Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I am also grateful to the Secretary of State for taking this action. I commend him and all the politicians who got us here, but does he agree that the real thanks and praise should go to Dáithí and his family for their fantastic campaign? It has been an extraordinary campaign, and they all deserve great praise.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Indeed. When I spoke to Dáithí earlier, I asked him whether he fancied his chances of being elected to this House and trying to put us all straight. A bit of common sense would probably go a long way in our dealings, and he and his family have displayed it in huge quantities.

Dáithí also met Mr Speaker and is now the proud owner of a Speaker teddy bear. I could make so many jokes, but I would never be called again if I went down that route. I know that he and his father Máirtín enjoyed meeting Mr Speaker. This change goes to show what can be done in politics when everybody comes together.

I will save my remarks on the technical details of the amendments for Committee, which I hope will commence shortly.

I have spoken a decent amount about the Bill’s dates and timelines, so I will conclude my remarks by noting an anniversary of which hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House are keenly aware—the upcoming 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Members throughout the House will doubtless join me in celebrating the progress that Northern Ireland has made since that historic agreement, which has served as an example of peacebuilding across the world. Looking back on the signing of the agreement, and the great strides that Northern Ireland has made since then, gives me a great deal of optimism, but I am also struck by the huge importance of delivering the functioning devolved institutions that the people of Northern Ireland endorsed by voting for it.

This Government will always seek to implement, maintain and protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and, as I said in my opening remarks, the restoration of the Executive therefore remains my top priority. The Bill will help to bring that about by avoiding an unwelcome election and providing space for the parties to work together to end the current impasse, but, of course, the Bill alone will not be enough to achieve that. We now need all Northern Ireland’s locally elected leaders to work together once again to make the most of the opportunity that it presents. I hope that they will take their cue from those who went before them and secured the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and display the co-operation, courage and leadership that are needed to deliver functioning devolved government in Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the shadow Secretary of State. I agree with much of what he said, and I agree with everything that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. Given the amount of Northern Irish legislation that we have had to deal with in recent months, it should come as no surprise that the Secretary of State sought the longest extension time he possibly could. I am not entirely sure whether he wanted that or whether the Leader of the House and the business managers said, “You can have one more go at this and don’t bother coming back again.” I think there is probably quite a lot of truth in that.

The Secretary of State is right to have gone long, regrettable though that is. The stakes are incredibly high, as we know. We are all familiar with the phrase “last chance saloon”. It has been applied on so many occasions to so many issues, particularly with regard to the politics of Northern Ireland, but we should be cognisant that this feels like a very important time in the negotiations on the protocol, and we await the outcome with interest. The Government are right not to give a daily running commentary and five-minute bulletins. These are big issues that need to be resolved calmly and amicably, and in the new spirit of trust and mutual respect. Therefore, it is a question of getting it right rather than getting it done by a particular time.

This is important, because if we get it right and a situation is alighted upon that can command near-universal support—ideally universal support—in this place and elsewhere, that will lead on to addressing all those points that we hear about weekly in the Select Committee, where the shadow Secretary of State and the Secretary of State have set out the problems relating to health, education, housing, infrastructure and the post-covid rebuilding of the economy. Those issues require real-time intervention by local politicians representing their communities and making the changes that people want. This could take one, two or three weeks. It will take as long as it needs to take in order to get it right.

All of us, irrespective of what side of the debate we come from, have been seized this week of the importance and seriousness of the time in which we are operating, of the need to get this right and of the urgency required to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland, for which there is a pent-up appetite in all parties. Nobody wants to be sitting metaphorically twiddling their thumbs; they want to be discharging the jobs to which they were elected. I think it was Dave Allen who used to say, “May your God go with you,” and now is the time, whichever God we believe in, if any, to pray that we are moving towards a solution that works across the piece and that can lead to an enduring settlement, in terms of wider UK-EU relations and how the protocol operates, and to ensure that a space can be carved out so that that deeper taproot of devolution, such as we see operating in Scotland and in Wales, can really take root and flourish in Northern Ireland.

[Colum Eastwood]

Does the Chairman of the Select Committee agree that in this sensitive period, when we are hopefully at the end of the negotiations, we all have a responsibility to be careful and to allow the negotiations to conclude, hopefully successfully? Does he also agree that in the Western Health and Social Care Trust, some people are waiting for eight years to see a consultant, and that that situation can no longer stand? We need a Government as soon as possible to deal with that crisis.

[Simon Hoare]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That takes me neatly on to the proposal tabled by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which broadly mirrors that tabled on a cross-party basis by the Northern Ireland parties represented in this place. The public are not really that interested in process.

I met Dáithí and his parents yesterday—I echo everything that has been said about him, because he is an inspirational and joyful young man—and through their quiet persistence they have made a case that can unify all political parties and those of no political persuasion, and shown that the changes we are making are the right thing to do. That speaks to the point referenced by the hon. Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for Hove (Peter Kyle), among others: that most people in Northern Ireland just want a better life. They want better housing, a better economy, better health outcomes and better education. For many, the processes by which those things are delivered are a moot point; they just want to see that step change and that improvement in their lives.

Nobody who has met the family over the last few days will have come away without a bit of a lump in their throat, because the family’s story is compelling and moving. There is also a simplicity to it, because what we are doing is such an obvious thing to do, but the hurdles of politics got in the way and prevented it from happening. Something almost as natural as drawing breath has been put on hold because of processes that the vast majority of people do not fully comprehend and do not see as particularly relevant to them. As I say, people just want to see changes, and this family’s story, which has led to the Government’s proposal, shows what a power for good we can be when we all put our shoulders to the wheel and face in the same direction.

I do not know about anybody else, but when I go on school visits in my constituency, I am often asked, “What’s the difference between you all?”. We talk about philosophy, principle and world view, but the one thing that unites us—the Government’s proposal throws a sharp light on this—is that none of us entered this place, or a district council chamber, Stormont, the Senedd or Holyrood, to make our communities worse off, to make people less happy or to make them less prosperous. We are all motivated to try to make things a little better for our communities in the time—however long it happens to be—that we have the honour to represent them in whichever elected forum we happen to serve. I hope that that spirit of hope and optimism, which is writ large in the Government’s proposals, is not restricted to them and to the cross-party working on them, because this is also about recognising the good that can be achieved by this place and other forums for our people.

I conclude with a point that is relevant to us all. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which I have the privilege of chairing, is currently taking evidence about the devastating impact of paramilitaries. The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and other Members will have heard it all. It is a hangover that nobody can quite understand and that everybody involved in the Good Friday agreement rather expected to have disappeared. We are also starting an inquiry on the Good Friday agreement itself, and there is something that worries me. The Secretary of State talked about leadership, and it is not just about leadership in Northern Ireland—this place needs to see leadership as well. We need a clear direction to be set—a path, a clarion call—and then the troops will follow. If there is no route map and no direction, we will be left slightly rudderless, which will allow all sorts of competing corks to bob around in the water, crashing into each other and causing more harm than good.

We have heard evidence from those closely involved in the run-up to and the delivery of the Good Friday agreement, and my worry is whether it could have been delivered if social media had been around. Social media can occasionally curtail political bravery, courage and leadership. People read those who follow them and those they follow, creating a self-perpetuating, self-endorsing echo chamber with a similarity of world view, where the more strident voice gets heard because, in that echo chamber, only stridency stands out. All of us will be being buffeted by social media over the protocol and other issues: “If you do this, you’re a traitor,” “If you do that, you’re a Lundy,” “If you do this, you’re not a Unionist,” “If you do that, you’re not a nationalist,” or, “If you do something else, you can’t be a Conservative.” It is all nonsense. We are all public servants, and the Bill is about trying to get that back up and running. I wish all the parties well, and the people of Northern Ireland wish them well, so let us make the progress we need.

Northern Ireland Budget Bill

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 23rd January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

For any problem to be resolved, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well, we need a Budget that Departments work from. The Northern Ireland Assembly has collapsed twice in the last four years. On both occasions, it collapsed without a Budget; that is a fact. It collapsed without a Budget because the Finance Minister could not present a Budget that people and other parties could sign up to. On both occasions, the Ministers responsible were Sinn Féin Ministers. All I am saying to the Chairman of the Select Committee is that we could not have had a functioning Assembly. Leaving aside the principle of consent, we could not have had a functioning Assembly because the Assembly did not have the authorisation to spend money on Departments because of the failure of Ministers.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is a former Finance Minister, but we should not go into his record in that Department if we want to get through the day. He knows that I am no supporter of Sinn Féin, but has he noticed that Sinn Féin has said that it would take the Department for the Economy if an Executive were formed tomorrow? Given everything we have seen over the past 25 years, that would likely mean that the DUP would get the Department of Finance. Surely that is an incentive for the DUP to go back into government and put a Budget in place very quickly.

[Sammy Wilson]

I do not want to get into history, but I would point out that in the first year I was Finance Minister, we had a 5% cut in the Budget in the middle of the financial year as a result of decisions made here, and we agreed a Budget. Furthermore, we agreed a Budget not just for one year but for three years, so it is possible for the Assembly to make decisions. All I am saying is that, in its current form and with the current party holding the Department of Finance, that has not been possible. The point I am trying to make is that rather than lay the blame at the feet of the DUP for not operating an Executive—in which its views were excluded anyway—we should lay the blame for this situation at the feet of those who could not make an operable Budget even when the Executive was functioning.

Moving on to my second point, the Minister has made great play today of the fact that Northern Ireland gets treated more generously than the rest of the United Kingdom. I accept that, but so do Scotland and Wales. One of the important things about being part of the Union is that there are fiscal transfers from those parts of the country that have geographical, economic and infrastructure advantages that other parts do not have. I do not believe that it shows a begging-bowl mentality when people in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland—or indeed the north of England—say, “Look, there are parts of the country that are richer, but one of the benefits of being part of the Union is that those parts help the areas that are in difficulty.” Indeed, the Government’s own philosophy at the moment is what? To level up, and to accept that there is a responsibility to transfer resources to those areas that, for whatever reason, face disadvantages.

I would point out to the Minister that the increase in the money we have had to receive is partly due to the protocol, which his Government signed up to. There is nearly £500 million a year in the trader support scheme, as well as the resources behind the extra sanitary and phytosanitary checks—the people who have had to be employed, the computers that have had to be installed and the buildings that we now find are going to be built, but not as a result of a decision made by Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive, because of course there could not be agreement on that.

Ministers at Westminster have now taken over the power to deliver at least a £47 million investment in border posts within our own country. There are questions—not for today, but at some other stage—about who authorised civil servants to start the work on those before Ministers in Westminster took responsibility, even though it was controversial. The Minister has talked about the difficulty of civil servants taking decisions, but it seems that when they want to, they can even make controversial decisions—decisions that split the United Kingdom and put border posts between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Nothing can be more controversial than that, yet civil servants seem to have been able to take those decisions.

The Bill allows Departments to spend until the end of this financial year, and then into the middle—I think it is June—of the next financial year. That is not unusual. Indeed, if the Assembly had been functioning, that power would have to have been given to give the Departments the ability to spend that money on account until the Budget was finally agreed—it usually was agreed, but it was not agreed in some cases—in the Assembly in June of this year.

There are aspects of the Budget that are particularly difficult: one, which has already been mentioned in interventions, is the expenditure on education. Once education and health are taken out of the Northern Ireland Budget, we do not have a great deal left, because they account for over 60% of spending between them. However, education has been specifically targeted by Ministers to face a reduction, even though education spending in Northern Ireland is at the lowest level per head in all parts of the United Kingdom. The difference between Northern Ireland and Scotland, for example, is £1,200 per pupil. I know that these things are not always solved by money: although Scotland has the highest level of expenditure per head when it comes to education spending on pupils, its outcomes are actually falling, so let us not imagine that there is a direct correlation all the time between spending money and getting outcomes.

I am sure the Minister will make the point that that is why it is important for Government Departments to make decisions about performance, efficiencies, productivity and so on. Some of the decisions that the Assembly has made have not been helpful in that regard. The Integrated Education Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, which was passed just before the Assembly collapsed, gives preference to one particular sector of the education system. I think that Act is going to make it much more difficult to rationalise education and, therefore, to ensure that money is better spent. While I do not want to go into the detail of the Act today, that is what the other sectors of education believe as well—that it is going to make that whole process of efficiency and spending in education more difficult than it is at present. Again, that is an example of where just having a devolved Administration, which should know local needs, does not always ensure that the most efficient decisions will be made.

On health, leaving aside the money that is spent directly from Westminster—annually managed expenditure —we are now spending nearly 45% of the total Budget that the Executive has to spend on health, yet outcomes are falling and waiting lists are increasing. I get letters from constituents and angry letters from doctors all the time, saying, “We need to spend more on health. We are under- resourced; we are underfunded.” I do not know how much of the Budget we can continue to take out and give to one particular sector—there are other areas, as Members have mentioned, including policing, infrastructure, education, universities, training, agriculture and industrial promotion. All those things are in competition, and we cannot simply say, “Here is one part of the Budget that we will keep pouring money into.”

Of course, as I mentioned, some money could be released for the trader support service and the other expenditure around the protocol—nearly half a billion pounds every year. As the Government now accept, the reason why that money is spent is that the protocol is such a big disadvantage and a burden on business that they need to help those businesses overcome the bureaucracy, and the barriers and impediments to trade between GB—our biggest market—and Northern Ireland.

The other point I wish to make on the Budget this afternoon is that when it comes to looking at priorities, even in the absence of devolution Ministers could do more to look at where we need to spend the money and direct civil servants. Despite what the Minister has said, civil servants now have the power to have greater flexibility in how money is spent. I know it is difficult for them and that some of those decisions are political, but there have already been political decisions made about the priorities that the previous Executive and the Assembly wanted. Surely those things should be guides to civil servants in making decisions about how money could be more effectively spent. As I have said, they make some controversial decisions in relation to the protocol, so there is no reason why we should not have tweaking of the Budget.

The last point I wish to—

--- Later in debate ---

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I promise not to make as many final points as were made in the previous speech. Listening to some of the contributions, one would almost think that Brexit was a bad idea for the people of the north of Ireland, given all the consequences. We do not have any influence or representation any more in the European Union, and I could think of one or two ways in which we could remedy that.

At the last election, the Conservative party in Northern Ireland secured 0.03% of the vote, but today the Conservatives are setting a Budget for the Departments and the people of Northern Ireland. They are doing so because the Democratic Unionist party will not go into government and take control of the Department of Finance and set a Budget for the people of the north of Ireland. The argument from the DUP seems to be, “Sure, we can’t fix everything, even if we do go back into government. There is no magic wand.” As a harsh critic of the DUP-Sinn Féin Government over many years, I can say that it is impossible to fix everything—absolutely, Stormont could not fix everything, but it is the job of public representatives to roll their sleeves up, get in there and try. It is like a Pontius Pilate concert—“nothing to do with us”—with hands being washed all over the place. The reality is that a Budget has been set by the Conservative party, which has absolutely no support in Northern Ireland, because the DUP will not go into government, although it could go into government tomorrow morning if it wanted to.

The Minister—a man I often agree with—made a clear point: there is no connection whatsoever between the negotiations that are going on between the European Commission and the British Government and the formation of a Government in Northern Ireland to deal with the problems that we face. Anybody who says otherwise is lying to themselves. In my view, the issues around the protocol will be resolved, but it is vital that a core part of that resolution respects the fact that we now have a fantastic opportunity, because of the protocol, to trade into two markets unencumbered—an opportunity that no one else has. Indeed, the Secretary of State is in America right now, selling to American companies.

[Paul Girvan]

We would not be where we are today if the DUP had not come out of the Assembly. Europe and everything else would have floated along quite happily and we would have been left to drift forever. We were told day in, day out, “We’re talking about this. We’re talking about that,” but we were getting nowhere. We had to do something, and this was the only opportunity.

[Colum Eastwood]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we would not be where we are today were it not for the actions of the DUP. And where are we? We have people dying in their homes because ambulances are not coming in time. We have people on trolleys for over 24 hours in every hospital in Northern Ireland. We have an Education Department that is being cut to ribbons by this Budget. We have people from my constituency emigrating every day because they cannot find work. Will that all be solved by the Executive in the morning? No, it will not, but it is our job to try. That is the whole point of representative democracy. That is the whole point of devolution. That was the whole point of the Good Friday agreement—that people who disagree with each other can come together and thrash out agreements to get things done. It is difficult and it is tough, but it is what we are supposed to do.

I welcome the conversion of the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) to levelling up areas that need it most. I will extend an invitation to him now to visit Foyle, because my experience of previous Executives is that they did not do an awful lot of levelling up there.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman continually raises this issue—sometimes taking a whining approach as well—but under the Executive I remember money going to the airport at Londonderry, Altnagelvin hospital getting the cancer centre and money being allocated for the road from Londonderry—

[Sammy Wilson]

I am thinking only of my own experience. Actually, the road was cut because the Irish Government said they were not going to make their contribution to it.

[Colum Eastwood]

It is interesting that people in Derry are entitled to some Government funding—thank you very much! My constituency has the highest unemployment, the highest claimant count and the highest household overcrowding, and it has five of the 10 most deprived areas in Northern Ireland. Maybe some work was done, and maybe some money was spent outside the Greater Belfast area, but it has not had the impact that some might claim.

If people think it is good enough or acceptable just to say that we will throw a few quid at people in Derry—people who have been left behind—after many decades, they are absolutely wrong. The New Decade, New Approach agreement was referenced earlier, and this Government have a responsibility for some of the commitments in it. I think of the expansion of Magee—there is still no funding for that from the Government. There is the Brandywell stadium—there is still no funding for that from the Government. And there is the Northlands addiction centre—we have had promise after promise, but the money is still not in a bank account.

Frankly, I find it difficult to watch people jumping up from their seats and giving excuse after excuse as to why it would not make any difference if we were in government, when people are literally dying on trolleys right now because they cannot get access to the health service. We are abdicating our responsibilities as elected representatives for the people.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

The hon. Member consistently attacks the Democratic Unionist party, but might I remind him about the history of his own party? When people were dying on the streets of Northern Ireland in their thousands, his party refused to take its seats at Stormont and participate in a functioning Assembly for very many years. He will argue there were valid reasons for that, but he should at least respect that if we are going to sort out our problems in Northern Ireland, Unionists also have an entitlement and a right to have valid reasons not to participate in institutions when they feel that their rights have been undermined and diminished.

[Colum Eastwood]

That is astonishing, given the fact that we had the Sunningdale agreement, where we had people working in those institutions. They were brought down, frankly, by people associated with the right hon. Gentleman’s political party and other Unionists. That accusation thrown at the Social Democratic and Labour party for not wanting to make institutions work is coming from someone who walked away in the dying hours of the negotiations to bring about the Good Friday agreement. That agreement had to be brought about because the three strands—the three sets of relationships—had to be recognised. We could not have an internal settlement in Northern Ireland without north-south institutions and institutions that recognise the east-west dimensions to our relationships as well, and it is absolutely ridiculous to state otherwise. We now have people in the DUP using the Good Friday agreement as a reason why they cannot go back into government. It is absolutely astonishing, it is wrong and it is an attempt to pull the wool over people’s eyes.

We all, in all our communities and constituencies, should recognise that the European social fund, for example, has gone. That was £40 million into communities, supporting 1,700 jobs and activity right across every single community. The British Government are proposing to give us half of that back, even though they told us that we would not lose a single penny as a result of Brexit. That is 800 jobs in the community and voluntary sector gone. We have councils across Northern Ireland right now considering massive rates hikes, which will put more pressure on ratepayers and small businesses, and it will mean that workers in those small businesses, many of whom are already on the breadline, will lose their jobs.

We also have an opportunity missed today—I think the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) and every other political leader in Northern Ireland will agree with me on this, because they all signed a letter about it—to implement the organ donation law known as Dáithí’s law. The Government missed the opportunity, and I ask them to revisit that. The work done by young Dáithí, his whole family and the people around that campaign deserves support from this Government.

I also put on record my condolences to Alex Easton, his whole family and his family circle. It is an awful tragedy to happen to anyone, and I cannot imagine what that family is going through.

We have proposed a change to the rules around how a Speaker would be elected, which I think could get the Assembly back up and running and at least see Committees meeting. It will not see an Executive up and running, but that is down to a political decision by the DUP. The DUP tells us that the basis of the Assembly is consensus—well, not in my experience. I do not remember an awful lot of consensus in the Assembly in the nine years I was there. The principle of consent is the basis for the Good Friday agreement, and it is a very different thing.

I am saying, as an Irish nationalist who thinks that all these economic and social outcomes will be better in a new Ireland—I think we will get there sooner than some people think, and I thank some of the people sitting to my left for that—and who wants to bring about constitutional change, that the principle of consent is sacrosanct. It is not going anywhere, and it is not changing. This pretence that we have been taken out of the United Kingdom and nobody noticed is the basis of the boycott of the Executive, but I must have missed the victory party, if we are now all in a united Ireland. I did not notice.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

Now you’re being childish.

[Colum Eastwood]

No, I am not being childish. The DUP’s argument is that this is a constitutional rupture and the people of Northern Ireland have been taken out of the United Kingdom. That has been said twice by DUP Members in this debate, and it is simply not true. If that is what they want to tell people, it is a very strange way of being a Unionist.

My view is that the Assembly is there to deal with all the problems we have in the health system and the education system. I want to see a united Ireland, and I will work to make that happen, but I have to convince enough people and we have to have a referendum, and that is when the principle of consent comes into play. The two things should not be conflated. A political decision has been made by the DUP, and there are consequences for it. My view is that the DUP has to own those consequences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Member for clarifying that point. I will write to him on that. The PSNI is close to my heart, and I am extremely grateful to all the people who work for the PSNI for everything that they do to keep us all safe.

The Opposition spokesman the hon. Member for Hove, the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) all talked about education funding. According to information published by the Treasury, identifiable public spending on education stood at £1,759 per head in Northern Ireland for the 2020-21 financial year. That compared to £1,428 per head for the UK as a whole over the same period. That was 23% higher than the UK average. That reflects our commitment to Northern Ireland and to education.

The Department of Education projected significant levels of overspend, but this Budget has actually delivered an increase in education spending of just under £300 million. We recognise that pressures above that level of increase will require difficult decisions to be taken, but we believe that those decisions are deliverable within the legal framework that we have set out in the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022 and the accompanying guidance.

I was grateful to the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) for his point about efficiency savings that could be made in education. My goodness, yes there are some. Again, that integrated education could even be a question in the 21st century is extraordinary to me. There are certainly savings to be made. That level of additional funding represents around a 12% increase on the previous year, excluding the additional funding allocated for covid. That really is as much as could be afforded in the light of the £660-million black hole that we were facing. Overall, that demonstrates just how unsustainable Northern Ireland finances have become and the need for reform.

The hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) mentioned women’s healthcare, particularly the misery of endometriosis. Once again, this is a shocking situation to be in. The hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) talked about the lack of collective shame. In this day and age, we should be ashamed of the state of public services in Northern Ireland. For far too long we have been just grateful for peace and have not done enough to highlight across the whole of the UK what needs to be done to serve the people of Northern Ireland because, my goodness, they deserve good services.

This Budget provides £7.28 billion in funding for the Department of Health. That is an increase of £228 million on 2021-22 spending, which included significant covid-19 funding. It is an increase of £786 million compared with last year’s funding, excluding the one-off covid uplift. As with education, there will be difficult decisions to take on health. Decisions on the reform of healthcare will be difficult. The Bengoa report, as we have discussed, should be carried forward. Too many years—six—have gone by without progress. We need to see Executive return as soon as possible.

I will make one more point before I conclude. I responded to the hon. Member for Foyle in an earlier debate on the addiction rehabilitation centre. I can tell him that the Government stand ready to respond to a proposal submitted by the Executive. I know it is frustrating; I am frustrated because I want to give him the answer he wants. We are waiting on that Northern Ireland Department of Health business case.

[Colum Eastwood]

I am extremely frustrated, as the Minister knows, because this has been going on since the New Decade, New Approach and beyond. We have people dying every single day of addiction-related conditions. Can I press him on one issue that was raised by me and other colleagues, which has a total support across political parties in the Northern Ireland? It is Dáithí’s law on organ donation. Will the Government do something to address that wrong, and to follow through on what had already begun when we had an Assembly and an Executive?

[Mr Baker]

The Secretary of State is reflecting on that very thing right now. I believe he is meeting the parents, although I cannot confirm when. The point is well made. The Secretary of State will certainly reflect on it. I will no doubt be party to those decisions.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Bill

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 29th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point that is well evidenced; that is why the protocol needs fixing.

I have separately set out in a written statement to this House how the Government intend to respond to the budgetary issues that have arisen in Northern Ireland. I do not intend to go into the detail of the budget now, but right hon. and hon. Members will see from the written statement just how difficult the fiscal situation in Northern Ireland is at present. The Government will be bringing forward a separate budget Bill in which more detail will be provided, and no doubt this House will want to consider that Bill particularly carefully.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that New Decade, New Approach contains many commitments, such as funding the Northlands Addiction Treatment Centre, the Magee university expansion and the Brandywell stadium—all in my constituency—and that in this new context they should not be seen as controversial but should be able to get funded even though we do not have Ministers in the Executive?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I believe I have just laid a written ministerial statement to give an update on how the Government are delivering on the commitments in the New Decade, New Approach paper. The hon. Gentleman is quite right that all these things can happen simultaneously or separately and at different speeds, and have done, but there is also a fundamental issue, which was noted at that time, with the protocol. This Bill, though, is about creating the conditions in which key decisions in Northern Ireland can be taken, including on the implementation of the budget, rather than the content of the budget that I was describing before the intervention.

I will briefly summarise the overall intention of the Bill before running through its provisions. At the outset, though, I must say that I am grateful to those on the Opposition Benches—all of them—for their co-operation in moving this Bill forward. Specifically, though I know I should perhaps save this for Third Reading, I thank the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), for the constructive and cross-party fashion in which he and others on the Opposition Front Bench have approached this Bill, both in this place and the other place. I am also grateful to him for speaking to me on this important Bill over the weekend and for speaking to my hon. Friend the Minister of State yesterday evening.

The Bill broadly seeks to do three main things. It retrospectively extends the period of Executive formation for two six-week periods. That means, subject to the agreement of this House and the other place, that if an Executive is not formed within those timeframes, the election duty placed on me will kick in after the second extension of six weeks, on 20 January 2023.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Farry]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his intervention because it gives me the opportunity to reiterate that my party has consistently advocated reform of the Assembly structures. It has been in our party manifestos going back to 1999. In particular, in the period between 2017 and 2020, my party made numerous comments publicly on the need for reform. I will gladly forward copies of speeches made by my party leader to party conferences to the right hon. Member so that he can read them with a great deal of interest.

[Colum Eastwood]

Far be it from me to get involved in this conversation between the Alliance party and the DUP, but would the hon. Member like to tell us his understanding of what the DUP’s position actually is on mandatory coalition, because as far as I am concerned, it seems to be a new convert to the principle?

[Stephen Farry]

We can look at this in two different ways—what happened before 1972, and what happened in the 1970s and 1980s through to what happened during the talks. I would stress that, if we read the DUP manifestos up to the point of its current walk-out, we can see that it was actually a fan of reform of the institutions and moving away from mandatory coalition. It was a principle for the DUP then, but that is no longer the case. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) famously went on “Question Time” during the last impasse and lambasted the situation in which a party with about 25% of the vote was able to frustrate the institutions. I think I will leave it there.

Northern Ireland Elections

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I concur with the sentiment behind my hon. Friend’s question. He has mentioned a whole host of important interlocutors in this space. Drawing on my experience of European institutions, I do not believe that the protocol was written in malice. I believe that it was written in a way that people believed would work. However, the practicalities of it are obvious to all in Northern Ireland in many different ways. Even its partial application is disrupting goods and the way people can go about their business, and it has had serious ramifications for consumers and businesses across Northern Ireland, so it absolutely does need to be reformed. This is now recognised by all the parties in all negotiations.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

May I say at the outset that I was never quiet when Sinn Féin kept the institutions of the Good Friday agreement down? I will challenge any party that tries to stop the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland being properly implemented.

I thank the Secretary of State for recognising that an election at this time is a bad idea and would make things worse rather than better, and for recognising that an arrangement will have to be put in place in the absence of an Executive, but does he not agree that it is pretty shameful, in the middle of winter when people and businesses are panicking about their bills, that one party is preventing a Government from being formed in Northern Ireland so that we can deal with those issues? Surely now is the time to put these arrangements aside, have a DUP Deputy First Minister go into Stormont and have an Executive to deal with the priorities of the people.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I believe that it would require quite a leap of faith for that to happen at this time, and I have to deal with the reality of the situation that we find ourselves in. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, a huge swathe of the Unionist community has found its lives disrupted and really worries about the implications there. I completely understand his sentiment, because there are also important issues—energy and a whole host of other things—that affect every single person in Northern Ireland. That is why I am bringing forward legislation to create, I hope, the time and space—as I will say time and again—for the UK and the European Union to develop their talks and for the parties to work together in the hope that we can restore the devolved institutions as soon as possible.

Derry Addiction Centre

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered delivering on New Decade, New Approach commitments to a Derry addiction centre.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I will begin with a quote from a service user of the Northlands addiction centre in Derry, which has served the people of our city for almost 50 years. It reads:

“My mother on one side of me, crying her heart out, my elder sister on the other side with a Kleenex in one hand and her head in another. I didn’t know how I felt. I didn’t know how to feel. I was numb. No tears, no emotions, just nothingness. All I could do was stare at a spot on the carpet and try not to look up and see the hurt and pain in my mum’s face.

That was over two years ago, and thankfully, I haven’t had to lift a drink since I came in here. Today though, I can feel, I can cry, and I can see what my mother and my sister meant all that time ago. I can see for myself the hurt and the pain and the despair my drinking was causing to my family and myself. Today, the difference is, I can do something about it. I am learning about myself and this horrible disease every day of the week, and for today anyway I didn’t drink, and for me as an alcoholic, that’s a miracle. The treatment in Northlands along with the help of AA since then has given me my life back; it’s given me a life!”

That is just one of many thousands of stories from people in the city of Derry and right across Northern Ireland who have been affected by the disease of alcoholism and drug addiction, and who have been helped by the wonderful volunteers and staff at the Northlands centre in Derry.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward. I talked to him at the airport on Monday, and today as well. Unfortunately, what he is referring to in his constituency is replicated across Northern Ireland and in my own constituency, where there are addiction and drug issues, and where young people are committing suicide. I know that is replicated in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, so I commend him for securing the debate.

My understanding is that the Department of Health is holding the money up. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that, through this debate and through the Minister, we might be able to ensure that the money that was promised can be allocated to the maiden city, and to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, to make things better for them? There seems to be a wee hold-up.

[Colum Eastwood]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the impact of the disease of addiction is felt keenly right across our constituencies. Of course, it is important to say that the Northlands centre, which is referred to in the New Decade, New Approach agreement, serves people from right across Northern Ireland. Every single constituency is affected by it.

Now that I see the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), in the Chamber, I might say a word about how we got to this point. For three long years, we did not have an Executive—it feels a bit like we are approaching that period again. During the long hours of torturous negotiation, there was a lot of publicity around a couple of issues, but some of us were focused on a lot more. We wanted to see an Executive back, but an Executive that actually worked on issues that matter to people.

Late one Friday night, the right hon. Gentleman and I had a long discussion about what it would take to get us back into the Executive if we had a successful negotiation. People will understand that, for me, one of those things was the expansion of the Magee university campus. Another was the Northlands centre, which, after many decades of work, has a strong proposal for a world-class addiction centre in Derry. True to his word, as always, the former Secretary of State got that commitment into the New Decade, New Approach agreement. I was very grateful for it, as were the people of Derry.

However, as we know in Northern Ireland, words on a page are not enough. What we need is money in a bank account and proper commitment. To be fair, we had that commitment from the previous Government in the form of New Decade, New Approach, and I have had support from the current Government. We now really need an Executive in Stormont to deliver that. Unfortunately, even when we had an Executive—and we had a Minister up until last Friday—we still could not get the money out.

There are a number of things that I would like this Government to commit to now. What we need is an understanding of what happens if we do not have an Executive. I think all of us in the Chamber want to see an Executive as soon as possible. I would love to see all parties commit to get into government urgently—to get round the table and do the job that we were all elected to do. However, I want the Minister to answer a number of questions for me in the event that that does not happen.

Are the British Government still committed to delivering on the Derry addiction centre aspect of NDNA? We hear an awful lot about all the commitments, but this is a very important commitment for many people. What is the impact of the political instability on this particular proposal, and how will this Government act if we do not have a functioning Executive? As much as we all will it and want it, if we do not get to the point of having a functioning Executive, will those people who rely on this world-class service, and those who do not even know that they are going to rely on it, be able to access it?

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

Last year and the year before, on average almost every day in Northern Ireland somebody died because of the way that they misused alcohol. Does the hon. Member agree that if that number of deaths were caused by any other issue, Government would absolutely be on top of it and we would have the Executive up and running and functioning? Does he agree that there is no excuse for the lack of clarity from Government?

[Colum Eastwood]

The hon. Member is absolutely right; one person every single week dies from alcohol-related disease in Northern Ireland. If we add in drug-related deaths, we are talking about 10 deaths a week. Imagine the outcry if that was happening in full public view; we would be rushing to deal with the issue at every level of Government. Frankly, there is no excuse any more for anybody to stand in the way of this commitment.

New Decade, New Approach was an international agreement, signed off by two Governments and supported by five political parties. Some of us actually went into government on the basis of this and other commitments. Everybody in the Chamber knows about the cost of living crisis and the time it takes to access the health service. We should all know about the impact of drug addiction and alcoholism in our communities. We should be rushing to get this money out the door and spent.

Northlands has a very proud record. I want to put on record just how grateful the people of our city, and the people of Northern Ireland, are to all the staff and volunteers at Northlands, as well as all the people who put their money in the boxes to support that wonderful service. Over the past five years alone there have been 1,186 weeks of treatment for hundreds of people attending the six-week residential programme at Northlands, and 12,886 non-residential counselling slots have been used. On average, over 35% of people for whom the data is available in that period are in recovery, with an average of under 10% in relapse management.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

Will the hon. Member talk a little more about the team behind Northlands? I recall from my time as Secretary of State that it is not a commercial or money-making enterprise; it is local people who understand the specific issues with addictions in Derry and are passionate about those priorities. They are deeply impressive, and I think it would be useful for the Minister to hear a bit more about the people behind Northlands.

[Colum Eastwood]

I am grateful for the right hon. Member’s intervention and I want to put on record my gratitude to him for getting the commitment in writing in the agreement. He went to meet the people behind the Northlands centre—people like Denis Bradley and many others, who over many years gave of their time, expertise and love for the people of our city and the people who have been struggling with this disease. The House would not believe the number of people who are very grateful for the work they have done.

It is also important to say that in our city and in other parts of Northern Ireland, we are faced with another problem: the grip of paramilitarism. Paramilitaries use drug addiction and abuse to coercively control communities in a way that needs to be tackled. In my view, the best way to tackle it—because we have tried everything else—is to deal with the root cause, which is addiction. Organisations such as the Northlands centre do that in a way that needs huge support. What better way to do that than to get this money into that organisation’s bank account and to get this project delivered?

Before I finish, I ask again: will the Government continue to be committed to funding this service? What will happen if we do not see an Executive formed as a matter of urgency? Will this Government step in if we do not get a Health Minister at Stormont? I hope that we do, and I assume the Minister is going to talk about the need for an Executive. He has no bigger supporter in that call than me, but if we do not get an Executive, what are this Government going to do? Of course, it was this Government who committed to getting this money to Northlands and getting the project up and running. I am grateful to the Minister for being here, but I will be even more grateful if we can get this money spent, as has been committed to.

Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to speak, but it is even more of a pleasure to be called to speak second in this debate. I am very honoured. I will speak to amendments 1 to 5. Members of my party have tabled some 23 amendments, which show the quantity of our concerns and the quantity of ways in which the Bill does not set the scene for those of my Unionist community. I have been contacted by many of my constituents in Strangford, and indeed by some people who do not have an MP who will take their place to do their job. As a member of the public said to me, “Why would Sinn Féin need to take their seats at Westminster when Members of this House and”—I say this with respect—“on certain occasions, members of the Government are intent on doing their work for them?” What an accusation to those on the Government Front Bench, whose party we have supported on many occasions, and to the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, with whom I have friendship but who has not grasped this issue for us, despite what we said the last time around.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on being called to speak early in the debate. Does he accept that it is not just Sinn Féin that cares about the Irish language or the protection of minority languages and cultures?

[Jim Shannon]

I accept that. The hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) explained very well where her party stands on this issue. I will speak from my Ulster Scots point of view and from the Unionism that I represent in this House and in the constituency of Strangford.

The fact is that a large proportion of people in Northern Ireland feel that this Bill is nothing more than a sop to Sinn Féin, and that the losers will not be simply the Unionist population, whose culture and heritage will be in second place legislatively; people will lose financially, because the money for this could be used to pay for an additional midwife on shift to assist the safe delivery of babies, an extra surgeon to perform a cataract operation, or an extra classroom assistant to help a special needs child to achieve their potential.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

I have clearly understood. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) are two of my best friends in this place, and to hear them speak as they just have is personally very painful. I want to reassure them and say on a slightly lighter note that while they accuse us of being a wing of Sinn Féin, Sinn Féin is perfectly content to tell me that we pander too much to the Democratic Unionist party—

[Colum Eastwood]

You do.

[Mr Baker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I suspect that, at the moment, what the Government are doing is about right, given that we appear to be offending all quarters. When I make my speech, I will answer the hon. Member for Strangford as best I can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making that very important point about the powers of the commissioner, which was going to be my next point.

Far be it from me to hand out any advice to nationalists, but if I was a nationalist, I would want to try to satisfy Unionists on this point. I would not want to laugh at them, as appears to be the attitude—

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Who’s laughing?

[Ian Paisley]

Laughing and pouring scorn on their identity leaves Unionists—[Interruption.] “I’m laughing at you, not what you’re saying”—so you’re laughing at a people and at a community—is the barrow-boy response that comes back. I do not say those things. I have a very good record of not saying those things. I cherish people’s identity. What makes me strong as a Unionist is that I can have my identity and understand someone else’s. I love—not despise—the diversity that is there. It is the diversity that makes us strong. That is the point that the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) should dwell on when he speaks later on. No doubt he will.

The issue—this is the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made—is about having due regard in terms of the commissioner. That is the point of the authority of the commissioner. The commissioner that will deal with the identity that matters most to me will effectively be powerless and emasculated from day one, unable to make a single ruling that must be taken care of or noted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Farry]

I disagree; I think that the Bill is a good, honest attempt at getting these proposals over the line. Frankly, we need to move on, get this done and get it into law.

[Colum Eastwood]

I thank the hon. Member for giving me a useful opportunity to make this point. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) talked about embracing diversity. That is wonderful language. In Derry, since we got rid of the old Derry Corporation, we got proper democracy into local government after the civil rights movement, and we have been embracing diversity in Derry. We have all the old Unionist and British symbols still up in the Guildhall. We have added new ones that represent other traditions, such as the one that I represent. We have also done power sharing since the beginning of that council’s inception. The Social Democratic and Labour party had the most seats, but we had a Unionist deputy mayor and we had Unionist mayors over many years. The council in the area that the hon. Member for North Antrim represents has not had a nationalist mayor or deputy mayor since its inception. Does the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) think that that is acceptable or that it embraces diversity?

[Stephen Farry]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. It did take the use of the d’Hondt method in councils to get diversity moving, although the council in question, which has been in the news somewhat—rather controversially—over the past number of months now has an Alliance mayor, so hopefully that is progress to an extent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I did not say that; I said that when the draft order was published last week, this was not on the Order Paper. I spoke to the then Chief Whip, who gave me the assurance that such a sensitive issue as this would not be debated further until after any Assembly election, yet here we are.

I have to look at this and come to the conclusion that there appears in the NIO to be fairly blunt attempt, in fast-tracking this legislation today and in refusing to take any amendments to deal with Unionist concerns, to further an agenda. I do not say that lightly. I am not given to making accusations that have no substance. I believe that this is a blunt attempt by the Northern Ireland Office to deliver a key demand made by Sinn Féin so that Sinn Féin can go to the polls and trumpet their achievement, and not to accept any Unionist amendments so that Unionism cannot go out and say, “We believe this is a fair and balanced approach to very sensitive issues.”

When we signed up to the New Decade, New Approach agreement, it was about the terms for restoring devolved government in Northern Ireland after three years of Sinn Féin saying that we could not have a Government until the Irish language issue was addressed. That is an indisputable fact. That was their key demand. New Decade, New Approach was therefore a package that was designed to address the concerns of people across the community, and it was the basis for restoring devolved government.

For Unionism, two key elements—among others—of that agreement helped us take the decision to go back into the power-sharing Executive. One was the UK Government’s commitment to protect and restore Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market. Two and a half years later, that has not been delivered. That is why, in February, I reluctantly had to take steps to withdraw the then First Minister—because the Government had not delivered their New Decade, New Approach commitment.

The second element was ensuring a balanced outcome on language and identity. The Bill destroys that balanced outcome. I therefore say to the Minister in all candour that if the Bill goes through unamended, we will have to return to the issue, because it is a key part of New Decade, New Approach. The measure needs to be balanced and respect the identity and culture of the Ulster British and Ulster Scots communities in Northern Ireland. We will not settle for second best. We will not settle for our identity and culture being treated as second class.

Our amendments are not about changing the provisions on the Irish language. We are not seeking to level down. We are not trying to diminish the rights in the Bill. We want to ensure parity of esteem for the Ulster British and Ulster Scots tradition, heritage and culture. We are not seeking to do anyone down. We want—to use a phrase that the Government often use—to level up, so that our identity, culture and heritage can be fully protected and respected, just as we expect the identity, heritage and culture of others to be protected and respected.

[Colum Eastwood]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving way, but will he bring a little clarity to some of his remarks? He said that DUP Members would return to the issue. He is entitled to his opinion and position on any issue, but we already have no Government in Northern Ireland because of the DUP’s stance on the protocol—we will not debate that today. What exactly is the right hon. Member saying about the DUP’s position if the Bill goes through? In my view, we have a desperate need for a Government in Northern Ireland.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I agree that we want the political institutions to be up and running. We have often heard from others that agreements should be honoured. That is often the mantra of others. New Decade, New Approach is not being honoured today. I simply say to the hon. Member and the House that we will not settle for the Bill as the final outcome. We will continue to argue our case that further protections need to be provided. I will listen carefully and closely to the Minister. This is not the end of the matter. It needs to be dealt with properly. We need fairness, equity and parity of esteem. We have often been told that that is what we want. That is what we need, and that is what I desire for the communities that we represent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Steve Baker]

What a debate it has been. Such passion and fire in Committee is relatively unusual, and I am grateful to have the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government.

The first thing I should say is that we have engaged widely with the Ulster-Scots Agency, Conradh na Gaeilge and others. I have been pleased to do so and Opposition Members spoke about the Government and me hitting the ground running and making good progress. That is why we have been so active in Northern Ireland, because we have engaged. Of course, we will continue to engage. Before we go any further, I should say that of course we will keep the operation of the Bill under review, but let us not forget that, as was pointed out, the Bill is before the House only because the Assembly is not able to take it through. It is an attempt to implement New Decade, New Approach faithfully and I want to get on to some of the detail about that.

We have worked closely with right hon. and hon. Members. I am grateful to the leader of the DUP, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), for his letter, and we have exchanged lengthy letters. I will not have time to get into all the points he made, but to make the best use of the time available I think I should turn directly to the DUP amendments. The Government stayed in regular contact with the DUP and the five parties to New Decade, New Approach on the content of the Bill and we have certainly appreciated regular engagement at both an official and a political level. This morning, the right hon. Gentleman and I met to discuss the provisions and I am under absolutely no illusions whatsoever about the great and earnest passion with which he approaches these issues.

I am 51 years of age and a former Royal Air Force engineer officer. Anyone can work out what the security situation was when I was a young man, so it takes quite a deal of Christian charity for me not to respond in kind when I am accused of pandering to Sinn Féin. I think perhaps we had better leave that there. I have no intention of pandering to Sinn Féin; I am a Unionist and I am under an obligation to play my part in governing Northern Ireland impartially, and that is what I intend to do.

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley particularly talked about the delay in memorialising the victims of Enniskillen. It is shocking to think that anyone stood in the way of memorialising the victims and it is frankly shaming on those who stood in the way of putting that memorial in place, but I do not think the amendment he proposes will solve that problem or category of problem.

[Colum Eastwood]

rose—

[Mr Baker]

I am very short of time, but I will give way.

[Colum Eastwood]

I understand that, but I think that it is important to put this point on the record. We have heard talk about Sinn Féin this and Sinn Féin that, so will the Minister maybe take the opportunity to put it on the record that people who love the Irish language do not necessarily vote for Sinn Féin? It is a language that has been embraced by people from right across our community; it is not a political tool and it should not be treated as one. That has been part of the problem up to now.

[Mr Baker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record. I am also conscious that I need to respect the fact that Sinn Féin are not here to speak for themselves, but I do engage with them regularly and I hope that they have found that I do so respectfully. I just wanted to make the point to the hon. Gentlemen opposite who have made some strident allegations towards me and towards the NIO, and I hope that they will not mind if I respond gently that these things are potentially also offensive to me and to others.

On the substance of the amendment, I really do appreciate the strength of feeling, as I think I have indicated, and I understand the rationale advanced by right hon. and hon. Members. I draw their attention to clause 1 and the establishment of the office, because the national and cultural identity principles are there, applying to all public authorities, and they should take considerable comfort from that.

The crux of the matter is that the two commissioners each have a very different scope. The Irish language commissioner must have their guidance approved by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister acting in concert, whereas although there is a power to direct the Ulster Scots and Ulster British commissioner, they can issue what guidance they see fit and across a broader scope. I could comment further on the exact definition of that scope, but the point is this: were I to accept the DUP amendments, there would be four serious problems.

First, they would create a much more powerful commissioner, with a much broader scope and less accountability to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I think that nationalists could reasonably object that that was out of kilter. We have been trying to stay very close to New Decade, New Approach and to respect its balance. We have the office dealing with issues of identity and the principles, and the two commissioners with different scopes and purposes. That is why we have this very delicate balance.

I just do not think that the amendments would achieve some of the purposes sought—in a heartfelt way—particularly those relating to language, arts and literature. It is difficult to see how some of that would work out in practice. Again, I refer people to the principles. It would be difficult to implement and, on a practical note, it would open the Bill up to ping-pong, which could lead to the whole agreement being unpicked in this House.

I will finish by making three firm commitments to the DUP in particular from the Dispatch Box. First, I will discuss the issues they have raised with the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. Plainly, these matters need to be addressed. Secondly, we will of course keep the operation of this legislation, when it comes into force, under review. However, I say gently that it is probably for the Assembly to legislate in this area. Thirdly, as hon. Members have seen, I am not afraid to call out intolerable conduct when it arises—for example, I called out the chanting of “up the ’RA”. Without promising to do so on every occasion, because I suspect I would do nothing else, I am absolutely committed to getting involved in this problem.

What I observe is that some of the hurt and the problems will never be dealt with through legislation. What is required is a change of hearts and for people to do as they would be done by. I am sorry that I have not had more time to go through all the amendments in detail, but I have been asked to wrap up my speech at this point.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

This Bill is a very welcome development. It is not the Irish language Act that we would have liked to see, but it is an important step on the way to recognising that the Irish language is a key part of the identity of many people in our community, and that has to be recognised in law. I am also sorrowful that this was not done in the place where it should have been done. People should be there at work in Stormont, doing the work that they were elected to do, and I am sorrowful that we could not do this in the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is a terrible shame that we have had to wait for decades even to get to this point, and maybe there is a lesson in that. If we keep dragging out these issues, if we keep denying our respect for each other’s diversity, we will keep having to come back to do it this way, which is shameful.

The Irish language has been embraced by people across our community. It was protected, supported and defended by Presbyterians many years ago, and it is now being supported, protected and enriched by people from different backgrounds in east Belfast and right across our community, in the same way that the Ulster Scots tradition and identity has informed my identity and the identity of the people I represent. We should all be big enough to be capable of acknowledging, embracing and celebrating each other’s identity. That is the only way forward for the community we all represent.

Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I am always happy to listen to the hon. Gentleman’s contributions in this House.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I am glad to see the Secretary of State implementing these key parts of New Decade, New Approach. Of course, other commitments within that agreement could not be delivered even when we had an Executive. There was a key commitment for 10,000 students at Magee University in Derry. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) agreed that we could have a medical school at Magee, which has now been delivered, but the real prize is a full-scale university for the people of Derry. Will the Secretary of State commit to getting that done?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

The Government are committed to delivering on New Decade, New Approach and all its commitments. That has come forward at different stages, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, and today we are hopefully celebrating the Second Reading of this part of that delivery.

It will not have escaped right hon. and hon. Members that the Bill began life in the other place, where the debate was typically forensic. The Government will move a number of amendments to address issues raised in the other place, and I will shortly delve into their content in slightly more depth, but I hope right hon. and hon. Members will be able to support them when the time comes. I feel strongly that the amendments will improve the Bill.

I will briefly discuss the overall strategic intention of the Bill before running through its provisions in turn. Broadly speaking, the Bill delivers on the commitments detailed in annex (e) of New Decade, New Approach to

“respect the freedom of all persons in Northern Ireland to choose, affirm, maintain and develop their national and cultural identity and to celebrate and express that identity in a manner which takes into account the sensitivities of those with different national or cultural identities and respects the rule of law.”

In practical terms, the Bill does this by broadly replicating the draft legislation on identity and language published alongside New Decade, New Approach. As I have already set out, the draft legislation was prepared by the Office of the Legislative Counsel in Northern Ireland at the request of the UK Government. We have done our utmost to stay as close as possible to the draft legislation. The Bill therefore provides for the delivery of a cultural framework, as set out in New Decade, New Approach, to the benefit of the whole community in Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 4th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Conor Burns]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with great emotion and personal connection to these events. I extend again, from this Dispatch Box, my sympathy to him and to all those in Northern Ireland, in Ireland and across these islands who felt the impact of the brutality and evil of events perpetrated in the name of Irish republicanism, and indeed some in the name of loyalism.

The hon. Gentleman mentions matters relating to the Government of the Republic of Ireland. That Government, on behalf of the Irish state, freely entered into commitments that they would have a process for information to be brought forward for people so that we could find out what happened. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the proposals in the Bill and the information recovery unit would absolutely be strengthened if the Government of the Republic of Ireland came forward with their own proposals, so that we could deal with the issues across the totality of these islands. I very much hope that the commitment that was undertaken will be delivered by the Irish Government in due course.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Conor Burns]

I will, but I will not do today what I did last Wednesday, which was to take about 40 interventions and detain the Committee for an hour. I want to set the scene for what our debate today will cover and the scope of the Bill’s clauses and amendments. However, I give way to the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party.

[Colum Eastwood]

I am grateful. The Minister mentions that the Irish Government made commitments. I absolutely agree that they need to deliver on those commitments, but they were made in the context of the Stormont House agreement. The British Government made commitments as well, but they are now moving miles and miles away from the Stormont House agreement, stopping any opportunity for people to get access to truth and justice, despite what the Minister might say.

[Conor Burns]

We believe that the commitment made by the Government of the Irish Republic was a stand-alone commitment to bring forward their own legislation to have a means of resolving some of the unresolved cases to the benefit of all, to aid the process of information recovery and reconciliation across the island of Ireland and the totality of these islands. We could rehearse—although I do not think that it would be particularly helpful, because the hon. Gentleman and I both know the arguments that would be deployed—why we have come to the conclusion that the process around Stormont House and the bodies that are in place will not, in our judgment, deliver what we seek, which is to help those who want to find out what happened to their loved ones. We have been open in saying that this is a movement beyond Stormont House, because the Government believe that this will be a better way of getting that information and trying to aid the process of reconciliation in Northern Ireland.

The prohibition created by clause 33 will not apply to criminal investigations that are ongoing on the day when the legislation enters into force, where those investigations are being carried out for the purposes of a criminal prosecution commenced before that date. The police will continue to conduct such investigations until the related criminal prosecution has concluded.

Clauses 34, 35 and 36 set out, for those granted immunity, that no criminal enforcement action may be taken against the individual in respect of the serious or connected troubles-related offence or offences for which immunity has been granted, while those who committed crimes should not be able to obtain something for nothing. They will not mean that individuals have immunity for any other serious or connected troubles-related offences in which they may have been involved. Those who do not acknowledge their role in the troubles-related events and incidents will not be granted immunity, and will remain liable to prosecution should sufficient evidence exist or come to light. If immunity is not granted, criminal enforcement action could be taken in respect of the offence. If the commissioner for investigations thinks there is enough evidence that an offence has been committed, the ICRIR can refer a case directly to the relevant UK prosecutor. The ICRIR will be fully equipped with the necessary expertise and full policing powers so that it can carry out robust investigations for the primary purpose of information recovery, as well as being able to refer cases directly to prosecutors if there is evidence of an offence for which someone has not been granted immunity.

Clause 37 contains general and saving provisions applying to troubles-related criminal investigations and prosecutions. Clause 38 and schedules 8 and 9 state that any new civil claim brought on or after the date of the Bill’s introduction will be prohibited once the relevant clauses come into force, two months after Royal Assent. Troubles-related civil claims already filed with the courts before the date of the Bill’s introduction will be allowed to continue. We want to deliver a system that focuses on effective information recovery and reconciliation measures, getting as much information to as many families as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Conor Burns]

I say respectfully to the hon. Gentleman that in all these things there has to be a point at which we move to the new process. If we are establishing a new body and we believe that that new body is the right vehicle to bring information to the fore and to incentivise people to come forward, co-operate with it and hand over state information, we have to have such a point. I recognise the challenge of that, but I also recognise that there is an opportunity between now and that body being established for progress to be made. I also say to him that the existing inquests can be rolled into the new body and that their work can carry on in that sense. The new body, the ICRIR, will have more information than inquests do and will have comparable powers to compel witnesses, so it is the view of the Government that the new body will perform many of the same functions, but perhaps even better than the inquest process will. But on his point about the date, no, we have to have a point at which we move to the new process.

[Colum Eastwood]

It is worth pointing out that we have two days for what is supposed to be the Committee stage, and this is fundamental legislation that needs to be scrutinised. Does the Minister recognise that one of the key victories of the civil rights movement was getting rid of the Special Powers Act? The Act was introduced in 1922, and the architects of apartheid in South Africa looked upon it jealously and stated as much. One of the things they did was to close down access to inquests, but they did not go as far as this Bill, which this Government are just about to introduce in 2022. How in God’s name can that be right?

--- Later in debate ---

[Conor Burns]

In the interests of balance, I am going to take an intervention from the leader of the SDLP.

[Colum Eastwood]

Let me take this opportunity to make it very clear that every single murder and every single crime that occurred during the troubles was absolutely and totally wrong—I do not care who did it—and that every single bit of truth, accountability and justice possible should be got at. Every single paramilitary organisation should be coming forward with information, but we know that there is lots of information on those paramilitary organisations, because the British Government have infiltrated them—and still infiltrate them—to the very highest levels. We all know that. The information is sitting in the files of the British Government.

As my friend the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), says, the reason that we do not trust the British Government is this: Julie Livingstone, Paul Whitters, the Bloody Sunday inquiry, the Ballymurphy inquest. At every single turn, the British Government have tried to stop information getting into the hands of the people trying to find out the truth, including victims, who were told that they were at the very centre of this legislation. I have made this point a number of times now: there is a reason we do not trust you. Why not support our new clause 6, which would put on the face of the Bill that this information should be released to the public?

[Conor Burns]

The hon. Gentleman knows that in the Bill, a legal obligation is being placed on all agencies of the state to provide the body with all the information they have. That is unprecedented; it has not happened before. Given the levels of trust—I understand why he says what he does to the community that he represents in Derry and Foyle—the truth is that the success or otherwise of this provision will be in the actions and outcomes of the body, when it is up and running. It will get information, some of which we understand and know will be very uncomfortable for some people who have been in the apparatus of the British state over the years. A huge amount will also be very uncomfortable for terrorists, who may think that there will not be another knock on the door for them. The success, or otherwise, will be in the fact that the information is passed over, and the body will have independence to act to get that information out there and, hopefully, to get information to the families.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

I pay tribute to both Front Benchers—the Minister and the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle)—for the manner in which they have engaged with these subjects. I will not speak for long—we have been over much of this ground—but I will cover a couple of things that I heard in the speeches of Northern Ireland MPs last week, which were very good, and a couple of points that have been made today. I will then stay again and listen to all the points of Northern Ireland MPs.

My first point is about homogeneous views and veterans and families. The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) mentioned that families involved in Kenova are not interested in criminal investigations and that they just want information. He is a good man and is not misleading the Committee— I accept 100% that that is what he believes—but I have spoken to other families who are not in that position. The problem is that if we present our personal experience as a homogeneous view, we will never get anywhere in this process.

I disagree with the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who is a great friend and represents the same cohort as I do. He said that the military have deep concerns about the proposals, but in my experience, they welcome them, because they bring some conclusion. At the same time, however, he is right. I urge all hon. Members to engage in the debate conscious of the fact that none of those disparate groups, which all have different experiences of the conflict in Northern Ireland, has homogeneous views.

[Colum Eastwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Johnny Mercer]

Of course I will give way in a minute.

That is why this space is difficult for the Government, because there is no clearcut answer to what we are trying to do. Whatever we do, somebody with an absolutely righteous cause, who is absolutely right, will object to it. The difficulty for us as politicians is to try to act in the round. Although we all want the sort of justice that has been talked about, the net result of that is soldiers being in court cases like some of those I have sat through in the last couple of years.

[Colum Eastwood]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member; we are becoming good friends here now. I agree with him on the issue of homogeneous views. Of course, it is absolutely right that many families internally—within those families—have different views. I have not met too many who do not want to seek truth. I suppose the experience that we have, having dealt with so many of these cases—and the experience of Kenova, which he talks about—is that unless we properly investigate, put people under the cosh and do it properly, we are not going to get to the truth. I think in nearly every family’s experience, whether from a paramilitary organisation or the Government, truth does not come knocking at their door. It does not come willingly—it just does not happen—unless they are put under pressure. That is why removing the investigation and removing at least the possibility of criminal proceedings is also, in our strong view, removing the opportunity for many families to get any truth.

[Johnny Mercer]

I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Member, and he is right in a lot of what he says in this space around investigations. I have repeatedly stated that I would like the Government, as they have done by introducing amendments today, to continue to be receptive to changes to the Bill as it goes to the Lords. It is not only about the issue mentioned there. The issue of sentencing has also been raised by those from one of the Northern Ireland parties. I think it is absolutely critical that if people choose not to engage in this process, there is a heavier burden and a heavier penalty for not engaging in this process than there currently is, and I would urge the Minister to take that away.

I want to tackle the narrative about collusion, which is an incredibly difficult term. It is a real touchstone for the security forces, and I understand why. The reality is that a lot of these young men and women who went to serve in Northern Ireland did not choose to go to Northern Ireland; it was somewhere they went as part of their duties. While collusive behaviours have been highlighted over the years—things that have caused immense pain to families, which I totally understand—collusion, as a stand-alone term, has never been proved in court.

I will tell the Committee why this is so difficult for members of the security forces. Conflict such as this is never clearcut. We cannot have an honest two-way debate about it in public, with clear rights and clear wrongs, because it is so messy—it is so messy—and that is not the operators’ fault. The operators were young men and women making incredibly difficult decisions around incredibly complex scenarios, with lots of different factors affecting the way they made those decisions.

I am afraid—as someone who has consistently asked for the Government to do a better job of holding their own people to account in the military—that I cannot honestly stand here and allow the collusion narrative to go through without challenge, because these men and women committed everything to try to restore peace in Northern Ireland, while there were those, who have been talked about, who got up in the morning and genuinely thought it was the right thing to do, to advance their political aims, to murder women and children—to murder women and children in the name of politics.

I recognise that Northern Ireland MPs accept that, but I would gently say to them that there is a reason why people feel the narrative has got out of control. The reason is that things have been mentioned about what took place, and of course the military kept loads of records—of course it did—so it was always going to be out of balance. People such as the IRA, Gerry Adams and all the rest of it, never kept records, so of course there is going to be an imbalance.

I would just urge people to think about the young men and women who went to serve there. They never went out there with the intention of ending up on the wrong side of the law or the wrong side of history. I have always accepted that things happened in Northern Ireland that should never have happened and were not investigated correctly, and families have suffered immense pain. However, we must never let this collusion narrative run away to the detriment of the service of those brave men and women in Northern Ireland.

[Colum Eastwood]

The hon. Gentleman has forwarded the argument about collusion a number of times, and I totally agree that we need the whole picture. If I accept that, will he accept that there are now very few people left who do not agree that there were collusive practices, that collusion was a thing, and that people who were being paid by the state murdered people in Northern Ireland? That is the whole point of the Kenova investigation.

[Johnny Mercer]

This is an incredibly challenging place, and I will choose my words carefully. Were people who took public money involved in killings in Northern Ireland? The state undoubtedly ran agents on all sides of the conflict, but the truth is that collusion has never been proved in court. The hon. Gentleman can get frustrated with that, but that is the way the country works.

[Colum Eastwood]

You’re the only person left saying this.

[Johnny Mercer]

I am not the only person left. That is the way the country works. There are other people who think that collusion existed every day. They are very loud, and they tell everybody about it every day. There is another side, a quiet side, who are getting older now, and who think, “Actually, there wasn’t collusion. We did our best in incredibly difficult circumstances, but there was no formal collusion. We did our best to bring peace to Northern Ireland.”

[Colum Eastwood]

Let me ask the hon. Gentleman one simple question: there are countless examples, but has he ever heard of Stakeknife? He has quoted Kenova.

[Johnny Mercer]

I am afraid I know the Stakeknife case intimately, which is why I said what I said at the beginning of these remarks. Obviously, I am not going to talk about individual cases, as that would be wrong. I totally understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from on this issue, but there is a difference in the English language between collusive behaviour and collusion proved in court. To go over that line is a disservice to those who served, but I am sure we will continue this conversation for many years to come.

There was another point about people not engaging with the information recovery body in Northern Ireland

--- Later in debate ---

On new clause 7, the SNP has very considerable concerns about the Bill’s compliance with article 2 of the European convention on human rights. The SNP is also extremely sceptical, and I think with good reason, of the Government’s commitments to people’s individual civil rights whenever those rights come into conflict with matters the Government find to be politically inconvenient. Therefore, enshrining in the Bill the explicit right for individuals to take civil action, or to seek judicial review on the grounds of compliance with article 2 of the ECHR, would be a very important safeguard that people would welcome.

[Colum Eastwood]

I very much welcome what the hon. Gentleman is saying, particularly on judicial reviews and civil actions. I think he would agree that it is particularly egregious that the Government are seeking to close down the civil route for victims. The deadline for putting in new civil cases was the day the Bill was announced and published. For me, that was particularly difficult to take. Does he remember the example of when Michelle O’Neill, who was Deputy First Minister at the time, stopped and held up the opportunity for victims to get access to the victims’ pension? It was actually the judicial review process that got that position overturned and now, finally, victims have the opportunity to avail themselves of that. We have countless examples of where victims have used JR in civil cases to get a better result than they got from the Governments who are supposed to represent them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Lloyd]

I agree, particularly for this reason: killing is killing. We do not have a statute of limitations for murder more generally. It is hard to understand in this most brutal of backgrounds—when a whole society has been traumatised and continues to be—that we are now moving on. I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely. I refer to the issue of collusion not because the state is any more guilty than others, but because every murder deserves the same proper and complete investigation, and we will not see that under this Bill.

I will make a couple of other points. I am seriously concerned that the new independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery simply will not have the powers of an inquest or the capacity of civil cases. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is not intervening, but I think he is assuring me from a sedentary position, “Yes, it will.” Let me tell him this: if we go back nearly 20 years, the British Government—a Labour Government at the time, by the way—were taken before the European Court of Human Rights, and one of ways in which the Court concluded that our country’s actions were incompatible with article 2 of the European convention was on the inability of the process at the time to lead from investigation and inquest through to prosecution. That is a significant issue, because there is no capacity in which the new body can deliver that prosecutorial process. Therefore, in the same way we will be in default on our article 2 obligations here. That is a serious point about which we should be very worried.

[Colum Eastwood]

The hon. Member is making an important speech. I wonder whether he has heard that the Council of Europe commissioner for human rights has today said that the Bill

“raises serious questions about the extent to which the proposed mechanism…is compliant with ECHR standards on independent and effective investigations. The possibility to grant immunity…on a low evidentiary bar raises concerns that this could lead to impunity.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Colum Eastwood]

While a few MPs have had to sit through a few hours of debate about this issue, many victims have had to sit through decades of trying to comfort their loved ones after what happened to them. Only last week, we saw victims in Derry achieving a modicum of truth through the inquest process. That victim, Kathleen Thompson—a mother of six—was murdered in 1971. Those victims and families got some truth last week through the current system, as imperfect as it is.

What we are doing today is utterly shameful. It is a whitewash on a grand scale. It is an opportunity for impunity and would not be allowed to stand in any other part of the United Kingdom. It says an awful lot about the state of this state that we are quietly and coldly walking through the Lobbies to bring this about today. I, for one, will never support immunity for the soldier who murdered 12-year-old Majella O’Hare—shot her on her way to chapel. Equally, I will never support immunity for the IRA team who blew up Patsy Gillespie and killed five soldiers in the city of Derry in the early ’90s. That is what we are doing.

Somebody has to tell people what is happening. The way this Government have voted today has given a licence for impunity for what happened in our part of the world over many decades. If anybody really believes that this legislation will bring about truth or reconciliation, they are lying to themselves and to the victims out there, who are deeply, deeply disappointed and dismayed today. I will absolutely vote against Third Reading.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Conor Burns]

I will take a few more interventions and then explain, in the context of the Bill, what we are trying to do. I want to make as much time as possible available to hon. Members in all parts of the Committee. I give way first to the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Minister says that he wants to put victims at the centre, that he wants to provide information and transparency, and all that. There were a number of victims on the estate last night. They were families of people—of children, actually—who were murdered during the conflict. One of those children was Julie Livingstone. She was 14 years old in Lenadoon in west Belfast in 1981, and she was shot by the British Army and killed. Her file has been closed until 2064. How can Julie Livingstone’s family believe this Government when they say they want to give accountability, truth and transparency?

[Conor Burns]

The unimaginable tragedy and grief that people in Northern Ireland experienced is understood, as much as it is humanly capable of being understood by those who did not go through it. I am sorry that I could not attend the hon. Gentleman’s meeting last night. I received the email to my parliamentary email address; I was travelling back from Northern Ireland and did not return to Westminster in time to come. I would have been delighted and humbled to come and meet those people who came to Westminster, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have met victims’ families and victims groups across Northern Ireland in the process of getting the Bill to where it is.

One of the reasons why my right hon. Friend and I have taken the time that we have taken, as we have both said, is to get the Bill right, and to make sure that what we are proposing will work. The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) is absolutely right that the test of the Bill will be when the information recovery body is up and running and functioning—when people can refer cases to it and when the British state transfers to it the documents that we have at our disposal. The test will be in the delivery of that body for victims and families.

--- Later in debate ---

[Conor Burns]

I expect that we will turn to amendment 115 in greater detail throughout the afternoon and into the evening. It is our view, given the scope of the Bill, that sexual offences would not be within the scope of the panel. We do not believe that sexual offences can be defined as being troubles-related. A rape is a rape. It is not a republican rape or a loyalist rape; it is a crime—a hateful, heinous crime. It will absolutely be the right of the House to test that—

[Colum Eastwood]

rose—

[Conor Burns]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would give me a second. It will absolutely be the right of this House and another place to test that. If the House comes to a conclusion that there needs to be greater clarification, the Government, the Secretary of State and I will listen incredibly closely, because that concern is clearly being expressed. We do not believe, however, that the Bill, as drafted, would see sexual offences fall under the competence or purview of the information recovery body to grant immunity in that space.

--- Later in debate ---

[Conor Burns]

We think that the position is clear in the Bill. However, it is clear that the Committee does not totally think so, so I give the Committee the undertaking that I have given my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith): that we will return explicitly to this specific measure as the Bill progresses.

I would also say to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) that Northern Ireland was not at war; Northern Ireland suffered a grievous period of barbarism by terrorist groups. In that sense, the analogy of rape in war does not translate easily across.

[Colum Eastwood]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving that commitment, but I think he understands very well what we are talking about. We do not need to theorise. We know of individual cases in which members of paramilitary organisations raped members of our community; the rape was investigated by paramilitary organisations and covered up; the victim was victimised further, abused and hounded out of their own community—and what happened then? The perpetrators were moved to other parts of Ireland to work within the community.

These are high-profile cases, which the Minister knows about and which would not have happened in the same way in Liverpool or Manchester. Paramilitary organisations exist in our communities and they coerce and control communities. People have been shifted around our country to rape whoever they want under the protection of the IRA and other organisations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Conor Burns]

What we are talking about today is what is in the Bill, what the Bill will establish and how the body will work, and about the definitions, the powers, the functions, the independence, the appointment process and who will be on it. Those are the things we are discussing today and it will then be for that body to make determinations on cases, on individuals and on evidence that is presented to it—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Foyle is shouting at me from a sedentary position, but this is exactly what the Committee stage is for. It is an opportunity for us to explore these things and to take them on board.

[Colum Eastwood]

Will the Minister give way?

[Conor Burns]

No. I heard the hon. Gentleman clearly when he was sitting down; there is no need for him to stand up to say it again. I want to make a little progress. I am conscious that I have already been on my feet for nearly 45 minutes, and I want to give some time to the Committee.

Clauses 2 to 4, clause 6 and schedules 1 and 2 provide for the formation of the independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery as a body corporate consisting of a chief commissioner, a commissioner of investigations and up to three additional commissioners. We very much agree with the sentiment behind amendment 74, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, that it would be beneficial for one of the commissioners to have significant international experience or expertise. There is nothing in this legislation that would preclude that; indeed, that would be an ambition of the Government.

The functions of the commission will be, when requested, to carry out reviews into the deaths that resulted from conduct forming part of the troubles and, when requested, to carry out reviews of other harmful conduct, as defined in the Bill, forming part of the troubles. The term review in the Bill provides the commission with the scope to conduct the investigative process as it determines to be appropriate in each case, including the use of police powers where appropriate. Where there is an outstanding article 2 obligation, the body will be able to conduct a review to that standard. The body will produce reports on the findings of each of these reviews, determine whether to grant immunity from prosecution for serious or connected troubles-related offences, refer deaths that were caused by conduct forming part of the troubles and other harmful conduct forming part of the troubles to prosecutors, and produce an historical record of all other deaths that resulted from conduct forming part of the troubles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Conor Burns]

The central ambition of this legislation is to provide that closure.

[Colum Eastwood]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Colum Eastwood]

I just ask the Minister to guarantee that. Many people are very concerned that this Bill may pass through these Houses of Parliament but will not stand the test of time when it comes to the courts, because some of us believe it is fundamentally illegal, never mind unjust. Will he give a guarantee that whatever happens in terms of disclosure—we can debate that all day—evidence will not be destroyed after that process is over? Will he guarantee that evidence will be maintained and retained?

[Conor Burns]

The credibility of the body will be determined by its effectiveness and how quickly it can gain the trust of those who engage with it. People engaging with it—coming forward to it—will be a process that will be encouraged by seeing how the body actually works and delivers. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said previously, it is absolutely our determination to provide the body with the effective tools it needs to gain the confidence of victims. It is only in doing that that the body will be successful. If I may, I will return to the hon. Gentleman specifically on the evidence point later in the debate, because I do not want to say something from the Dispatch Box until I am certain it is the correct thing; I would rather delay the answer to that than give him an incorrect answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Conor Burns]

On the very specific question as to why the terminology is “review” rather than “investigate”, there may well be a legal reason for that. I have not actually asked that question—it is a very good question. What I have been interested to look at is the scope and the powers of the body. The fact that it will have full police powers, the ability to cross-examine people and to contest what is put to it, and the ability to see source material looks to me, as I have examined this, very much like investigations. There may be a reason for the choice of word, and I will return to my right hon. Friend if there is a technical reason, but it seems to me that, for all intents and purposes, the body can undertake investigations if it so determines.

On the point about the pipeline of inquests, I am happy to give that commitment again to my right hon. Friend. Nothing will change until this Bill becomes an Act, and that is a little way off. We will certainly want to have a look at those that are in the pipeline before the Bill kicks in. The panel would be appointed, and it would become the alternative mechanism to the inquest route.

[Colum Eastwood]

rose—

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle]

At the risk of rehearsing the Second Reading debate again, the concern we have always had is that those who served our country so bravely during the troubles are subjected to the same legislation as those who committed acts of terror. They should not be treated the same way, because they are not the same and the motives were not the same. Those are the difficulties and troubles we have had with the approach to this Bill, but these points will be ventilated elsewhere.

[Colum Eastwood]

We have heard already that many of these events were a long time ago. Well, in August 1971 Kathleen Thompson, a mother of six, was shot by the British Army. Today, in 2022, they finally got the result of an inquest that proved that that shooting was unjustified. Under these proposals, no other family would be entitled to get that truth and justice—it would be barred. They would not get access to the inquest process. Whatever people may say about things being a long time ago, we have a case today proving that inquests work, that they get truth for families and that families who have had to suffer and argue and debate and campaign for 50 years can get at least some truth out of this process. This Government want to bar that. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that?

[Peter Kyle]

Yes, of course. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on record and bringing in the experiences of families, many of whom will be watching the proceedings today from home. It is very important that those experiences are brought into this.

As I said at the start of Second Reading, we approached the Bill hoping that we could shape it and that there would be ways of really improving it. For many victims of the troubles, particularly from the early troubles era, the passage of time may mean that this is their last chance for a piece of legislation that can deliver the truth and justice that they deserve. That is why we have, from the outset, tried very hard to engage with Government. Only because the voice of victims has been so fundamentally shut out of the process did we decide that this was simply not good enough for them and they need support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle]

I have spoken to Jonathan Powell, who is, of course, always worth listening to on such issues. The hon. Gentleman says that Jonathan Powell endorses the plans, but I do not think that he endorses the Bill wholesale; he has concerns too. Like Tony Blair and others who participated in the lead-up to and signing of the Good Friday agreement, he is desperately keen for progress. They also recognise that not everybody can be satisfied by the Bill, but I think that more people can be satisfied by it than is currently the case—that is what we aspire to.

Most importantly, the Government need to listen when people tell them that they have got it wrong. In recent weeks, Ministers have gone to great lengths to highlight the necessity of cross-community support in Northern Ireland when it comes to the protocol, yet the Bill has achieved cross-community opposition. The Government cannot have it both ways: either consent matters or it does not.

Since Second Reading, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has held evidence sessions. People whom the Government should have consulted on the Bill prior to its publication have had to say that, regrettably, it just does not work. That includes the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Northern Ireland victims commissioner. That would force most Governments to reconsider their proposals to address such a sensitive issue, and to look at amendments that could be brought forward to address any concerns. We have seen none of that, however. The Government’s reckless single-mindedness shows its face again.

The Government must be aware that the lack of real prelegislative scrutiny and consultation, and the Bill’s rushed journey from publication to Second Reading, undermines its ultimate aims. The process has damaged trust in the investigative body before it has even been established. Alyson Kilpatrick, the chief commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, does not believe that the Bill can be made compatible with our human rights commitments. On 7 June, she told the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee:

“I am very sorry to say, because I want to be constructive, that I certainly cannot see a way in which this Bill can be made compatible when taken as a whole. One cannot simply pick out bits and pieces. You have to see it in the context of the whole Bill, what led up to it and the absence of any democratic accountability, public support or political support for it.”

I also put on the record the words of David Clements, whose father was an RUC reserve constable serving in the station at Ballygawley, County Tyrone, in 1985. He was off duty with a colleague and was opening the security gates when IRA gunmen stepped out from the shadows and shot both of them in the head. As David’s father lay dead, the gun was taken from his body. Three years later, three other men were murdered with it. David has actively supported victims and survivors over many years since his father’s murder. About the Bill, he said:

“No one was ever charged for my father’s murder—though I have some reasons to believe that at least some of those responsible for his death were later themselves killed in Troubles related shootings. I recognise that discovering the whole truth about my father’s murder and anyone ever being held to account may now be almost impossible, but what I find hard to swallow is for this process to legislate that slim hope into an…impossibility”.

There is a real fear among victims that the Bill will not deliver them information.

[Colum Eastwood]

A lot has been said today about closure. The Government have said that they have engaged and listened—I think that was the word—to victims. I know that the shadow Secretary of State has engaged with victims, as have all of us on this side. Can he tell us if he has met any victim who has told him that they support the Bill or that it will give them closure?

[Peter Kyle]

I have met victims via their representative bodies and organisations, and directly, on every visit I have made to Northern Ireland since I had the privilege of being appointed to this job in early December. I have not had the opportunity to hear any one of them support the Bill as it is. I have also never met a victim who believes that they are going to get all of the justice that they want. Victims recognise that they will not get everything that they would in an ideal world and they know that the passage of time has changed what is practicable in delivering justice, but they know there are investigative methods that they have a right to expect and they know that there is a right to keep the full judicial process at least on the table as an opportunity should the threshold be met. They also know that the broad agreement there has been in Stormont House has been disbanded and ignored by the current method, and they know that they have been let down over time, with trauma heaped on trauma.

--- Later in debate ---

[Conor Burns]

rose—

[Colum Eastwood]

rose—

[Peter Kyle]

I give way first to the Minister.

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for the Minister’s sentiments. After we listened to the esteemed and senior Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee—the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who is from the Minister’s party—I think we got to where we should be aiming for. Other senior Members of this place are nodding along in agreement. In that spirit, I look forward to any conversations that we might have around this place after the Minister and I have finished our opening remarks.

[Colum Eastwood]

It is lovely to hear all this agreement. In my view, the pressure is on the Government. It has been made very clear to us—the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) drew this out—that it is very unlikely that we will even get a Report stage. We have an amendment on the Order Paper. Members should be forced to vote for it.

[Peter Kyle]

I do not think I could have been stronger in what I said. If needs be, we will vote on the amendment tonight, but if the Government do not oppose it, there will be no vote. Let us see where this takes us; we will find out pretty shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

I agree with my hon. Friend and I hope that Members will look on amendment 98 favourably.

Finally, because I recognise that time is short—here we are, three hours in, before we get a Northern Ireland voice, but I appreciate the interest in the Bill—I turn to amendment 115. There has been considerable attention on amendment 115 during the Committee stage. My colleagues drafted our own amendment to exclude sexual offences from immunity. It was not as good or as strong as the Labour amendment, and, in truth, it was in the wrong place in the Bill, so we did not table it and signed amendment 115 and new schedule 1. We did that because we want to get to the end point. We are not interested in the politics, but we want to make sure that on such a wedge issue that engages issues of compassion and controversy, and affects communities right across the board in Northern Ireland, we have our name on that amendment, and we want to see progress on it this evening.

I have already highlighted the frailty of the argument that we could leave this issue until Report. I have heard that we could change the programme motion. Here we are with a programme motion that has already been extended once, at the end of Second Reading for this Committee stage, and I am the first Northern Ireland MP to speak when we have been debating the Bill since 20 minutes to 3.

[Colum Eastwood]

Can I take the hon. Gentleman back to what he was saying a little bit earlier? We obviously disagree on the Good Friday agreement and the need for prisoner release, but I think we both recognise that those prisoners were released on licence. A licence is capable of being revoked and has been on a number of occasions. If this Bill went through, would that get rid of that, so that those prisoners would then be totally immune from going back even on licence?

[Gavin Robinson]

I know that some from Northern Ireland did not take technical briefings on this Bill, but sadly I did and had to listen through them. Schedule 11, where we are talking about moving two sentences down to one, could lead to a circumstance where, were somebody prosecuted outside of this process, they would have a conviction on their record and would automatically be on licence for it. It is not that they would not be on licence—they would—but they would serve no time in jail whatever. We need to incentivise this process, and that is why I have talked about new clauses to be debated on Monday, which would ensure real terms and a real-life consequence for not offering truth to victims’ families.

I was talking about amendment 115 just before I was derailed. The Government have a huge opportunity to respond to what has been said this evening. This is a hugely important amendment. We talk about some amendments being inconsequential, and I accept that this one would affect a very narrow subset of legacy cases, but that does not make it any less of a touchstone. It genuinely is, and it has the support of our party. I am sad to say that there is no Northern Ireland Office representation in the Chamber at the moment. They are not here, and I genuinely believe that they had better be outside getting an agreement over this amendment so that it does not need to be pressed to a Division this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend for his intervention, and I pay tribute to his extraordinary service in Northern Ireland in some of the most appalling atrocities of that conflict.

That is a really important point. We think about the mother of Stephen Restorick, a lance bombardier from one of my regiments, who was the last soldier killed in the troubles in Northern Ireland. He was asking for the driving licence of a lady passing through his checkpoint, and she said, “All I can remember about him was that he was a beautiful boy, and his smiling face as he leant down to the window to take the driving licence”, when he was shot in the back by a sniper. No planet exists where people such as me, from exactly the same organisations, would want an individual who had committed that to be released.

The individual who did it was convicted and sentenced to 490 years, yet was released under the 1998 Good Friday agreement. There is no comparison here. My friends from Northern Ireland live over there in their communities, but the truth is that pragmatism has to win—it has to—because to continue doing the same thing and expect it to be different is a definition of insanity.

I have not seen anybody else in the Committee sit through such trials in Northern Ireland, but I have seen the absolutely ludicrous nature of them. We talk about victims. I know this will make me unpopular in some circles, but I actually feel sorry for a lot of the victims for being dragged down this pathway now. Everybody there knows that we will never reach the threshold for a criminal conviction, but nobody has the courage to say to them, “Do you know what? I’m so sorry, but this is unlikely to be successful so we have to take the next best option. The best option is that we find somebody and we put them in prison. I’m so sorry—and it’s the state’s fault, it’s lots of people’s fault; we didn’t investigate properly—but that is not an option. So you now have to deal in this space, which is the pragmatic space. What are you going to do? Do you want to know what happened to your loved one, and that they mattered, in their final hours—or do you want to continue to progress down this path where you will never get an answer?” That is my experience of dealing with victims, and I totally respect that other people have different experiences.

[Colum Eastwood]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. I think he and I are two of the people who have some of these feisty exchanges that he talks about, and I will attempt not to be too feisty with him today. He has made it clear that he believes that there is no prospect of criminal convictions, and that those on this side of the Committee are appalled because people will get away with terrible crimes. Yes, that is one thing.

The other thing is that we do not believe the Bill will provide more truth or more transparency. We recognise that. By the way, we are very open with victims and all that, but we do not have to be because they are grown-ups. They have been doing this for a lot longer than any of us. They know the process, they know how difficult it is, and they would love convictions. In some cases convictions are possible, but in many they are not. But the very process of actually investigating, and having civil cases—that is what gets someone to the truth, and that is what the Bill will bar. That is the real problem behind our issue with the Bill, and the issue that every victims’ group I have met has with it.

[Johnny Mercer]

There has to be a landing zone. We are never going to reach an agreement that allows us to adhere to those standards. The hon. Gentleman’s point about trust in the state is valid. When it comes first to opening the books—I have experience of this not only as a Minister, but when I served in secret organisations, and I know there is an attitude or appetite to overclassify things and so on. Families have really felt the brunt of that over the years, and if I was part of one of those families, I would be deeply mistrustful of the state. I totally get that, and the Department must work harder to bring that integrity to the process.

However, I do not think we should throw away what is probably the last chance to get this right—well, “right” is not really the word, because we are not going to make it right: we are not going to bring anybody back. But we have to get to a space where we can deliver something for victims and veterans. We talk about prosecutions, but there have been no successful prosecutions of security force personnel since the Good Friday agreement. That is a fact.

What these victims are looking for is not there. If it was there, I would be the first to champion it. People such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) are absolutely repulsed by those who think that uniform is a place where they can commit crime. The idea that we would not want people who have done those things to be held to account is for the birds. People who promote that—I see it in Northern Ireland about me all the time, but I never respond to it because it is totally false. Nobody wants those people convicted more than those who served there and adhered to the standards, showing extreme courage.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 24th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I will point out one thing at the outset. I am sitting with colleagues from Northern Ireland around me, and while we rarely agree on much—I think they will agree with that—we agree on this. We come at it from different perspectives and we will make different types of speech, but we agree that this piece of legislation goes absolutely against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland and against the interests of the victims in Northern Ireland. Nobody on these Benches is interested in social media clips or dipping in and out of an issue every couple of months. We have been doing this for a long time; we speak to every single victims group and we try our best to represent them. Some people in this House might not like that, but we will continue to do it.

I have great respect for the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), but he said that there is something in this Bill for everyone. I say this with great respect, but there is nothing in this Bill for the victims and those people who have been left behind by all the perpetrators who destroyed lives and families over many years.

I was interested to hear the comments of the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). He intimated that we have all been fighting with each other and we need the British Government to come in and sort out the problem for us. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of what happened over many years and many centuries in Northern Ireland. The British Government are no neutral observer in what happened, and they cannot be allowed to make the decisions on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. We have already agreed how to resolve this issue: it is called the Stormont House agreement. As difficult as that is, as complicated as it has been, that is the only route that has buy-in from all the political parties and two Governments—at least, it used to have.

Before I came into this Chamber, I met for a cup of tea with a man called Michael O’Hare. His sister was called Majella, and she was 12 years old in 1976. She was walking with her friends to the chapel when she was shot twice in the back by a British Army Parachute Regiment member. Michael does not want an amnesty for anybody.

I was reminded of another case in my own constituency by the fantastic and heartfelt speech by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), who talked about Patsy Gillespie. The IRA abducted Patsy Gillespie from his house, leaving his wife Kathleen and his family at home. Patsy worked in a British Army base. He was chained to a van full of explosives and forced to drive into that army base on the Buncrana Road in Derry. Patsy was killed along with five British soldiers. The people who carried that out will be freed from any concern as a result of this legislation.

I also wonder about the Ballymurphy families. In August 1971, 11 people were killed by the British Army—by the Parachute Regiment, again. Daniel Teggart was one of the victims. His daughter is called Alice Harper. This is what she had to say recently:

“We identified my daddy by his curly hair. Fourteen times they shot him. The next day they blackened his name and called him a gunman. Two years later, my brother Bernard, with a mental age of nine, was killed by the IRA. We want no amnesty for anyone.”

The Ballymurphy families would never have seen the truth that the world got to see about what happened in Ballymurphy if these proposals had been brought in before the result of that inquest.

We hear that the new system will provide truth for people. Well, Columba McVeigh was 17, from Donaghmore, County Tyrone. He was abducted and killed by the IRA and his body was disappeared. His body has still not been found, despite the fact that the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains allows for immunity in these cases. It would have allowed for the IRA to come forward and tell Columba’s family exactly where the body was buried. They have not done that—that is the point.

The idea that this legislation will bring truth to families is absolute nonsense. The pretence from this Government that the legislation is about victims or reconciliation is frankly an out and out lie. This is about politics and a manifesto commitment—about protecting the state, as it always is. It will protect every single perpetrator who committed those crimes in Northern Ireland. I cannot find anybody, apart from Government Members, who believe that this legislation is the way forward. The Queen’s University law school’s model Bill team describe it as unworkable and as breaching international law. Alyson Kilpatrick, the chief human rights commissioner in Northern Ireland, said:

“we are sure that this Bill is substantially, in fact almost certainly fatally, flawed.”

This is an overt attempt to close down access to truth and justice for the victims of our conflict. It rips up the Stormont House agreement—an agreement that people have bought into—and it does not have the support of the parties in Northern Ireland. It has absolutely no support from victims’ groups in Northern Ireland: many have told us in the past few days that they will boycott the processes if they become law.

Others have said that there is no such thing as collusion. I cannot believe that they are still saying that today, given the number of times the police ombudsman has uncovered the fact that there has been collusion in Northern Ireland between the state and paramilitary organisations.

[Johnny Mercer]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Colum Eastwood]

Do you know what? I won’t.

The Bill is attempting to close down the police ombudsman’s opportunity to investigate issues of the past. I wonder why. It is also closing down access to the civil route for families. What happened last Tuesday? The Secretary of State announced that there would be no new civil cases after that day. Families who had been told that they were supposed to be at the centre of this were running around with their lawyers trying to get access to the courts before they closed that day. That is some way to treat the people who have suffered the most!

It is all right for the rest of us, who are still here and doing quite well out of the peace process. The people who have been left behind have been treated shoddily by this Government as recently as last week. People who have waited decades for an inquest and are now in the queue for one are being told that they will not have any opportunity to get the proper truth. If this is about truth, why are we afraid of inquests? I just do not understand it.

This legislation is riddled with Government overdrive and there is nothing independent about how the organisation will be constituted. There is no meaningful article 2 compliant investigation. Frankly, it is a recipe for impunity.

I have heard reference to Kenova. This Bill is not Kenova. It is nothing like Kenova. Kenova allowed proper judicial processes and proper investigation processes so that families and the rest of us could get access to the truth. South Africa, equally, it is not, and that argument has been well debunked.

The Government are telling us they want to see access to truth. Let me tell the House about two cases I know well. Paul Whitters was 15 years old in 1981. He was shot in the head by a police officer with a plastic bullet. Despite promises from this Government given to me, his file has been closed for a further number of years. Mr Deputy Speaker, do you know when that file will apparently be opened? In 2084. He was 15 years old. In the same year, 1981, the British Army fired a plastic bullet that killed Julie Livingstone, 14 years old, in Lenadoon, west Belfast. Her file will not be opened until 2062.

The Government are telling us that they want truth and access to reconciliation for victims, but every single thing they have done—whether this Bill, the Ballymurphy inquest or the Bloody Sunday inquiry—has been to protect the state, to deny access to truth and to deny access to justice for those people who do not have the same ability to protect themselves. I heard we have a new shiny headquarters in Belfast for the Northern Ireland Office. Victims were standing outside it today, protesting these proposals. They were also in Derry and at Downing Street, because they believe—to a man and woman, in my experience—that these proposals are absolutely wrong. Raymond McCord is in the Public Gallery. He has had to fight against the state and loyalist paramilitaries to try and find truth and justice for his son, Raymond.

The question is, do this Government really care about Raymond and all of those victims, or do they simply care about fulfilling a manifesto commitment, protecting the state and protecting paramilitary killers, because that is exactly what this piece of legislation will do if it is passed?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you very much for keeping within the unofficial, but fairly official time limit.