedings should not be afforded immunity. The thought of such individuals being welcomed through airport terminals by cheering crowds, to be embraced as heroes by leading figures of Sinn Féin, makes me sick to the pit of my stomach, as did similar images at the release of terrorists following the Belfast agreement. To permit such circumstances through this Bill would be wholly wrong. We therefore ask the Committee to support our amendment that addresses that salient point.

Amendments 100, 101, 102 and 199 relate to the whole issue of immunity. My party has always opposed immunity, for one reason—it is wrong. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) gave numerous examples of terrorist atrocities in a very personal and moving contribution. His story is the story of so many people in Northern Ireland, and indeed here in Great Britain. How anyone could listen to that account of loss, pain and suffering and believe that immunity for the perpetrator is acceptable is beyond comprehension. Members across the Committee seem to think the situation is justified by saying, “It is not perfect and we don’t like it, but we have no other option.” Yet there is always one option, and that is to do what is right. Victims want this Committee to do what is right.

I cannot close my contribution any more powerfully than by using the words of two victims of IRA terror. I urge Members to give their ear to these voices—to listen to these broken hearts speak. Abbie Graham lost her father, Constable John Graham, and Louie Johnston lost his father, Reserve Constable David Johnston, when they were shot dead while on foot patrol in Lurgan in my constituency of Upper Bann on 16 June 1997. Abbie and Louie were aged seven and in primary school when their much-loved fathers were murdered. I urge Members to listen to these words. Abbie says:

“The way the law works is that if the killers were caught and jailed they could only do two years. That would be a formal recognition of the wrong that was done. But if this law was to come in and then someone came forward with the information, it’s too late.”

Louie Johnston states:

“We’re 25 years on from and there are always new forensic opportunities becoming available and always the chance someone will come forward. But if the government is going to remove that opportunity it leaves us without any hope. This was the murder of two fathers who said goodbye to their children on a normal school day, the same thing that was happening in every decent human being’s house.”

He says:

“We need to look at what is right and wrong and take the politics out of all of this. What is happening now is that we are creating a justice system based on a postcode lottery. You can get justice as long as you don’t live in Northern Ireland. This government is burying justice and Boris Johnson and Secretary of State Brandon Lewis are playing the role of undertaker.”

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Please do not refer to the Prime Minister by name.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Lockhart]

My apologies, Mr Evans. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are playing the role of undertaker. Louie went on:

“How can you say to someone that if their loved one was killed before April 1998 it doesn’t count? How can people be willing to stand for that?”

That is the question for this Committee: how can anyone be willing to stand for that?

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

I call Jim Shannon, but please resume your seat at either 10 to 7 or before.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 24th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I am very conscious that this debate is most likely being watched by victims and survivors in Northern Ireland as well as those based here on the mainland. I am conscious of how painful this is for them—the hurt and the trauma inflicted and, indeed, the sense of betrayal brought about by this Bill. I make no apology for stating that it is those innocent victims of terrorism who are front and centre in how I and my party approach dealing with the past. The past is still their present. They paid the greatest price. They did not choose to pay that price; it was inflicted on them by the bomb and the bullet, by the evil, wicked hand of terrorism. All they seek in return for the price paid is justice, and for the perpetrator to be held to account for their deathly actions. While the widow and her young family stood at the graveside mourning the loss of the innocent husband and father, they craved the moment when the terrorist stands in the dock facing justice. As time has passed, that ray of hope has grown dimmer, but remained. Today, the Government are extinguishing that hope.

As a party, we have consistently applied a number of tests to any proposal around legacy. The tests are that there remains the opportunity for justice for victims, that there is no amnesty and that any process is fair and balanced. What we have before us today in the form of this Bill fails all three tests. As far back as the Belfast agreement, the DUP opposed the reduction in tariff for terrorist-related offences to a maximum of two years. We found such leniency towards those guilty of some of the most heinous crimes imaginable to be a perversion of justice, yet what this Bill proposes is even worse, for there is no custodial sentence whatsoever in these proposals, only a period on licence. To the on-the-runs’ letters of comfort, add the freedom pass. How utterly repugnant.

We know how the process will work. In reality, a terrorist could come forward and tell whatever tale he or she contrives. With no new evidence and on the balance of probabilities, some will get the reward of an amnesty for their tall tale. I am yet to decide if it is naive or simply duplicitous of the Government to suggest the Bill will help to address the legacy of the past: to do that, surely truth must mean something. For Sinn Féin, “truth” means concealing as much as it can about IRA terrorism. When Martin McGuinness, an IRA godfather with the blood of many innocents dripping from his hands, appeared before the Saville inquiry, he stated that his IRA oath curtailed what he could say. He said, and the Government should take note:

“I feel I cannot answer that question because there is a Republican code of honour. For me to identify who these people are would be a betrayal, in my view. To do so would have been a gross act of betrayal. I have a duty, in my view, stretching back 30 years, to those people and I am not prepared to break my word to them under any circumstances.”

Despicable.

Let me raise one other issue in relation to our brave armed forces, who stood against those intent on death and destruction. We have seen the imbalance in resources and in the ferocity with which answers have been sought in instances involving our armed forces, compared with terrorism. It is not that long ago that I stood outside a Belfast courthouse with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) and the late Dennis Hutchings, who was chased to his grave by those intent on the vexatious prosecution of soldiers. Dennis, like others, was placed in that position in rural Ulster not through choice, but in response to a situation foisted upon our land. This country and this House put our young men and women in an incredibly dangerous position and, as part of their operational duties, they had to make very difficult operational decisions, sometimes with tragic outcomes. It is appalling that they should then be subject to the full rigour of criminal investigation, as proposed by the Bill. Furthermore, it is scandalous that should a soldier tell his story and it not be completely corroborated by documentary evidence, the burden of proof for the soldier is much higher than for the terrorist whom he was sent to defeat.

It was William Gladstone who famously said:

“Justice delayed is justice denied”.

However, the Bill is much worse. It is justice denied and justice destroyed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I appreciate his support on a point that I have made consistently: the current system is failing everybody. That is why we need to bring forward proposals that work for the people of Northern Ireland, for the victims as well as those who served so admirably in Northern Ireland to protect life and country. I can assure him that we are absolutely determined that this will be article 2-compliant. It has to be for it to be effective for everybody.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The sacrifice made by members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, GC, is one that I and many across Northern Ireland will never forget. Over 300 officers were killed and 9,000 injured at the hands, mainly, of the IRA. A recent report by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland laden with innuendo has caused great hurt among former RUC officers and families who lost loved ones. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the service and sacrifice of the RUC, the Ulster Defence Regiment and all those who donned a uniform are not besmirched under the auspices of addressing the legacy of the past?

[Brandon Lewis]

Yes, absolutely. The hon. Lady makes a very important point. There are so many people—hundreds of thousands—across the RUC and the armed forces who put their own lives at risk to protect others, and there is a huge difference between those who went out every day to protect life and those who went out determined to destroy lives. There can never be a moral equivalence; we would never accept one. She is absolutely right.

Public Prosecution Service and Legacy in Northern Ireland

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I take your words of caution seriously. I have worked hard with the Clerks to make sure that what I say falls within those boundaries. I thank you for granting this debate this afternoon.

This is an incredibly important subject. I have long been an opponent of the treatment of elderly veterans who served in Northern Ireland during the period known as the troubles. I have always thought that if people were actually aware of what we did to these veterans, they would be outraged, and so it has proved. I do not intend to spend time on their experiences in this debate. I have tried to be their voice at every opportunity, and I will continue to do so. I am so proud of them—we are so proud of them—and this weird shame, fuelled by those trying to rewrite this country’s history during that period at that generation of security force personnel who sacrificed so much to keep us safe, must end.

Today, though, I want instead to speak about why we are here and how we got here, and I must do it here. Every comment on any inference of unfairness in the justice system in Northern Ireland is often met by aggressive and threatening behaviour from those who have built themselves a very comfortable life off the public purse by prolonging awful experiences for the families of those who suffered during the troubles and veterans who were caught up in the diabolical blood-letting that occurred during that time in Northern Ireland.

I want to be clear about the context of my remarks. I know that different groups will take whatever they want from what I say today, and that is fine, but I want to be crystal clear at the outset: I have never campaigned for anything other than fairness in how we deal with legacy in Northern Ireland. I accept I come from the position of defending the majority of veterans who served their country with great distinction and upon whom the majority of the unfairness in recent years has fallen. I have been repeatedly clear to all on all sides on the need to prosecute and hold to account those who, with our flag on their arm, chose to step outside the professional boundaries all operators know and understand and could not adhere to the standards and values on which the British armed forces are built.

I have been equally clear, whether it has been in my dissemination of the Iraq or Afghanistan legacy systems, or that of Northern Ireland, too, that I have huge sympathy for the victims of those conflicts who lost loved ones and seek redress—particularly those who lost loved ones as a result of state actions. It is inhuman to think otherwise. I always approach these things as if it were my son or daughter, my mother or father who had lost their life. The state’s intervention in these things must always adhere to the highest standards, whether in the use of force or in investigations.

While I will always be in awe of the stunning bravery and humanity of the vast and totally overwhelming majority of those who served the state in Northern Ireland, it is clear that not every action met those standards. If we are to progress, we must accept that, for it is an undeniable truth, and to deny it prolongs the pain of those who were affected.

However, we must be equally honest about how difficult it is satisfactorily to redress these issues through the courts today in the 2020s—so difficult, it is impossible in the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases. The standard of investigations into many of the cases were unacceptably poor. We must deal with the world not as we want it to be, but as we find it. Those deficiencies have been exploited by a small but very vociferous and very aggressive group in Northern Ireland who operate predominantly but not exclusively in the legal and political systems. They place the interests of both groups of protagonists, both victims and veterans, far below their own interests, be they financial or electoral, and have built a grievance industry on these issues, which serves no one but themselves.

It is inevitable, given the studious record keeping of the state in Northern Ireland when contrasted with the murderous chaos conducted by the terrorists, that this pursuit of political and financial gain was inevitably going to be conducted only one way: against those who strived night and day to prevent civil war in Northern Ireland, and not against those who woke up in the morning and made deliberate and conscious choices to go and kill women and children in pursuit of their aims. There will never be any moral equivalence between the two. The people of these islands will never accept any moral equivalence and those who push that narrative are doing the terrorists’ work for them.

It is also a fact that when the Good Friday agreement was entered into, it was decided that the price worth paying for peace in Northern Ireland was to permit those who had previously led and directed that terrorist activity to enter Government. This applied equally across the board. Thus the leaders of the IRA and loyalist groups entered politics, exercising control over the Executive and, crucially, permitting these extremists and their associates to use the powers of the state to prolong their grievances—and while doing that, of course, concealing their own murderous behaviour. They seek to prosecute the very security forces that fought them and thereby won the peace. All this is very predictable and very inevitable.

Where is the evidence? Well let me give the House a couple of examples. I will stick to what you said earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will stick to facts that are in the public domain and only comment on public officials. I am determined not to rely on the parliamentary privilege you have granted today and I will be very careful.

It is a fact that when the five cases—none of which have resulted in a conviction—that came before the courts this year were decided on, the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland was an individual named Barra McGrory. I make no assertions on his motives at all, but it is a fact that Barra McGrory was, previous to his appointment, a long-term solicitor in Northern Ireland for the republican cause. His family members were present at the peace talks in Northern Ireland at the behest of the IRA. He represented Martin McGuinness at the Bloody Sunday inquiry and he represented Gerry Adams over many years.

It was Barra McGrory who decided to prosecute soldiers A and C in April this year, the trial that precipitated my leaving Government. It was the same Barra McGrory who asserted soldiers A and C had murdered a friend of Gerry Adams, the murderer and terrorist Joe McCann. I say murderer and terrorist, because it was accepted in court that Joe McCann had shot 15 soldiers. It is clear to any straightforward individual that Barra McGrory should have never been involved in this case in any way. Indeed, soldiers A and C were duly acquitted earlier this year because there was no admissible evidence against them. The judge said he was “surprised” this had not been realised before trial, clearly referring to the prosecution.

The problem with evidence was again raised in the recent trial of my friend Dennis Hutchings, when Barra McGrory, in almost total isolation and against advice, decided to prosecute Dennis. I say in isolation, because since Dennis has died the senior police officer charged with reviewing the evidence in that case has come forward and confirmed that he was very clear that this case should not be pursued, only to be overruled personally by Barra McGrory in his role as Director of Public Prosecutions. This happens everywhere in Northern Ireland. The Police Service of Northern Ireland, one of the most stretched and tested police forces in this nation, is overseen by the Northern Ireland Policing Board. Sitting on that board, holding the PSNI to account, is Gerry Kelly, who in a previous life shot a prison officer in the head and was convicted of causing a series of explosions in London.

I could go on about the total infiltration of the justice and political systems in Northern Ireland by those who, given their convictions, in any other country would be prevented from going anywhere near elected office or public service and handed the levers of state to re-write history in their image. It is madness. It destroys lives and it is preventing Northern Ireland from really coming to terms with its past and moving on to the bright future that almost everyone I have met there over the last year is eager to embark on.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for informing the House about the reality in Northern Ireland, and for the love and support that he offered to Dennis Hutchings—a good friend is hard to find, and he was a good friend to Dennis. Does he agree that of fundamental importance to the effective working of a justice system is public confidence in the structures of that justice system, and does he recognise that the reality in Northern Ireland is that cross-community confidence in the Public Prosecution Service is simply not there? Owing to its disgraceful pursuit of the Hutchings case and its inaction after the funeral of IRA terrorist Bobby Storey, Unionist confidence in the PPS is non-existent.

Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 26th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Like other Members on both sides of the House, I desire a stable Stormont and a Stormont that offers good government to the people of Northern Ireland. Indeed, I am sure everyone who is present today shares that desire.

When the institutions were torn down by Sinn Féin in early 2017, 1 was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The new Assembly had embarked on a fresh mandate with many promises to tackle the huge waiting lists, but unfortunately Sinn Féin, for the sake of its own selfish, narrow political agenda, shattered the hopes of that Assembly, and they were extinguished. Three years followed that have seen our public services degenerate. The legacy of Martin McGuiness’s resignation is seen to this day: longer waiting lists, a health service that is stretched beyond its limits, a social housing crisis, a roads infrastructure that is crumbling, missed investment opportunities for job creation, and other public services held back.

Of course, for those three years the Government did nothing to face down the petulant, self-serving actions of Sinn Féin, which is deeply regrettable. A kid-glove approach was adopted when it came to confronting Sinn Féin and its reckless actions, and sadly we remain under this threat, for we know that the Government have stated that if the cultural package contained in “New Decade, New Approach” is not delivered to Sinn Féin’s timetable, it will be brought through in this place.

Let me urge the Government to exercise extreme caution in this regard. If they are serious about letting elected representatives govern Northern Ireland, it simply cannot continue to be the case that when agreement cannot be reached or takes longer than one party may wish—and the established trend is that the party jumped to is Sinn Féin—the Government take the powers back to this place. That is the recipe for instability, and it is also the fuel that fires the growing disenchantment and disillusionment in the Unionist community with the whole Stormont edifice.

The Secretary of State knows of the deep hurt many people felt in Northern Ireland when the Government chose to intervene in the provision of abortion. A matter that was so profound to so many people, and on which agreement could well have been reached given time and space, was brought back to this place to placate the pro-abortion lobby and the pro-abortion parties for whom these services could not be delivered quickly enough.

This pick-and-choose devolution settlement only leads to discontent and disillusionment. It makes people ask what is the point of devolution if the Government intervene when the agenda of some must be satisfied. We can strengthen the legislative framework to make the institutions more stable through this Bill, but the greatest threat of instability to the institutions comes from a people that sees no point in them.

In this context, the necessity is for the Government to act to resolve the widespread community concern about the Northern Ireland protocol. Time is moving on, and the patience of this party and the people is not without limit; indeed, it is stretched to breaking point right now. Promises of progress, of conclusions in weeks, are just talk. Let us see the action that is needed to ensure that political stability is restored to Northern Ireland and the damaging impact of this disastrous protocol for all the people of Northern Ireland is consigned to the past.

[Colum Eastwood]

I entirely agree with what the hon. Lady said about the fact that Sinn Féin should never have pulled the Assembly down, and about the implications of that for our health service and our public sector in general. Now she has moved on to the threat from the Democratic Unionist party over the protocol. If she does not believe that any political party should threaten the institutions of the Good Friday agreement and the outworking of that, which is good government and good public services, will she speak to her party leader and ask him to withdraw his threat to those institutions?

[Carla Lockhart]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the protocol is damaging everyone within Northern Ireland, both economically and constitutionally, and I would ask him to go and speak to the businesses that are being impacted on a daily basis by the protocol. It certainly undermines the delicate balances of the agreement.

I have listened to the remarks from the hon. Members for North Down (Stephen Farry) and for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), and I am sure that I am not alone in finding it somewhat ironic that those parties that hold the Belfast agreement as some form of religious text have sought so hard to change some of its underpinning elements. We see this in the attempts to change the appointment of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and to change community designation, and in the quest to reform the petition of concern mechanisms, all of which were created and championed by those who now wish to do away with the old and bring in the new for their own political advantage. We in Northern Ireland are well used to the hypocrisy and double standards of the Alliance party and the SDLP, which are there for all to see in their amendments today.

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Lady makes a valid point about the views of business being heard during this further stage of negotiation and consultation with regard to the protocol. She is right on that, but I am failing to understand why tearing down Stormont and removing the voices of elected local representatives to make their case would help those businesses.

[Carla Lockhart]

The hon. Member will know that we have not done that. We want this Government to act on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. Lord Frost and his colleagues have heard clearly about the need to act and the damage that this is doing economically and constitutionally, and the hon. Member would do well to listen to the people of Northern Ireland and not just take it for granted that he is aware of their views.

I reiterate that if this Government continue to placate Sinn Féin’s ransom demands by legislating in this place to satisfy them, devolution will fail. Furthermore, if the provisions of the Belfast agreement around cross-community consent and our constitutional position continue to be set aside in the context of the future relationship between the UK and the EU pertaining to Northern Ireland, devolution will fail. Regardless of this Bill, the next few weeks will test the Government on their commitment to stable devolution in Northern Ireland.