Northern Ireland

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

I am most grateful to the right hon. Member. Of course I welcome these arrangements. I was very pleased to give instruction to my officials that the Assembly should be notified. Beyond that, on the particular measure, I do not wish to go any further at all, because I am absolutely determined that this should be a matter for the Assembly, with the UK Government stepping back and leaving it to the democratic consent of MLAs.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Baker]

I will give way once more, but I think I should then make a little more progress.

[Ian Paisley]

The Minister does not want to be in a position where he is the gift that keeps on giving to certain people. I would like clarity on this issue of VAT, because it was cleared up from the Dispatch Box before that the EU would have no say on VAT matters. A Minister of the Crown should be able to say, from the Dispatch Box, that the EU has no impact and no say whatsoever on the issue of VAT. I come to this very directly on behalf of a constituent who has already written to me. In the last two weeks, he has received notification that, before he can purchase machinery, he has to provide an EORI—economic operators registration and identification —number, which is a Republic of Ireland VAT mechanism. He does not trade in the Republic of Ireland and he has nothing to do with the Republic of Ireland, yet he has been asked by our authorities to provide an EORI before he purchases equipment in the United Kingdom for trade within the United Kingdom. This has to be cleared up, and it has to be cleared up pretty fast.

[Mr Baker]

The assurance was given on VAT, and I stand by that assurance. Before this moment, I was not aware of the particular circumstances that the hon. Member has just shared with me. I encourage him either to write to me or to come to see me—perhaps to do both—and let us get to the bottom of it. One thing I am sure of is that we want to get through all these tricky issues as smoothly, transparently and effectively as possible in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland, because it really is time to move on, get public services reformed, get the Government there on to a sustainable basis and allow people to get on with life as usual.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) says that a glorified press release is in front of us tonight. The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), who is no longer in his place, said that a love letter to the Democratic Unionist party has been penned. They say that is all it is, yet they still protest. They protest if Unionists get as much as a nod and a wink. They still object to it. It should not have been done, they say. Unionists should get nothing out of this place. That is the import of their comments. Or perhaps the hon. Members for North Down and for Foyle protest too much. Perhaps the real issue is that they do not like anything done that gives Unionism a nod or a wink, an advantage, or recognition of our rights. Their objections are perhaps strongest to the latter.

Points have been raised this evening about the future of Casement Park. I was not going to mention it, but as it has been put on the agenda, I think I will. Most people listened with consternation this morning to the words of Jarlath Burns, the leader of the Gaelic Athletic Association, who said, “Not a penny more will come from the GAA for Casement Park”—not even on grounds of inflation. It is £15 million or nothing from the GAA. That has to be a significant body blow to the future of Casement Park. The Northern Ireland Executive may indicate that they will give an inflation-related piece of money—significant money—to that project. The Government of Dublin may indicate that they will give multiples of millions to that project. Yet the GAA will not even give the project an inflation-linked amount. That suggests to me that perhaps the GAA does not want Casement Park to go ahead, and that it is looking for someone or for some group to blame. [Interruption.] I hear the giggles and fits coming from the SNP Benches, but of course it is very easy to spend other people’s money. This project now looks as if it will be short by about £100 million.

Tonight, I have heard that we should really be able to wipe out the “not insignificant”—I think that was the comment—£113 million in Executive funding that has been asked for, yet the big ask is: “We’d better have this money made available for Casement Park,” no matter what the amount is. That is amazing. Not only do we have a demand for this money, but it is almost as if the point being made is, “If you don’t give us that money, there will be a crisis.” That seems to be the way that the comment was framed to the House this evening. Most people will reflect very sombrely on the comments made by Jarlath Burns, and by others inside and outside this House who have made it clear that the money must be made available or else. But things can no longer work that way. Difficult decisions need to be made, and I suspect that the decisions that will be made very soon about Casement Park will be incredibly difficult. The way the parties respond to those difficult decisions will be the measure of those parties.

The Minister was taken down a rabbit hole tonight by the hon. Member for Foyle, who, again, is no longer in his place. Perhaps he has decided to go back to Foyle, given the terrible issue at Seagate and the loss of 300 jobs. I hope that he is working hard to get those jobs back, because they are very significant. Perhaps Mr Kennedy, the envoy, will turn up with a cheque book and the trillions of pounds that he said were available for Northern Ireland—it would be amazing if he did. Perhaps that money from America will arrive and those jobs, which are very important to the area, will be saved.

To return to my point, the Minister was taken down a rabbit hole and was asked to confirm whether, in line with the terms of the Belfast agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, there would be a simple majority vote for the future of Northern Ireland, but of course that is not in the Act. It talks about a majority vote; it does not define what that majority is—if it is a majority of the people, or a majority of the people who vote. In fact, I believe that the definition has been left open purposefully, so that Parliament will have a say on the terms and conditions. The Minister, referring to previous referendums in this country, has already conceded that a small majority is not the way to make major constitutional change in this nation. If he believes that, he will certainly believe that for the outworkings of the Belfast agreement. He shares the position of the late Seamus Mallon, one of the negotiators of the Belfast agreement, who made it clear that there had to be a “clear majority”, in his words, for a change to the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. We should avoid going down these rabbit holes; we need to recognise the importance of what this House is debating tonight, and why we are debating it.

The objective of every Unionist is to undo the damage done by the great betrayal made by the Government of a former Prime Minister when they agreed the protocol on Northern Ireland. That was done against the advice of the Unionists. Unionists on these Benches, myself included, met the then Prime Minister and implored him not to go down the road of a protocol. He said that things would all be sorted out. He came to County Antrim and told farmers not to worry, “because all this can be shredded.” He told them that we can ignore it, and that we can throw the bits of paper in the bin. Of course, as it transpired, the Prime Minister’s betrayal of Northern Ireland has left us still debating this issue two years later. Untold damage has been done to the psychological view of where those in the Union are, as a people. Responsibility for the economic position of the kingdom lies four-square at that Government’s feet, and it is important that they undo that damage.

I agree with the leader of our party that, after much diligence, we have before us a work in progress. Yes, much more must be done. Today’s Humble Address must be seen in the context of more needing to be done, but the fact is that whenever we give a hint that we want more progress and more stability, we cannot even have that. That seems to be the cry from the nationalists. Nationalism has to grow up and recognise that it cannot go on baiting and pushing at Unionism, because that is wrong.

Until the laws promised by this strengthening of the Union are operational in Northern Ireland, problems will remain for Northern Ireland trade. That is why I urge the Government to hurry up, and get on with implementing the changes that they have said are coming; otherwise more divergence is threatened. We must avoid divergence. It remains a threat and an ever-present danger to the Union, which is why the sooner the Government legislate and move on these issues, the better. Unionists have a history that means that we always have to remain vigilant.

As this is a work in progress, and as the Government, in previous utterances from the Dispatch Box, have conceded that more legislation is to follow, it would be worth while for them to state that again from the Dispatch Box this evening. They cannot expect one party in Northern Ireland to do all the heavy lifting. Will the Government therefore spell out when further actions will be put on the calendar? When will we see those further actions? In conversations with my party colleagues and party leader, we have already discussed the necessity of implementing what has been promised, and the need to make more progress. It is okay us talking about it, but the Government have to take action.

Our constituents already feel the vice-like pinch of the protocol and the framework on their businesses, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) outlined. I intend to put on the record some examples that really perplex me and should have been resolved by the Government, and which underline the ongoing damage to our UK single market trade—our largest market by far.

My party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), and I have challenged senior civil servants in Northern Ireland over why the frictions continue when this place has spelled out that they ought to have been removed. Northern Ireland businesses are right to be impatient. We demand progress. We cannot live on the promise that a change is coming—the promise of jam tomorrow. We and this House demand actions now.

We urge the Government not to lose the momentum for change, and I therefore ask the following questions. When will the veterinary medicines working group be established, and when will it commence work? That is an urgent priority for our single largest sector. When will the plant working group be established? The right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) raised that urgent matter. When will InterTradeIreland be established? What date is pencilled in and calendared for that important body to start operations?

What instructions have been given to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs of Northern Ireland to progress the changes for goods flowing from GB to Northern Ireland? I ask because I know of several companies in my constituency and elsewhere in Northern Ireland that are being held back by these frictions. A constituent with a very small businesses that orders plants from an English wholesaler came to my office this week and said that she has been told, “Go elsewhere. Try somewhere else. Don’t buy from the United Kingdom.” As her MP, I volunteered to bring that stock—those samples and seeds—over in my hand luggage if she so requires, and dear help the official who tries to stop me.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

My hon. Friend talks about bringing material over himself. Can he imagine the incredulity of citizens of Northern Ireland who hear about the situation? They will say, “What possible risk could that pose to the EU internal market?”.

[Ian Paisley]

My hon. Friend makes his point well; there is zero risk to the European single market. In the same way, there is zero risk with veterinary medicines—the Secretary of State knows that well, because I have discussed the matter with him—because we are talking about the same medicine as before. Europe does not want the medicines changed—shock, horror. It just wants the label changed, but for that to happen, it is demanding that the pharmaceutical companies rescale and re-examine what is in every product, which would costs millions of pounds, and would not be worth it for the companies. It is the same with biscuits. The leader of my party today met a company that has been required to do certain labelling. The EU is not trying to change the content or recipe of the biscuits; it is trying to change the label, because the single market might be damaged by the wrong label. That is how “bent bananas”, “squared cucumbers”, this argument is. We should have left that behind long ago.

The owner of a haulage business in my constituency has had the number of checks on his consignments go from nine per month in August last year to—wait for it—27 in the last two weeks of this month, and we are still moving towards the last couple of days of February. That is the record for the number of checks he has undergone since the protocol was put in place. Once again, will the Government look at this over-zealous Department, DAERA, which looks like it will not undo what this House said has is to be undone, as was outlined in a previous debate?

I mentioned a constituent who is trying to buy scanners for a service sector industry. He has always bought the scanners from GB, and he has been told that he must have an economic operators registration and identification number. That number means that VAT is paid in the Republic of Ireland, but my constituent does not trade in the Republic of Ireland. He is being denied the ability to buy equipment from GB because some official here is saying, “No, you must have an EROI number, and you must put GB in front of it.” That does not exist, and it is appalling that he has been put in that position.

[Mr Baker]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Paisley]

I will. I am delighted that the Minister wants to intervene.

[Mr Baker]

I cannot wait for my closing speech so I can say to the hon. Gentleman, “Please, give us all these examples in full detail in writing.” I will be very pleased indeed to have my officials go through them with a fine-toothed comb and see what can be done in absolutely every case. As has been said time and again, work will continue to be done to improve matters. I am yearning for the full detail so that we can work on it.

[Ian Paisley]

I like the Minister’s enthusiasm, but may I say that I am ahead of him? The leader of my party and I have already met officials and discussed these issues with them. We have put them to the Cabinet Office, which I understand is the proper channel. I hope the Cabinet Office includes the Minister so he can get his teeth into these matters and deliver for me, my party leader and my colleagues on the issues that perplex us so much.

[Mr Baker]

The hon. Gentleman may have missed it, but last Monday was my first day as a joint Cabinet Office and Northern Ireland Office Minister, precisely so I can assist officials with some ministerial work.

[Ian Paisley]

Minister, I congratulate you on your promotion, but I commiserate with you because you will be dealing more and more with me and my colleagues. We will test you to the nth degree—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is not testing me.

[Ian Paisley]

I apologise for my enthusiasm, Madam Deputy Speaker; we will test the Minister to the nth degree.

I want to make a point about whiskey, not because the hour is late but because it is an important point. A point was made about tariffs, and a certain whiskey company in my constituency was mentioned—I think it probably dreads being mentioned, because it just wants to get on with trade. Any tariffs of the sort that came into effect in 1801, imposed on Bushmills whiskey by the Acts of Union, were actually removed at a very important historical juncture for this nation. They were removed in 1879 during—guess what?—the great home rule debates, in order to calm things down. Maybe, just maybe, we need to learn that lesson from history, and remove these borders and the problems that have been put in place, in order to calm things down. If we learn that lesson from history, that whiskey company in my constituency—the premier whiskey constituency and whiskey company in the whole British Isles—will continue to do exceptionally well.

I should say for the record that not a single additional tariff has been placed on whiskey throughout the whole period of the protocol, so there is nothing to be removed. The history is incredibly interesting. Tariffs on Irish whiskey were brought in in the 1600s because it was the most successful product made on the entire island of Ireland. Then there was the introduction of what was called the whiskey tax, which became known as the Parliament tax of 1661. Only companies that paid the tax were registered, so the 1,200 whiskey distilleries across Ireland suddenly became 40. I am not saying the others ceased to exist; they just did the Irish thing of not paying their tax. That was a very important distinction.

Of course, the tax on Irish whiskey was brought in to protect the Scottish market. The fledgling whisky market developed about 40 or 50 years after the Irish whiskey market in the early 1400s. In order to protect the Scottish whisky market, the Parliament here decided to engage in protectionism of its Scottish market. I am glad that that was removed—it ought to have been—allowing the Northern Irish whiskey trade to continue to flourish, particularly given that it is a much better product and is spelled correctly.

I look forward to the Minister’s responses to the several questions that I have asked. I urge him to deliver action, not just big words.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I bring in the next speaker, I should say that I want to ensure that the Minister has at least 10 minutes to wind up. If the remaining speakers kept to about 10 minutes each, that would do the trick. I call Carla Lockhart.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

There are nods of assent. The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill established the principle that there should be a red lane, and we do need to remember that the red lane is therefore legitimate. It is something that we should all have expected. On the issues that have been invented, I think we have enough practical problems in this life without inventing additional ones.

I want to turn to the remarks of the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry), because he said that Brexit is the original sin. I am going to accept the temptation that he put before me to respond on this point. Occasionally, we get the opportunity to comment on matters of historical sin, and I hope the House will forgive me if I say that to me the original sin was proceeding with the Maastricht treaty and all it meant without getting consent. It was compounded by the mortal sin of proceeding with the Lisbon treaty positively against the expressed wishes of a number of populations. That is what brought me into politics—positively establishing the European constitution by another name against the expressed wishes of populations in referenda.

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about Brexit being the original sin. Although I am tempted to say that I am an unapologetic Unionist, a waggish official reminded me earlier, “But, Minister, you’ve made a number of apologies”—apologies notably in relation to Ireland, but I do not mind sharing with the House and the public that, during the early days of my appointment to this role, I said to a number of stakeholder groups in Northern Ireland, particularly in the area of Derry/Londonderry, “Yes, I am sorry that you have been put to as much trouble as you have through this withdrawal process.” I have great sympathy with what he says, but if we can step back a little, out of this whole process, there is a lesson for those who wish to make great constitutional changes, and that is to take the public with them at all times, but I am certainly not perfect in that regard. I for one, however, wish to put all that behind us and to move forward.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the all-Ireland economy and talked about the need for east-west and north-south to operate in harmony, and I am of one mind with him. I am absolutely all for free trade and removing all barriers to free trade wherever that can be done consistently with democratic consent.

Casement Park came up a couple of times, and we need to see a proper business case with a full statement of the costs involved. Clearly, there has been inflation in the costs, and we need to see what the full bill would be.

Revenue raising was part of the financial settlement tabled in December. The Government’s primary objective is to support stability and fiscal sustainability through a restored Executive who have the tools to deliver better outcomes for the people of Northern Ireland in an affordable way. That is why a condition of this package—specifically, the quantum of debt to be written off—will be agreed on a proportionate basis to locally raised revenue generated from the implementation of the Executive’s fiscal sustainability plan.

The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made a very interesting speech. I do not doubt that we have arrived where we are by a circuitous route, but here we are, and I think this is a happy day for Unionism overall. As the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the DUP said, we have a great opportunity to go forward now and make Northern Ireland work for all the people and to persuade them, in the context of those changing demographics, that they would be well placed to continue to choose to remain within the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) set me a number of questions, and I do not wish to further return to the rabbit hole he mentioned on border polls. I think I will just refer to my opening remarks, which were crafted to avoid any kind of ambiguity. He asked: when will we see action? We have seen action: we have legislated twice already, we are here for this Humble Address and we will continue to take action.

On the veterinary medicines working group, I will undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman before the week is out on the progress in establishing it, and I will place that letter in the Library so that others can see it, because I know it is a subject of the first importance, particularly to him. I shall write to him to set out our progress towards establishing that working group. I gave officials very clear instructions that we were to proceed with great haste, as swiftly as possible, to the establishment of that group and the horticulture working group. The horticulture working group is already established, and we will have further communication to do on that point.

Intertrade is dependent on the East-West Council, and we will need to work through those issues, including across Government. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that for east-west work to be effective we must properly engage, particularly with our colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and with the other devolved Administrations. Let us get this thing right. That means it will take just a little time, and I hope he can bear with me. As I said in my opening remarks, I am determined to proceed as swiftly as possible and to keep the House informed, including on the point about the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. The hon. Gentleman has already undertaken to give me the examples he mentioned, and I look forward to processing those. His history is better than mine. He referred to the Home Rule debate in 1879, and let us hope that we continue to do better than they did. They took 78 years to resolve some of those matters. We have already made swifter progress, and I am proud of it.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the Minister for that. Of course, the Home Rule debates were brought to a cataclysmic end—we see on the walls of this Chamber the testament to that end and to the great war of 1914.

Has the Minister made any progress on farm machinery? That was promised during the last legislative process that we went through. Can he confirm tonight that there has been a breakthrough on the sale of eggs? People might think this is cracking, but it is not. It is important, because 80% of all eggs hatched in Northern Ireland are sold on the mainland.

[Gavin Robinson]

Eggs-cellent!

[Ian Paisley]

It is eggs-cellent. If that was not the case, and if there was a problem due to veterinary medicines, or salmonella, that matter of sales would be brought to an immediate end. Will the Minister confirm that there has been a derogation this evening for Northern Ireland with regard to the sale of eggs across the United Kingdom? [Interruption.]

[Mr Baker]

I do not have any “breaking” news to share with the hon. Gentleman tonight—but I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for that joke, which people will recognise as being characteristic of him.

I have slightly exceeded the time that I intended to take. I listened carefully to the speech from the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), and I have considerable sympathy with the points she makes. I think I accepted in my opening remarks that this is a hard compromise for Unionists and Eurosceptics, but I remain convinced and resolute that we have taken forward measures that respect the legitimate interests of Unionism in Northern Ireland and across the whole UK, and that move matters forward.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as always, made a great speech. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) caused me in his challenge to doubt myself on the issue of VAT, so I want to affirm the position. The position on VAT is clear: the framework secured legally binding changes so that Northern Ireland benefits from the same VAT and alcohol taxes as in the rest of the UK. Those have been used to introduce reliefs on energy saving materials, to apply alcohol duty reforms UK wide, and to ensure that draught relief applies for beer sold in all UK pubs. Those benefits are being felt now in Northern Ireland and across the UK.

The hon. Member for North Antrim raised EORIs and I will be glad to return to that issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) mentioned plant trade, and I am pleased that, like her, businesses have welcomed measures in the Command Paper. Earlier this month my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received a letter from prominent Northern Ireland horticultural businesses stating that, thankfully, with the restauration of the Executive they are already experiencing positive feedback from their suppliers in Great Britain, who are “optimistic” about trading with them without any challenges.

Let me be expressly clear once again: Northern Ireland’s position is based on consent. The task for those of us who want the Union to prosper is to consider how we broaden support for Northern Ireland’s constitutional position in a world that is very different from the one in which the agreement was reached in 1998. No one could really add to the speech made with great skill by my right hon. Friend the leader of the Democratic Unionist party. Central to that approach has to be to make Northern Ireland work and flourish, and to do so for everyone, regardless of their community background or political aspirations, which we absolutely respect. The Government will continue to work to deliver the suite of commitments made under the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper, and continue to work with the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly Members to improve the lives of people living in Northern Ireland. Once again, I commend the Humble Address to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That an Humble Address be presented to His Majesty welcoming the return of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, re-affirming the importance of upholding the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998 in all its strands, acknowledging the foundational importance of the Acts of Union 1800, including the economic provisions under Article 6 of those Acts, and recognising that, consistent with section 23(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, executive power in Northern Ireland shall continue to be vested in His Majesty, and that joint authority is not provided for in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998 in respect of the UK and Irish Governments.

Northern Ireland

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

It is the UK Government in that area.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Further to that point, in respect of paragraph 96 of the Command Paper, will the Secretary of State outline whether he expects further SIs in the pipeline to give full effect, impact and clarity to the issues raised in this wide-ranging document?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

We will give legal direction to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs on these matters. We will use other legal instruments for the deal, but it is for us to give legal direction to DAERA on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I will certainly bear that exhortation in mind, Madam Deputy Speaker.

This debate has properly focused on the statutory instrument that will amend primary legislation through the powers of the 2018 Act, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) and I both spent a lot of time dealing with in its enactment. However, it is right to look again at what is outlined in the helpful annex A to the Command Paper, in terms of the history and the legal background to what the parties have been dealing with and why it is that many of the arguments from the naysayers do not pass close scrutiny at all.

I am delighted to see on page 53 of the Command Paper a clear exposition of the position with regard to the Acts of Union—I say the Acts of Union because, of course, there was more than the one in 1801. Since that time the Acts have been amended, and not just by the seismic events of 1921; they were amended right through the 19th century, and indeed beyond, to take into account the evolving position of Northern Ireland. Just as every other part of our United Kingdom has evolved, so has Northern Ireland.

It is right to pause and say that the arguments that were asserted, in particular in the Supreme Court, about what we can now call the old protocol being inconsistent with the Acts of Union are just wrong. That point was never at issue before that Court. The Court specifically said that it did not have to rule on it.

[Ian Paisley]

A lot of this is quite surreal, because it falls into the grounds of piffle. I remember sitting in the Select Committee on Northern Ireland, and the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), telling me, in October 2019, “This will all be light touch—you won’t even notice it.” We have spent the last four years now trying to unravel the heavy hand of Europe and still need to prise those fingers off what is happening in Northern Ireland. We have also been told that yes, there was a problem, and we all now know what the problem was: this House failed to stand up to Europe and allowed Northern Ireland to be a buffer zone to protect its single market and threw our single market down the toilet in the process.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

I feel the emotion and hear the proper points that the hon. Gentleman makes. The process became the legislative and constitutional equivalent of brain surgery, and the patient was Northern Ireland. Everybody was feeling it. This is not just an archaic debate: this is a debate about the business and economy of Northern Ireland. This is real and important for the businesses that right hon. and hon. Members represent—absolutely right —which is why the hon. Gentleman’s party should claim proper credit for the painstaking approach that he and his colleagues, including the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), have shown in this process. They have not taken no for an answer. They have actually sought to try to reach a solution and be part of that brain surgery process—that neurological change.

But I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that there is a distinction between the integral part that Northern Ireland plays in our United Kingdom constitution and our internal market—our single market—and the inevitable access that Northern Ireland will have to the EU single market. Why? Because of the nature of the border that exists in Northern Ireland, the unique nature of its status and all the history and, indeed, the reality that goes with that. That is why there is not going to be an elegant or perfect solution to all this. It was always going to involve compromise.

Compromise is a difficult word—it implies weakness and fudging; it implies a lack of clarity—but right hon. and hon. Members opposite have recognised that that is the world in which they operate, which is why we are able to be here today to debate important changes that will underpin not just declaratory words about Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market, but concrete actions that are set out in the Command Paper. I am thinking in particular of the operation of the Stormont brake. Yes, we need to see more guidance about its operation—we need to understand the evidential thresholds that will be required for MLAs to bring the brake to the attention of the UK Government to lodge their objections; that work has to be done—but today will allow it to happen.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court looked in particular at the question of the sovereignty of Parliament, and affirmed that—as article 6 of the Acts of Union itself recognised—it is the most fundamental rule of UK constitutional law. There is nothing novel, unexpected or controversial about that, which is why some of the language that emerged from that case was not just unhelpful but wrong. I know that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley, the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, shares my view. It was time for leadership, and leadership means being straightforward and getting it right. That is why I commend the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for the work that they have done: they got it right, and as a result of their approach we are able today, I hope, to pass this much-needed change. I welcome it warmly, I commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I commend this measure to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He restates a point he made earlier to the Secretary of State and he will have heard the response given. It is the task of all DUP Members to ensure that the Government deliver, and we bank the gains we have made in this process and move forward on that basis, recognising not only that there is more to do, but that there are new opportunities to seek and secure change. The Secretary of State referred earlier to my detractors, who have been very vocal, even challenging me to a debate on these issues. My challenge back to them is clear and simple. As I said last week in this House, when they are in a position to set out clearly for the people of Northern Ireland what they have achieved, the changes they have secured to the protocol and to the Windsor framework, and the changes they have secured to safeguard our place in the Union, I will consider discussion with them. But what I will not do is accept their criticism of what we have achieved on safeguarding the Union—real achievements and real changes, which my party has long sought.

We were disappointed when the Government abandoned the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, because all DUP Members recognised that those proposals provided a way forward for Northern Ireland. We have sought to incorporate into these new arrangements many aspects of that Bill, but we have gone further and achieved more. We will come to this more fully on the second SI before us this afternoon, but that Bill, which was endorsed fully by my parliamentary party, proposed a green lane and a red lane as the means by which goods would move between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. What we have achieved is to remove the need for the green lane, because we have restored Northern Ireland’s place within the UK’s internal market. Under these new arrangements, goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and staying within the UK will flow through the UK internal market system. There is no need for a so-called “green lane”. There is a need for only one lane, which deals with goods that flow through our Northern Ireland ports and onwards to the EU or that are deemed at risk of entering the EU.

The red lane was endorsed and supported by my party, and every one of my MPs voted for that proposal. That was my mandate and it is what I have secured. It removes the Irish sea border within our internal market of the United Kingdom, and it means the only checks we need to carry out are those on goods moving into, or at risk of going into, the European Union. That is what we stated in our response to the Windsor framework, endorsed unanimously by all our party officers. We made clear what we wanted, and I have gone further even than that response in removing the green lane from the new arrangements.

This is progress. Does it give us everything we want? It does not. My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) has been assiduous in his pursuit of a solution on veterinary medicines. He has worked with the Government and campaigned alongside representatives of the Northern Ireland agrifood sector. As a result of that work, in the Command Paper we now have clarity on the position of the UK Government. In the absence of an agreement with the European Union that maintains Northern Ireland’s full access to UK veterinary medicines, the UK Government will legislate to protect our access to veterinary medicines in the United Kingdom. That is a commitment given by the Government and I commend my hon. Friend for his work. That is the business we are in—it is unfinished business. We will continue to work to ensure the Government deliver on their commitments in the Command Paper on veterinary medicines.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the leader of the party for his comments. This is crucial: it affects every single person in Northern Ireland because it is about food security across the whole of the United Kingdom. The Northern Ireland food industry feeds about 17 million people, not only in Northern Ireland, but across the United Kingdom and the world. It is vital to our food security. Damaging it, as was happening under the previous agreement, is wholly destructive to food health and farming. I also welcome paragraph 22, which addresses the movement of cattle and livestock. That is significant for our farming industry. I agree that more needs to be done and I will hold the Secretary of State to account to get that legislation on the statute book if Europe does not move.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I need add nothing to the point made by my hon. Friend. We welcome the explicit reference in the Command Paper to Northern Ireland’s part in the economy of the United Kingdom, including the fact that we are within the customs territory of the United Kingdom. We are part of the UK internal market and it is important that that is maintained.

Northern Ireland Executive Formation

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. The factually correct answer is probably that those measures will come into place when the legislation is passed through this place.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State knows that 2025 is just too long to wait for veterinary medicine issues to be resolved in Northern Ireland. That grace period is totally unacceptable. He knows it will decimate veterinary practices, affect farm viability and, according to the British Veterinary Association, have a detrimental impact on public health. In paragraph 141 of this Command Paper, the Secretary of State indicates that he will set up a veterinary medicines working group. I welcome that, but will he confirm that if a speedy solution is not brought forward by the spring, he will table legislation in this House to unilaterally deal with this matter once and for all?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

The hon. Gentleman is right; I think it is paragraphs 136 to 141 in the Command Paper that detail the issues he has rightly raised in this place, with me privately and in meetings with my officials. It is probably fair to say that he was the genesis of the veterinary medicines working group idea in paragraph 141. That group will receive expert opinion, and that is a vital part of the solution to this problem. My intention is to listen carefully to the group’s recommendations, because it will have the experts in this matter. At that point, he and I can have the next bit of conversation, although I hope that will not need to be the case, because I would like to think we can pursue solutions through technical discussions with the European Union, but let us see.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

10. What discussions he has had with the chief commissioner and the commissioner for investigations at the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery since their appointment.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton- Harris)]

To update the House, Sir Declan Morgan and Peter Sheridan have been identified as chief commissioner-designate and commissioner for investigations-designate, respectively. Sir Declan commenced work in June and Peter Sheridan is due to start in December. Formal appointments will take place only once the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery is legally established. The commissioner-designate and I have been in contact about a range of issues, mainly through correspondence, including in leading the search for the remaining commissioners.

[Ian Paisley]

I am sure that when those meetings finally take place, the Secretary of State will take the opportunity to raise the numerous crimes committed in the Republic of Ireland against Northern Ireland, and challenge them over state-sponsored terrorism there. In his dozens of meetings with Sinn Féin, can the Secretary of State explain if he has taken the opportunity to challenge Sinn Féin about its boycott of the institutions here? When will he ask Sinn Féin Members to come back here and do their job?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

As you would expect, Mr Speaker, I meet all the political parties and their party leaders in Northern Ireland and here, where their party leaders exist. Everyone knows the views of this Government about people who do not turn up and take the oath in this place, but I have to work with all parties and will continue to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 6th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his supplementary question. Northern Ireland benefits from being part of the United Kingdom with access to electricity from Great Britain through the interconnector, and it also benefits from being part of the single electricity market on the island of Ireland. I and the Minister of State worked hard to ensure that that was preserved during the UK’s exit from the European Union. We are working very closely with all officials across Government here and in the Northern Ireland civil service to ensure that the right preparations are in place for the winter.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

9. What recent assessment he has made of the availability of (a) veterinary products and (b) horticultural stock in Northern Ireland.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Steve Baker)]

The cliff edge on veterinary medicines has been removed, protecting the supply of those medicines in Northern Ireland through to 2025, while we work through sustainable, long-term solutions. We are much more optimistic about reaching those solutions in the context of the Windsor framework. There will no longer be any need for costly phytosanitary certificates for each movement of plants staying in the UK. We have paved the way for 11 banned plant species to move again by the time of the next planting season. These were priority cases identified by the industry itself, and we have progressed further cases since announcing the Windsor framework. We are working closely with a wide range of stakeholders to ensure that gardeners, farmers and growers can access plants and seeds from a wide variety of sources.

[Ian Paisley]

With regards to veterinary medicines, I fear the Minister’s sunny optimism may be somewhat misplaced. After all, his preferred stakeholder—Mr Bernard Van Goethem, the deputy director general for food sustainability—has made it abundantly clear to DEFRA and the UK Government that the negotiations on this matter are “over”. The deal is done. There will be no change to veterinary medicines. This means that insulin will no longer be available in Northern Ireland for animals. Veterinary medicines for botulism—144,000 were issued last year—will no longer be available. What will the Secretary of State and the Minister do about this?

[Mr Baker]

The hon. Gentleman has presented me with information about which I was not aware beforehand. I am certainly happy to look at what has been said, but what I would say to him is that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did the deal that no one said could be done. That has transformed the relationship with the European Union, and I am therefore confident that we will be able to deliver a deal on veterinary medicines. As we sometimes say, I do not recognise the information that the hon. Gentleman has presented. It is new to me, and I shall be glad to look at it, but we will certainly have to deliver a deal.

Northern Ireland Budget (No. 2) Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 4th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

We are approaching tomorrow, so I will try not to detain the House too long with the comments I wish to make on this important Bill. At the outset I want to pay tribute, as others have, to the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), the former shadow Secretary of State, who has now moved on to another post. He visited my constituency on more than one occasion and spent time with businesspeople and community leaders there, which was much appreciated. It was very clear that he wanted to learn as much as he possibly could about Northern Ireland, and he used that information wisely and, on many occasions, powerfully in this House. I hope he continues to maintain that interest, particularly in the hydrogen technologies that he looked at in Northern Ireland, in his new role. I wish him all the very best.

I also welcome the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) to his new post. He brings a level of gravity to the post, which is very important, and I wish him all the very best as well. I hope that, as a supporter of Leeds United, that brings us closer to at least some extent.

When the Minister of State opened the debate this evening, he made it clear that he was putting a budget in place—I think I quote him correctly—that would allow Northern Ireland Departments to continue to function. That was its purpose. Of course, at some level those Departments will continue to function, but they will function on the most stingy budget Bill ever brought forward: a Bill that is a crisis point. Whether there is direct rule, the current formation that we have, or a devolved Assembly operating, the current budget is inadequate. It is a disaster for many of the Departments in Northern Ireland, and it will not allow government to function, or to function normally. Many of those Departments have been cut to the bare bone with regard to what they will be expected to deliver.

What lies at the heart of this budget Bill? Of course, it is a fundamental unfairness. It is unfair in terms of the budget allocation; the formula, or the definition of need, that has been used in relation to Northern Ireland; and the outcome that it will have for the people of Northern Ireland, irrespective of their political or other identity. This is a grossly unfair budget, and it will impact harshly on the people of Northern Ireland. It has been described as a “punishment budget”, and I say frankly to the Secretary of State, his Minister and his team that I think it is designed to be a punishment budget—to punish Northern Ireland because of political circumstances.

If the Government are making an argument tonight that they want an Assembly back, this is a very strange way to go about it, because they are basically saying to the political class in Northern Ireland, “If you go into the Assembly and you try to run it on this pinching, stingy budget, you will deliver to the people of Northern Ireland a disastrous arrangement.” It is no encouragement whatsoever to politicians to go into the Assembly on that one narrow point of the budget. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) has outlined much more detailed reasons as to why Unionists would not go back into the Assembly on the current arrangements until issues around the Windsor framework and the protocol are resolved.

If ever we needed leadership from the Government that led to decisive outcomes, it would not be this stunt budget that has been pulled in Northern Ireland. It is a pathetic excuse for a budget, and it will damage the opportunity to try to build better relationships not only within this House, but across Northern Ireland. The Government would not dare bring forward these sorts of arrangements for any other part of the United Kingdom—they simply would not dare and they would not have the affront to do it—and it is appalling that they are doing that for this part of the kingdom, Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) rightly identified that, if we are going to raise more revenue opportunities and invest in the public service, we need resources to do that. I notice that, in our newspapers every day, there are threats that the Northern Ireland Secretary is going to introduce water charges. I have heard this before. When I speak to the head of Northern Ireland Water, she tells me that, to get us back to an even keel in Northern Ireland with regards to the infrastructure of our water service, we need to invest about £2 billion. That is just to get it back to a level playing field and to a state where we could charge people for the water service. Are the Government proposing to put that sort of investment into the process, or are they just saying, “No, we’ll bring in water charges”? It is impossible to bring in water charges and well the Secretary of State knows it.

Just look at the cuts that are being proposed. The shadow Secretary of State rightly identified the problems to do with the concrete in schools across Northern Ireland, yet the education budget is being given the single largest kicking by the Government. Its budget is going to be down by 2.7%. If there is a crisis identified in the schools’ structure—another crisis in the schools’ structure—they just will not have the resources or the capability to resolve that, and we are going to see a major funding crisis there. Justice funding is down by 1.5%; I will come to some more points about that in a moment. Of course, the Department for the Economy funding is down by nearly 1% and this comes in the jaws of the great economic conference the Government are holding in a matter of seven or eight days in Northern Ireland. They are going to invite investors from all over the world and to say, “Come and invest in Northern Ireland—by the way, we have decided to cut the budget of the Department for the Economy, and we have decided to cut the budget for education and for other parts of Northern Ireland”. What sort of a message is that going to send to potential investors? If the Secretary of State has to try to sell these issues to outside investors whenever they decide to cut the budget, I certainly would not want to be a Northern Ireland-based devolved Minister trying to make that point.

[Mr Steve Baker]

Thankfully, the hon. Gentleman is not writing the speeches for the investment conference next week because, if he were, it would not be very successful. What he knows and I know—and any of us in this House know who knows Northern Ireland—is that it has an amazing, vibrant private sector with terrific entrepreneurs, who are incredibly well grounded in place, care about their communities, and care about making a profit justly while taking care of the environment. They are amazing, inspiring people who can succeed if they are provided with the right capital. If anything, what we are trying to do here, on the point he makes, is to make sure that the very poor quality politics of Northern Ireland ends up matching the very high quality of the private sector. If we could pull that off, Northern Ireland would soar.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the Minister, but I was once told, “If you throw a stone among a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest has been hit the hardest.” I think that point maybe hit the Minister just a little bit this evening in that he knows that to say to investors, “By the way, we’ve cut the budget”, is not actually a good look for the Minister.

I want to turn to the issue of the cut to the Department of Justice funding; it is down by 1.5%. We all know that the morale of the police is at an all-time low. The issue of police pay for probationers has been raised in this House. It is very difficult to encourage young and newly qualified police officers that what they are doing is worth while. That is because the Department of Justice is going to be faced with another cut.

We have had the drama in recent weeks of the data breach. Police on the database have, shockingly, been given advice that they should remove themselves from the electoral register. That is one of the ways in which they can now protect themselves, undermining the democratic process for them and their families. The integrity of the MI5 officers who work in Northern Ireland has been undermined. That has a massive cost not just economically and politically, but to our security. Of course today there has been the loss of the Chief Constable, who decided to make decisions at the behest of Sinn Féin; rightly, he has had to resign. Who can calculate at this point what the cost of this will be, not just economically but to policing and to resolving that problem? I am disappointed that today the Secretary of State hedged his bets on who will pay the costs of the data breach; compensation will run into tens of millions of pounds. With Department of Justice funding cut by 1.5%, it is impossible to take that level of cost from that Department. The Secretary of State knows that he must do better, that this is not a good budget and that it will hit some of the Departments in Northern Ireland that mean the most the hardest.

Northern Ireland’s biggest industry and single largest employer still today is agrifood, making good-quality, tasty food. It does so not just for the people of Northern Ireland: the 30,000 or so farms in Northern Ireland make food and feed about 17 million people here in the rest of the United Kingdom. That sector of our economy is facing problems because that industry is about to have its veterinary medicines violated by this Government. Under the Windsor framework, the problems facing our farms are coming at them at 100 mph. Over 50% of our medicines for that sector are going to be denied and the UK Government say, “We are in discussions to resolve this issue.” The fact of the matter is that Europe has made it very clear that those discussions are over, yet the Government still think they can solve that. That crisis is coming too and the Government will need to resolve it and do so very soon. I hope that they do. I hope that they actually listen to these points, instead of getting tetchy about them, and recognise that the threat they have caused to the people of Northern Ireland by such a stingy, nasty budget, in such a procrastinating manner, is not serving the purpose of getting Government back into Northern Ireland, but is putting us further into the doldrums.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 18th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I am delighted to speak to this Bill following its year-long passage through the other place. I pay tribute to Lord Caine for his expert stewardship of the Bill in that place, as well as to all the Opposition spokespeople for their patience and engagement on the Bill.

Hon. and right hon. Members will know all too well that the legacy of the troubles remains one of the outstanding issues since the Belfast/Good Friday agreement was reached in 1998. As a Government, we have sought to make a realistic assessment of what we can do to best deliver for those affected by the troubles over a quarter of a century after that agreement and well over 50 years since the troubles began. I recognise, and I know the House recognises, that this is a hugely difficult task. That is reflected in the many valiant attempts made to address this issue since the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement all those years ago. It is also incumbent on us to ensure that any process for dealing with the past focuses on measures that can deliver positive outcomes for as many of those directly affected by the troubles as possible, as well as for society in Northern Ireland as a whole. We maintain that the Bill before us is the best way of doing that.

The Bill contains finely balanced political and moral choices that are uncomfortable for many, but we should be honest about what we can realistically deliver for people in Northern Ireland, in circumstances where the prospects of achieving justice in the traditional sense are so vanishingly small. The Bill seeks to deliver an approach that focuses on what can practically be achieved to deliver better outcomes for all those who suffered, including those who served, and it aims to help society look forward together to a more shared future.

The Bill left the House of Commons over a year ago. In that time, my ministerial colleagues and I have held more than 100 meetings with victims groups, veterans groups, Northern Ireland political parties, the Opposition, the Irish Government, academics, US interlocutors and Members of both Houses, in an effort to make meaningful changes to improve the Bill. As a result of that extensive engagement, the Government have brought forward a significant package of amendments that provide greater assurance regarding compliance with our international obligations; enhance the independence of the new Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery—I will call that by its catchy nickname, ICRIR, from here on—provide a much greater focus on the interests of victims and families; and strengthen provisions related to the process of granting immunity from prosecution to those who engage meaningfully with the commission, while keeping open the possibility of prosecution for those who fail to do so.

Let me run through the Government’s Lord amendments thematically, as well as our responses to Lords amendments 20 and 44. First there is conditional immunity and incentives to co-operate with the ICRIR. As I said from the outset, the aim of the Bill is to provide more information to more people than is possible under current mechanisms, and we will do that by creating an effective information recovery process. The commission will conduct reviews with the primary purpose of providing answers to those who want them, and will grant immunity from prosecution only if individuals provide an account that is true to the best of their knowledge and belief.

I know that is challenging for many, but conditional immunity is a crucial aspect of the information recovery process. The Government believe it is the best mechanism by which we can generate the greatest volume of information in the quickest possible time, to pass on to families and victims who have been waiting for so long. That is why the Government cannot accept Lords amendment 44, which seeks to remove clause 18 and conditional immunity from the Bill.

As many Members of the House will know, there is a significant precedent regarding limited immunities and amnesties in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, following periods of violence. That includes, following the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, an amnesty for the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons, and limited immunity for individuals who share information about the location of victims’ remains. If we look back further, the newly created Irish state legislated three times between 1923 and 1924 for amnesties, dispensing with civil and criminal liability for violence for UK state forces, republicans and Free State forces.

Through Government amendments, we are making the conditional immunity process more robust. That includes amendments to clause 18 in my name, which were agreed in the other place but fell when the clause was removed from the Bill. The commission is already required to consider all relevant information that it holds when forming a view on the truth of a person’s account, as part of their application for immunity, including information obtained through a related review. Through Lords amendment 49, we are strengthening that provision by placing the commission under a positive duty, requiring it to take “reasonable steps” to secure information relevant to that assessment.

The Government are further strengthening the immunity provisions by introducing circumstances under which immunity may be revoked, or may not be granted. I have restored Lords amendment 60, which makes it clear that where a person applying for immunity is subject to an ongoing prosecution, immunity may not be granted if there is a risk that it might prejudice that ongoing prosecution. Through Lords amendment 63 we are creating a new criminal offence for those who wilfully or recklessly choose to mislead the commission when providing information. Individuals who are granted immunity will automatically lose it if they are convicted of such an offence.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Can the Secretary of State confirm to the House how many ongoing IRA trials are taking place vis-à-vis how many ongoing trials against members of the security services are taking place?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I do not have those figures with me, but I will get them from my officials and give them to the hon. Gentleman when, with the leave of the House, I reply to the debate later.

Building on what I was just outlining, Lords amendment 62 ensures that a grant of immunity must be revoked if an individual is subsequently convicted of terrorism offences or offences connected to terrorism committed after the immunity has been granted. That includes offences relating to fundraising, involvement in terrorist fundraising arrangements and the encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications. The offender will also be precluded from obtaining immunity for offences within the scope of the revoked grant.

We are also disapplying the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 for future convictions. That means that individuals who choose not to engage fully with the commission and are not granted immunity, but who are subsequently convicted of an offence, will not be able to apply for early release and will be liable to serve a full sentence. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for raising that issue before the Bill left the Commons this time last year. Alongside that, having listened to suggestions in the debates in this House, we are increasing the financial penalty for non-compliance with the commission from up to £1,000 to up to £5,000, which is in line with the asks during this Bill’s passage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Our amendment provides until 1 May 2024 for inquests to conclude. Since the Bill’s introduction, expeditious case management of inquests in order to reach “an advanced stage” has resulted in the overloading of a system that was already struggling under incredible pressure, causing delay and frustration. We hope that the amendment will ensure that resources will now be focused on completing those inquests that have a realistic prospect of conclusion in the next year. The Government expect troubles-related cases that do not conclude via the coronial process by 1 May 2024 to be transferred to the fully operational ICRIR, led by Sir Declan Morgan as chief commissioner-designate, through the use of provisions already contained in the Bill, and I believe that those provisions will allow him to maintain the relevant level of investigation.

[Ian Paisley]

The Secretary of State is very kind and generous to give way. Before he concludes, would he care to mention any response to the Irish Government threat that they intend to take His Majesty’s Government to court on these matters? How does he view that threat, and what has been the response back to the Irish Government, given their own dire record of dealing with legacy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle]

Labour believes in a more consensual way forward. We believe that, in the past, there has been agreement that drew more consensus. This Government published a Bill that had broad agreement in Northern Ireland and was deemed human rights compliant, yet they jettisoned the Bill after gaining all that consensus and chose a different way forward. We believe the way forward lies in the origins of that draft legislation, and we believe there is a way forward that takes into account the learning since.

The hon. Gentleman mentions vexatious litigation against former servicepeople in the Northern Ireland context. Perhaps he could give an example of vexatious litigation where someone is currently being prosecuted or pursued as a result?

[Ian Paisley]

Officer B.

[The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Johnny Mercer)]

Dennis Hutchings.

--- Later in debate ---

Let me address an intervention from the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), who asked about the number of prosecutions currently under way regarding veterans and terrorists in the times of the troubles. To the best of my knowledge, two cases are outstanding and ongoing relating to veterans—soldier B and soldier F —but there are 32 case files currently with prosecutors in Northern Ireland relating to acts of terror. Those 32 cases are not being pushed forward because prosecutors lack the resources, which they have repeatedly asked Government for, to pursue those prosecutions. Those resources are not forthcoming, but there are a lot of cases that could be moved forward that we are not resourced to progress right now.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for emphasising that point, because it highlights the folly of the decision taken by some people in this House to support this legislation because it will protect “our boys”. The fact of the matter is that the only ongoing cases that have any likely prospect of getting to trial are cases against “our boys”. None of the cases against terrorists will ever be able to get to court and, more importantly, the immunity provisions will exclude former security personnel from benefiting from them. Members should think again about why they are supporting those measures.

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. These are very difficult issues and of course I understand why people want to speak in support of people who have served in our armed forces. I feel this intensely and strongly myself, coming from a family where one of my parents—my father—served in our armed forces.

I will come to the issue again later in my speech, but I will go into it in some detail now. The only recent case against a member of our armed forces is that of David Holden, a member of the Grenadier Guards, and it is worth reflecting on the judge’s summing up in that particular case. Paragraph 105 of the judgment says:

“Instead, according to his frankly incoherent evidence, he put his right hand on the pistol grip which somehow resulted in his finger slipping onto the trigger and doing so with the significant pressure required to fire the weapon. I do not believe that evidence. I conclude that it is a deliberately false account of what happened.”

Paragraph 120 says:

“To summarise the conclusions above I find that it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that…the defendant lied repeatedly to the police.”

If this case had come to light after the Bill had passed, prosecution would not have been possible. I do not believe for a second that this case and the person responsible—David Holden—reflect the values that we expect from those who serve in our armed forces, and that the vast majority of people who serve in our armed forces expect from their fellow members.

After five years, the Bill provides a general amnesty for anyone and everyone, as the independent body will wind up. All other investigations, inquests and civil cases will be shut down. It is clear that the Government have chosen immunity to satisfy some on their own Benches. They say veterans face “a witch hunt” in Northern Ireland; that is the phrase used by the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir Brandon Lewis). I do not believe that that is the way that we should frame or explain the reconciliation challenge of Northern Ireland. The vast majority of our soldiers served with distinction in the most difficult of circumstances. There can be no equivalence drawn between their actions and those of terrorists, but that is precisely what this Bill does. Where standards were not upheld, it is important that there is accountability. There have been a total of six military personnel charged with offences related to the troubles, two of which cases are currently ongoing. What has changed since this Bill’s inception is that there has now been a conviction of the former Grenadier Guardsman, David Holden, for the manslaughter of Aidan McAnespie. We cannot ignore the fact that this Bill is designed to stop the outcome that the McAnespie family finally achieved.

I also wish to put it on the record that veterans are victims too. The IRA shot Private Tony Harrison five times in the back while he was sitting on the sofa at his fiancée’s home in east Belfast in 1991. His family have been clear that they do not want immunity for his killers. I would be a lot more sympathetic with the Government if their approach had been to try to secure justice for more, not fewer, people.

This Bill will affect the entire United Kingdom and our reputation abroad. The families of the 21 victims of the IRA Birmingham pub bombing have been clear that they do not want immunity to be on offer. In November, the chief constable of West Midlands police confirmed that files had been passed on to the Crown Prosecution Service. Immunity will be open to that suspect if this Bill passes before a decision is made. Voting down Lords amendment 44 could shut off justice for families who have waited 50 years, right at their moment of greatest hope. There is still time for the Government to pause and reconsider this approach, just as the Irish Government have formally requested. The 25th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement is the moment to reflect on the power of consensus. To pass this Bill with immunity would be to fly in the face of everything that we know about progress in Northern Ireland; it should not happen.

--- Later in debate ---

I am lucky that I was not about then. But I am about now, and we are about now. We owe it to the people who were about then to ensure that they get to remember their loved ones and find out the truth about what happened to them, and have the justice and the peace that they deserve and that we, in this place of all places, should demand.

[Ian Paisley]

The Secretary of State said that immunity will be blocked if there is an ongoing process. Of course, in all likelihood, the only trials that will actually take place—that are in process at the minute and could take place—are those against members or former members of the security services. No IRA alleged terrorists are about to face trial or are up for trial, and at present it is unlikely that they will be. Therefore, Government Members who think that, by supporting the Bill, they are supporting the security personnel and protecting them from prosecution are wildly mistaken.

Some republicans will not let this issue go. There have been a couple of comments tonight, from Members on both the Front Bench and the Back Benches, suggesting that no vexatious cases are ongoing. Actually, vindictive and vexatious cases are ongoing, and I want to put one before the House tonight. Colum Marks was lawfully shot dead by an RUC officer in an action justified by the police, the Army and those involved because he was about to murder and maim in Downpatrick. It is very unfortunate that that was the action that had to be taken.

The officer who took part in that operation has now faced three trials. He was most recently cleared by the Director of Public Prosecutions with the words that this was a lawful killing, not only in his self-defence but in the defence of the state and the people living in Downpatrick. Was that the end of it? No, there is now going to be another trial—another attempt to drag that officer, known as Officer B, before the courts. That is vindictive. That officer has long since retired. He has another family and is trying to live his life, yet this continues to hang over him. We have a certain shameful snake-oil salesman of a legal practitioner saying that he is going to take this person—this “RUC murderer”—back to court on behalf of the Marks family. That is vindictive and it is ongoing, and those matters do offend.

[Colum Eastwood]

Can I ask the hon. Gentleman to be very careful in his language? The last time that solicitors were named in this House, we ended up in a very bad and dangerous place. I would just ask him to be very careful about his language, because we can never go back to those days, and people in this House should not be giving licence for that.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the hon. Member for that, but he should be very clear that I did not actually mention solicitors. I said a legal practitioner, because they are not a solicitor. He wants to draw that out, as he has done by his comment, but he will now see that it is someone very specific. People will be able to look up the website of that person, who makes snake-oil sales in this case in that particular way, and it is wrong because such a person should recognise the outcome of the justice process.

In the Republic of Ireland there is no legacy equivalent. In the Republic of Ireland there is no equivalent for the right to access historical legal papers. There is no equivalent in the Republic of Ireland for ombudsman inquiries into Garda Siochana activity. In the Republic of Ireland there were requests by this state for 116 warrants for extradition to bring known terrorists back over the border to face prosecution in our courts, but only eight of those warrants were ever pursued and delivered on. More importantly, in the Republic of Ireland the possession of weapons in Northern Ireland is not regarded as a criminal offence and is not regarded as a terrorist offence. The possession of weapons in Northern Ireland, according to the Republic of Ireland, is a political offence, and people cannot face prosecution for a political offence.

I think Members can see some of the problems. The idea that we have a view from another state that all that is happening here should be dragged to court somewhere else by us on some sort of high moral ground is absolutely shameful. The Republic of Ireland has threatened His Majesty’s Government to take them to court on this issue, and they should have a good, hard, long look at themselves, because if this issue of legacy is going to be resolved, it will have to be resolved by both the north and the south, as well as by the United Kingdom Government, properly looking at this issue and resolving it.

I would go so far as to say that the Republic of Ireland actually has a duty to address these issues. Do Members want to know how many murders have a cross-border element to them? Of the 3,700-odd terrorist offences, or the almost 3,700 dead, almost 600 have a cross-border element. My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned his own personal circumstances and the cases involving his family, where the terrorists fled back over the border. That is where weapon hoards were stored, and where the Republic of Ireland gave sanctuary to those people who were involved in almost 600 murders—of Roman Catholics and Protestants—in Northern Ireland. Remember that there were more Roman Catholics murdered by the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland than there were Roman Catholics who were done to death by any other organisation, including the state. It is important to remember that the biggest group of people who get off the hook here is the Provisional IRA, and we should be guarding strongly against that.

I want to put on the record the comments of Senator Michael McDowell, the former Justice Minister of the Republic of Ireland. Once again, the Senator has made it clear that, in the Republic of Ireland—he wrote this in The Irish Times—

“the Irish Government of which I was a member took the decision that further investigation and prosecution by An Garda Siochana of such historic offences was no longer warranted or justified by reason of the greater interest in ending the Provisional campaign and all other political violence in Northern Ireland.”

Of the Irish Government, he concludes:

“And so, as far as this state was concerned, a line was drawn across the page of historic Provisional IRA criminality in Northern Ireland.”

If Members want to look for immunity from justice, look no further than 60 or 70 miles from where I live, which is across the border in the Republic of Ireland, where they granted immunity.

Of course, in relation to the Government here, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) made comments about the on-the-run letters and about the decision by those who support the Belfast agreement to let the prisoners out of jail, and all of those things turned justice on its head. I think we have to recognise that this is not going to be an easy fix. But I can tell you one thing, Mr Deputy Speaker: what the Government are proposing today will not satisfy people on the Government Back Benches and it will not satisfy the victims in Northern Ireland. I would appeal to the Government to think again.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

I will start by putting on the record my appreciation for the efforts of the Government, in particular Lord Caine, over the past year, in trying to improve the Bill with the amendments that were tabled in the House of Lords. It is, however, a matter of regret—this will probably be a common theme across the Northern Ireland parties—that the Bill remains fundamentally flawed and not fit for purpose. Even at this eleventh hour, it is important that we say to the Government—that is what we hear from most stakeholders in Northern Ireland—that they should withdraw the Bill. It is not wanted, and it is not going to work and achieve what the Government think it will. Even at this stage, I urge a rethink. Do not take the Bill over the line and end up with a situation where we have something that will not deliver for anybody in that regard.

The Bill is not fit for purpose in the sense that it is not compliant with article 2 of the European convention on human rights. It does not have the support and confidence of stakeholders in Northern Ireland, whether that is the political parties—it is rare that we are so united, but we are on this point—the different victims groups, whose voices are particularly to be listened to; or the views of virtually every independent expert, such as the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which has a statutory role to give its views on such matters. They are all deeply concerned about the Bill and do not believe it will deliver or that it is legally competent.

I want particularly to focus on immunity, as that is one of the core areas of debate, and on the Government amendments, which I will shortly be opposing. The concept of immunity is seen as being fundamentally unjust by victims. Most victims appreciate that they are unlikely to see their day in court and a successful prosecution of the culprits who took away their loved ones, but they do not want to have that hope extinguished. As long as there is hope, people are clinging on to that. That is the real fear, and it is on that pivot that people become particularly emotional. That is at the heart of the comments that the Government are hearing from victims across the political spectrum.

The concept of immunity is also seen as a de facto amnesty, which has its own implications. First, it goes against emerging caselaw at European level, but it also carries certain connotations that will weigh heavy on certain people. Let me frame this for a moment from the point of view of some people who have worked in the police, the Army and other security services over the past decades. I want to start by reflecting that the vast majority of people who served did so with honour, and with the intent of upholding the rule of law and protecting the entire community. There is a clear distinction between them and the terrorist, in that the former did not set out to do harm but rather to protect the community, whereas every day the mission of the terrorist was to do harm. That is a clear distinction.

The concept of immunity, particularly for those who were based in Northern Ireland, almost reinvents the whole nature of their service. They say, “We don’t need immunity because we didn’t do anything wrong. Why are we given this abstract concept? Where our colleagues did wrong, they should face justice because that is the rule of law, and the justice system is among many other values that they were serving.” This process turns that entirely on its head, and almost puts them at the level of the terrorist. That said, justice should be blind, and where there are issues to be followed through, whatever legacy mechanisms we have in place, that should proceed without favour to anyone.

That brings me to a wider point about the genesis of the Bill, and this is a fundamental reason why there is this lack of confidence. The Government cannot escape from the rationale set out at the beginning and the need to protect certain elements who are clamouring for protection against vexatious claims, who I think were generally more GB-based than in Northern Ireland as such. We have the comments from the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir Brandon Lewis) when he was introducing the Bill and its pretext of giving protection to veterans who had served, in particular in the Army. Again, I stress that many other veterans do not want that protection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his concise argument, but I can also think of no part of Northern Ireland’s history when we have managed to reach a point at which there is consensus on this issue. I believe that the ICRIR will have the ability both to carry out criminal investigations and to conduct reviews and get information for families, and that must be a step forward.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) asked about article 2. Let me make it clear that the Government amendments go no further than existing obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998, and that, specifically, they do not alter the material or temporal scope of those obligations as they apply to troubles-related cases, including those that he mentioned. I think I answered that in a slightly more concise way when he picked it up.

The hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) mentioned a host of things, but I believe he misrepresented the Bill and a number of things in it. What he said about the perjury aspects of the Bill was straightforwardly wrong. Perjury provisions exist in the Bill. Anyone providing an account to the ICRIR when applying for immunity will have to provide an account that is truthful and if they do not, they will not get immunity.

May I start to conclude my comments by thanking my civil servants for all the work that they have done on the Bill, especially over the course of the past year. I would like to think that everybody recognises the huge amount of work that has gone on.

[Ian Paisley]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I am afraid I do not have the time.

I wish to close by reiterating that the Government have sought to make a realistic assessment of what we can best deliver for families, over a quarter of a century after the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and nearly 30 years since the first ceasefires and well over 50 years since the troubles began. I recognise that this is challenging for all those involved, but I am prepared to make this difficult decision to try and help Northern Ireland to take a step forward towards reconciliation. This Government will give people the accountability, acknowledgment and information they require to allow Northern Ireland to become a more reconciled society.

It is a matter for regret, though, that the Labour party would rather see veterans and victims treated the same as terrorists. During the Bill’s Second Reading, in May 2022, the hon. Member for Hove said:

“I have been very clear: I want to make sure that the rights of victims and veterans are equal to the rights of terrorists and people who committed crime in the era of the troubles”.—[Official Report, 24 May 2022; Vol. 715, c. 193.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 21st June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

The £400 million in the new deal for Northern Ireland funding will underscore the UK’s commitment to supporting and protecting the interests of people and businesses in Northern Ireland. New deal funding has been invested in projects such as £15 million for the Skill Up project to improve skills, £11 million for a cyber-AI hub at Queen’s University Belfast, and a number of other projects, including £8 million for Invest NI to help to promote trade. It is a commitment of which we are very proud and I could speak at even greater length.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

What is the Northern Ireland Office doing, and what is the Minister doing, to promote Northern Ireland businesses at COP28, which will provide a significant opportunity for those businesses to be marketed on the world stage, especially those involved in hydrogen technology? We have a hydrogen hub in my area.

[Mr Baker]

I know that the hon. Gentleman has a personal interest in this subject, and I should be happy to meet him to discuss how we can do more. There are some excellent businesses in Northern Ireland, including Catagen, which has an incredible technology for converting wind power and water into hydrocarbon fuels, and other businesses which should have the opportunity to participate.

Northern Ireland

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I think I should now continue with my speech, so that I can explain all this to the House.

The brake is triggered if 30 Members of the Legislative Assembly from two parties object to an amending rule or regulation. These MLAs can be from the same community designation, so they can, in theory and in practice, come from two Unionist parties, or indeed two nationalist parties. The exercise of the brake will require no other process and no vote in the Assembly. Once the brake has been pulled, the law will automatically be disapplied in Northern Ireland after two weeks. The EU can challenge the use of the brake only through international arbitration, after the law has been suspended, where the bar to overturn it will be exceptionally high.

The Stormont brake is one of the most significant changes that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has secured. It is a robust change that gives the United Kingdom a veto over dynamic alignment with EU rules but, just as importantly, the regulations we are debating today put the democratically elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland in the driving seat when it comes to whether and when that veto will be used.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. Could he answer, very clearly, this one simple question? Is it not the case that every single lorry that departs from the port of Cairnryan to Northern Ireland will have to have customs declaration papers for every product on that vehicle? Is it right that a vehicle travelling from one part of the United Kingdom to another part of the United Kingdom continues to be treated in that way?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Those vehicles will be using the trusted trader service. There will be 21 fields of information, mostly auto-populated, which will mean no certificates will be needed from vets or other third parties—

[Ian Paisley]

That is wrong.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I would say to the hon. Gentleman that I think I am right.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

The right hon. Gentleman is completely right that the people of Northern Ireland end up suffering from not having functioning institutions working for them.

The Bill provides me, as Secretary of State, with the important ability to call an early election, provided that offices have not been filled. Taken together, these provisions represent a delicate balance. Eventually, if the political impasse in Northern Ireland continues, people in Northern Ireland will rightly expect to return to the polls to have their say. However, the prospect of forcing an election when it would be unwelcome or unhelpful runs contrary to our goal of providing the time and space we need for our negotiations with the European Union on the protocol to continue to develop, and for an Executive to form.

Members with a keen eye for detail will no doubt have noticed that, unless an early election is called, the extension provided for by the Bill will run past the date on which the decision-making provisions contained in the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022 lapse, namely, 5 June 2023. During the Act’s passage late last year, we were clear that the current governance arrangements were not a sustainable long-term solution. I am therefore keeping those arrangements under review, in the continued absence of fully functioning devolved institutions, but I sincerely hope that an Executive are in place before those arrangements expire.

In the meantime, the provisions of the 2022 Act and its accompanying guidance provide Northern Ireland civil servants with the clarity they need on how and when they should be taking decisions. The decisions they have been taking under the 2022 Act are being published to ensure complete transparency. I am truly grateful for the work of Northern Ireland civil servants in making use of those provisions to maintain public services in Northern Ireland, but, as I have said many times, the right people to take those decisions are locally elected politicians, who should be doing their jobs in an Executive. The current arrangement is not and can never be a substitute for fully functioning devolved institutions.

I know everyone in this House has been deeply moved by the courage shown by a very young man, Dáithí Mac Gabhann. He and his whole family have fought for the implementation of organ donation changes. I recently met Dáithí and his family, and I met them again this morning. I am incredibly moved by his story and by his family’s dedication to seeing this important change to the law on organ donations in Northern Ireland implemented as quickly as possible.

I am a bit of a stickler for how we do things in this place, and I would never want to go against “Erskine May,” but Dáithí and his family are with us in the Gallery today. I am sure hon. Members will wish to join me in welcoming him and commending the whole family for their valiant efforts. They should not need to be here today to see this change, as the Assembly could and should have convened to take this across the finish line.

As I said in my letter to the Northern Ireland parties, they continue to have it within their power to recall the Assembly and deal with secondary legislation such as the regulations in this case. That would only require Members of the Legislative Assembly to work together to elect a Speaker—not necessarily to nominate a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister—but I was disappointed that the opportunity to do that was not taken during the Assembly recall last Tuesday. However, I recognise this issue is exceptional both in its sheer importance and in the cross-party support it commands, both in Northern Ireland and in this House. On that basis, the Government spent a lot of time with the lawyers. We have been able to table important amendments to this Bill to facilitate those changes, to be taken forward in the Assembly in the continued absence of a Speaker.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

It is commendable that Dáithí and his family are here, and it is wonderful that the Government are doing the right thing. This law will now be in place faster than if the Northern Ireland Assembly were sitting, which is one of the peculiarities of the politics in which we live. We should not make political points on this. It is right and proper that it has been done for children across the United Kingdom who need organ donations, for which I thank the Secretary of State .

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. He is right that this is not a matter of politics. I know it is the family’s wish that the Bill is operational by the spring and that is what we will be able to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on that. He rightly says that at the heart of this is the need to take Northern Ireland forward on the basis of a cross-community consensus and that that consensus was broken down by the protocol, because not a single Unionist Member of the Assembly supports it. Therefore, we did not have a basis for moving Northern Ireland forward. That is important because the Executive and Assembly have important roles to play in the implementation of the protocol. I had Ministers, members of my party, who were in Departments and being required by the protocol to implement key elements that they felt were harmful to Northern Ireland. That was simply not a sustainable position. I do not want to be in the place again where I have to appoint Ministers at Stormont to Departments where they are required to implement measures that harm Northern Ireland’s ability to trade within the UK.

For us, the way to resolve the issues and move us forward lies in restoring Northern Ireland’s place within the internal market of the UK. Let me be clear that, as we have said from the outset, we are not looking to erect a hard border on the island of Ireland. I am not looking to create barriers to trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland; I do not want that for dairy farmers in Lagan Valley, beef farmers or whoever is wanting to continue with the arrangements that are there to facilitate cross-border trade. Coca-Cola is based in Lisburn in my constituency, and the Secretary of State visited recently. Some 80% of the products it produces in Lisburn are sold in the Republic of Ireland. I do not want Coca-Cola to have difficulty in trading both within Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Equally, I do not want the businesses in my constituency that have been impacted by the protocol to be inhibited in their ability to trade with the rest of the UK. The protocol inhibits that and that is the difficulty it creates.

[Ian Paisley]

This is an important issue. On Monday, my right hon. Friend, along with a number of Members from across the House, was able to attend the “Taste of Northern Ireland” event held in the Jubilee Room. Producers and food providers from all across Northern Ireland represented their trade there. One message that came out clearly from that was that trade in agrifoods is our biggest industry and it is being undermined by the regulations coming through from the EU. Those regulations must be shifted, and I am sure he welcomed the Prime Minister’s comments today that the regulations have to be part of this solution, if there is to be one.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He has many farmers and some of the largest agrifood businesses in his constituency, and I know that some of his local farmers have had problems. They cannot bring seed potatoes from Scotland and that is having an impact on the potato sector in Northern Ireland. Some of his local farmers will have experienced difficulties when taking cattle to Scotland for sale and having to bring some of them back because they have not been sold at market; they face six weeks’ quarantine in part of the UK, in Scotland, before they can bring those cattle back to Northern Ireland. That is ridiculous, and those are the kinds of practical issues that we need to resolve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I will say at the outset that the Bill going through the House today is an illustration and example of the futility of trying to use political blackmail to move my party from its principled opposition to legislation and to an agreement that is designed to take us out of the United Kingdom. I say to the Secretary of State that, to protect his own credibility in Northern Ireland, he had far better not listen to the anti-Unionist voices in the Northern Ireland Office, but use his political antennae to know what is the right thing to do.

This Bill illustrates that on four occasions the attempt to blackmail my party back into the Assembly by the threat of an election did not work, because the issues at stake are far too important simply to cave in to the threat of an election in which we might or might not have damage done to us, or to go back into an institution where, as Unionists, we would have been required to collaborate with an arrangement that was designed to, and will—as we have absolutely no doubt and as we have warned time and again—separate us from the country to which we belong. I hope the Secretary of State learns that lesson. We are not moving on an issue of principle.

The Secretary of State said in his remarks that he is disappointed that the Executive has not been re-formed. He should not be surprised. He and I campaigned to leave the European Union. We did so because we believed it was important that, as a country, we had the ability to make choices about the laws we had, the direction we took and the partnerships we made on trade, to do the best for the citizens of our own country. Yet, as a result of the protocol, Northern Ireland—and he knows it—has not gained the benefits that he and I campaigned for and that those who voted for Brexit wished to have. We are still left within the embrace of Brussels because of the imposition of EU law.

That fundamental problem is at the heart of the action we have taken. I have heard many hon. Members say today, as we will hear time and again, that this must be done to protect the Good Friday agreement. The fact of the matter, now clearly illustrated, is that the protocol and the Good Friday agreement cannot sit side by side. Indeed, one of the authors of the Good Friday agreement, the late Lord Trimble, made it quite clear that in order to keep the protocol intact, the Government would have to rip up the Good Friday agreement—and that, in effect, is what has happened. The leader of our party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), has made that quite clear.

The consent principle of the Good Friday agreement has been removed. Even the voting mechanisms that are allowed to make decisions about whether the protocol applies have had to be manipulated and changed, and the provision in the Good Friday agreement for cross-community support on that particular issue had to be removed. The Good Friday agreement and the protocol cannot sit in place side by side. One of the two goes. That is why, as a party, we have said there must be changes to the protocol.

Why is this Bill necessary? The Secretary of State made it clear that he did not believe that an election would change anything. Why would an election not change anything? It is because he knows in his heart, even if the officials who advise him do not know it, the suppressed anger within the Unionist community at being pushed out of a country that many Unionists died, during a terrorist campaign, to remain part of. Thousands of them refused to be intimidated by threat of violence to vote in the way Sinn Féin and the IRA wanted. He knows that that anger and that determination have not changed.

All the talk about the impact of the Assembly’s not working on the day-to-day lives of people has to be measured against whether the Assembly was functioning to deal with those issues anyway. No, it was not: we had a black hole in our budget during the time the Assembly was sitting. Some of the increases in waiting lists in the health service occurred while the Assembly was working, and many of the other problems have not emerged since February last year; they are long-term problems that were not dealt with even when the Assembly was working.

Even with some of the decisions that people would like to see made, the majority of the Unionist population now realise what is at stake, and they would not find it acceptable for their Unionist representatives to go back into an Assembly even under the threat of calling an election. We have had a lot of different threats. We were told that the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill could not progress in this House unless we got a Speaker. We were told the electricity payments could not happen unless Stormont did them. All those threats have been made in the past. I must tell the Secretary of State that this problem is not going away, and this party is not going to collaborate in an Assembly where we are expected to implement that very protocol until there are changes made.

What kind of changes could avoid legislation such as this having to be made again? I think that is very clear. Some people have presented this as some kind of trade problem, saying, “If only you could do away with the trade issues and have trade flowing freely, the issue would go away.”, but it is much more fundamental than that. The trade issue only occurs because there is a different law applying and a different lawmaking body in Northern Ireland from those in the rest of the United Kingdom.

We are not subject to British law anymore—we are not subject to laws made by institutions set up in the United Kingdom. We are subject to laws made in Brussels. Those laws are imposed on us; we have no say on them, and if they are detrimental to our country, we cannot change them. If we try to not implement them—if we try to ignore them—there is a foreign court that will drag us into the dock to make sure that we do.

[Ian Paisley]

Would my right hon. Friend agree that the issue is not only about the laws? A raft of regulations is coming upon Northern Ireland daily and impacting on our principles and the practical issue of how we do business. For example, at the end of this week, regulations that affect the organic seal on eggs will put our egg industry effectively out of business. Those regulations will cut off our market here in Great Britain. We will not be able to market those eggs in GB, because a regulation from Europe says our organic egg products must be produced in a particular way that appeals only to the European market, where we do not have any sales.

[Sammy Wilson]

There are lots of different examples of that happening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

I hate to come back to this point, but article 6 of the protocol states that there should be unfettered access to the UK internal market. Twice so far in this debate I have raised the matter of organic eggs produced in Northern Ireland. Our market is the United Kingdom, not the Republic of Ireland, yet as of Friday this week, because of EU regulations applying to Northern Ireland, our farmers cannot sell eggs to the rest of the United Kingdom. How is that helping the hon. Member’s case?

[Stephen Farry]

My first response is that I did not advocate Brexit. The protocol will never be a clean solution to these issues. There is no perfect outcome when a single market is broken up in the way that has happened. This is about managing and mitigating the fallout.

The hon. Gentleman may well be pleased to know that I recognise his point about eggs. I have written to a Minister at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to advocate for ongoing flexibility on that. For some agricultural products, Great Britain is our main market, but for others—particularly milk and the wider dairy sector—the Republic of Ireland and beyond is the key market. There are a lot of subtleties there that we have to work through.

There is frustration at the moment about the fact that we are almost in danger of re-treading a lot of old arguments that I hoped had been put to bed, but which seem to be resurfacing. With reference to Brexit and Northern Ireland, there are essentially only three choices available to policy makers. The first is to go for a soft Brexit, minimising diversions between the European Union and the UK or Great Britain, and that would ease tensions particularly in relation to Northern Ireland. The second is to go for a hard border on the island of Ireland, which, for various reasons, is politically and economically unviable. The third is to have some form of special arrangement for Northern Ireland—we could call it a “protocol”, or we could call it something else. That involves Northern Ireland being treated differently in certain respects, which is not new; it has been part and parcel of the Northern Ireland’s entire history from the early 1920s.

People get exercised about the Acts of Union being breached, but no such arguments were made in 1920, 1949 or even in 1998 with the Good Friday agreement. In practice, a single-party Unionist Government in Belfast were more than happy to diverge from the rest of the United Kingdom whenever that was viewed as in their interests. That is before we even get to the current iteration of devolution.

I will focus in particular on the democratic deficit. As I have already said, that was not an issue prior to Brexit, when the UK had full representation at all levels of the European Union. Our biggest democratic deficit by far is the failure to have an Assembly or an Executive alongside the other institutions of the Good Friday agreement. Looking ahead, we need to drill down and see what is most important in terms of addressing the democratic deficit. I recognise that there is an issue, as did the European Union in its October 2021 non-paper.

The key issue is ensuring that Northern Ireland officials, businesses, civic organisations and political voices are able to get in at ground zero whenever a new EU law that may become applicable to Northern Ireland is being designed. As I am sure everyone in the Chamber will appreciate, the most important time to try to influence a law is before the final decision is taken, rather than while it is being ratified through the various structures, when it becomes much more difficult to change the course of action. The Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), made reference to Norway. Places such as Norway, Liechtenstein, Iceland and even Switzerland, which are outside the European Union but are part of the single market or within its orbit, direct most of their lobbying energy at Brussels. We do not at present have that route directly in Northern Ireland, and that is what I want to see addressed when we talk about a democratic deficit.

By contrast, the sign-off of EU law is a secondary issue. In practice, once those laws are developed, it is in our interests to go along with them to preserve dual market access. However, I have concerns about the tenor of the democratic deficit emerging from this deal. If we end up in a situation in which there is a lack of certainty about Northern Ireland’s ongoing compliance with the aspects of EU law relevant to us gaining access to the single market, that will have a detrimental impact on the certainty of Northern Ireland’s existing businesses that they can trade with the EU. That huge issue may well deter investors from coming to Northern Ireland. There is the danger of a big asterisk beside Northern Ireland, meaning that, although we have access to the single market, it will say between brackets that it is subject to whatever mechanism is used to try to cover up this non-existent issue. That very process creates uncertainty for businesses.

I do not want to see a situation whereby, in trying to fix one particular problem in the current stand-off, we end up perhaps inadvertently creating a wider problem that acts to the detriment of our current and future businesses and the future prosperity of Northern Ireland. People talk about the “sweet spot” of Northern Ireland’s dual market access, but that will only come to fruition if we do several things. We need to promote it politically and through our investment agency, but we must not create any uncertainty in that regime beyond what we currently have.

That also applies to the European Court of Justice, for example. Whenever people talk about the European Court of Justice coming in and imposing things on Northern Ireland, I say the opposite: the Court is a means to an end. If we are abiding by a certain aspect of EU law, the Court comes as part of it. If we want to put various layers in between, that is fine—nobody will object to that particular point. But the converse is that there may well be a situation in which there is uncertainty about the access of Northern Ireland businesses to parts of the single market, and in which we are wrongly blocked from access in investment decisions, procurement opportunities or things along those lines. In that context, the European Court of Justice becomes our potential ally, opening up those doors that have been wrongly shut in the face of Northern Ireland businesses. Again, it is important that we do not inadvertently throw that out and miss the wider point of what is in the best economic interests of Northern Ireland.

I will conclude on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. It is appropriate that the protocol Bill is parked or drifts away—or however that may happen. I trust that the Secretary of State, who has been at the coalface, will appreciate this point more than most. Progress has been made over the past number of months because, under this Government, trust has been rebuilt with the European Union. We saw that with the breakthroughs on data sharing and, just before Christmas, on longer grace periods for veterinary medicines. But we cannot build trust and, at the same time, retain the tool to break that same trust. That is not going to close this deal.

I wish the Government well over the coming hours and days—but hopefully not weeks—in concluding a deal, but that deal has to be one that works in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland, not just those from a Unionist background, and that works for the future economy and prosperity of our region.