Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Thursday 18th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move manuscript amendment (a) to Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendment 1, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 2 to 18.

[Hilary Benn]

I support Lords amendment 1, which very sensibly provides for when the reports required under the Bill should be made to the House and provides an opportunity for the House to debate them. In other words, it provides a context in which we can discuss what is contained in those reports by requiring them to be made and requiring a motion to be presented to the House.

Given that other matters, which we debated at some length last week, have been added to the Bill since it was originally published—and have widened the scope of the Bill considerably beyond the original purpose solely relating to elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly—it seems to me even more important that we have the provisions in Lords amendment 1 in the Bill. But there is a problem that my amendment seeks to fix if the House is not sitting—for example, because it has been prorogued —on the dates by which the reports have to be made, and the crucial dates are 4 September and 9 October. My amendment simply seeks to make provision for the House to be recalled in those circumstances to allow the opportunity for us to consider the reports and debate the motions that arise from the Bill if Lords amendment 1 is accepted by the House.

I should say at this stage that probably not every Member of the House is entirely familiar with the provisions of the Meeting of Parliament Act 1797, but the most important thing to recall is that section 1 is still on the statute book. It has been used, most recently in section 68(10) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 and in section 28(1) of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004—indeed, the Civil Contingencies Act makes specific reference to the Meeting of Parliament Act 1797.

In other words, this amendment does not—I emphasise this—seek to establish a new constitutional principle. It simply seeks to use previous practice to make sure that Parliament is sitting when it needs to be sitting to debate these matters. As I hope the amendment makes clear, it would do so by requiring that Parliament be recalled on a specified day within the period in which compliance with subsection (2B) of Lords amendment 1 is required. In other words, the Minister would have to lay the report and the motion in neutral terms would have to be moved within the period of five calendar days, beginning with the end of the day on which the report was made. If my amendment is carried, we would be sitting in order to ensure that we had the chance both to consider the report and, crucially, to debate the motion that has been presented. That is the single purpose of my amendment. It would be rather odd—would it not?—for the House to legislate to provide for these reports and motions on specified dates, only to find itself not being here to consider the reports and to debate the motions because of some other action, namely the fact that we might not be sitting.

My final point is this: everyone in the House is well aware that Brexit has significant implications for the country as a whole, but it will have particular implications for Northern Ireland, which the Exiting the European Union Committee has reported on and many Members on both sides of the House have spoken of. I suppose that this amendment has a secondary effect: to ensure that the House would be sitting at a crucial time for our country, as I believe the country would expect us to be. I do not think that we could accept circumstances, if I may coin the phrase, in which we were sent missing in action, and I hope that the House will support the amendment.

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I rise simply to support the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and to explain why I added my name to amendment (a).

As the right hon. Gentleman concluded on the position of Northern Ireland—the springboard for the amendment—the implications of every decision taken by the United Kingdom in relation to Brexit are highly significant both for Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. For us to be in the run-up to 31 October without those considerations being before the House seems genuinely very difficult, as it does when we go beyond that and consider that the House might not be sitting during the run-up to the date itself to consider all the other things. If we have felt under the weight of any pressure up to now, I venture to suggest to the House that that will be as nothing compared with the days leading up to 31 October if it is not clear where the country is going, either because a deal has been agreed or because the consequences of no deal have been sufficiently spelt out that everybody has been able to take a view. The idea that we might not be here to reflect those concerns and to take our own view on what the circumstances might be seems to me not only highly unlikely, but undesirable and preventable.

I have added my support for amendment (a), which strengthens the Anderson amendment agreed to in the other place and makes sure that we will be here to reflect the views of our constituents. Amendment (a) does not suggest how the House would vote when presented with a choice between a deal and no deal; it makes absolutely certain, in the absence of assurances, that we will be here then.

I commend to the House the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Hilary Benn Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 9th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

I hope that the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) will forgive me if I do not address his amendments directly. I thoroughly support them and hope that he feels encouraged after tonight to continue to pursue them when it comes to any further negotiation that may take place later in the year.

I shall speak to amendment 7, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends, although I should make it clear, as I think my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) did, that I fully endorse amendment 6 as well, both in respect of preventing the re-investigation of cases—sometimes more than once—and his suggestion that a time limit should be considered, rather than an amnesty.

My amendment is narrower in its focus. It is designed to encourage the Secretary of State and the judicial authorities in Northern Ireland to focus on the difference between the soldier and the terrorist—the soldier, who had a duty to the state, who had a duty to protect life and property; and the terrorist, who went out to kill or to maim. That difference, which we discussed in the Chamber a year ago and have already begun to discuss again tonight, seems to have been forgotten, swamped by a kind of moral equivalence. In my view, the distinction should be clear: armed troops are not civilians. They have a duty to the state. They must obey the chain of command. They are issued with lawful weapons. They are trained how to use lawful weapons, and indeed they are punished if they are found to be misusing them. They do not, unlike the terrorist, set out each morning with the intent to kill. The terrorist, by contrast, has at some point acquired an unlawful weapon—an illegal gun or a bomb—and would be doing that only if he or she intended to do harm with it.

In recognising the problem, which has been alluded to, of the convention on human rights and the difficulty of treating one group separately from another, I would like the authorities in Northern Ireland, and in particular the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, to think more deeply in approaching this issue about the presumption of intent. I would like the report we are asking for in this amendment to consider future prosecution guidance that would properly take into account whether or not a lethal weapon was involved and whether or not it had been legally authorised or acquired. It is a narrow amendment, but I think it would help the authorities to pursue this matter more clearly.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I rise very briefly to support the amendments moved by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), although I have to say I find it extraordinary that we are even having a debate about Prorogation. I hope that the very idea of proroguing Parliament to deny Members of this House the chance to express a view about the Brexit process at the vital moment—whichever side of the debate one is on, it will have enormous implications for the future of our country—will seem to many so outrageous, so underhand and so shocking. I cannot really understand why any Member, when presented with the proposition, would not say, “Well, that is completely out of the question.” It is a direct threat to our ability to have our say and to express our views.

The second point I want to make is that, if the new Prime Minister were to think, “I might be able to get away with it,” and Prorogation were to happen, it is important that he understands—I am confident of this—that there would be many Members of the House who would be determined to sit, meet, debate and express their view anyway. I do not believe that the House of Commons would be silenced in those circumstances. It would profit the Prime Minister nothing if he were to attempt to do that. I hope the idea will disappear into the dustbin of history where it belongs. If we do not succeed in putting the idea there by persuading the new Prime Minister finally to come forward and say, “Okay, I will never do that in any circumstances,” then voting for the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s amendments tonight will be a very important step in helping it on its way.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

Let me begin by addressing the issues raised by the right hon. Members for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon). We will return to this theme, so they will forgive me if my response today may be more truncated than I would prefer if there were more time. There can never be a question of moral equivalence between a member of our armed forces and somebody engaged in terrorism on behalf of a paramilitary organisation. We need to make that very clear. Whatever our disagreements, the agreement over the lack of moral equivalence is absolute and we should not be drawn down that track. That said, I am extremely uneasy about the approach taken by both right hon. Members.

The right hon. Member for New Forest East referred to our international commitments. One of our commitments is as a state party to the International Criminal Court and the treaties thereof. Article 29 of the Rome statute makes it clear that crimes that fall within the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be subject to a state-imposed statute of limitations. That is an absolute condition of the Rome statute. The right hon. Gentleman looks puzzled. I invite him to check that.