Northern Ireland Budget Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 23rd January 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I begin by asking the leave of the House to take all stages of the Bill. The Secretary of State sends his apologies; I am pleased to say that he is enjoying a trip to the United States where he is representing Northern Ireland as he seeks to drum up business for local people.

Once again, I stand here with a strong sense of disappointment.  On Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said:

“No Northern Ireland Secretary would want to introduce a Bill of this nature.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2022; Vol. 723, c. 820.]

That sentiment very much applies again today.

The Government are bringing forward this legislation because the Northern Ireland parties have been unable to form an Executive and subsequently, therefore, to set a Budget. In the absence of an Executive, the Government stepped in to set a Budget, which the Secretary of State put before the House on 24 November last year. We are legislating for that Budget today.

Setting the Budget was not an easy task. Northern Ireland departmental Ministers were in post until 28 October, which meant we could take over only from that point. They had not been operating with confirmed spending limits and had not implemented plans to deal with their looming overspends.

Of course, pressures on Northern Ireland’s finances did not happen overnight. Successive former Executives also failed to put finances on a sustainable footing. As a result, the Government inherited a Budget halfway through the year with an overspend of some £660 million. That is unacceptable, and the unsustainability of Northern Ireland’s finances cannot continue.

Spending per head in Northern Ireland is already at the highest level of any region in the UK. Northern Ireland receives 21% more funding per head than the UK average and has received record levels of financial support. The difficulties that Northern Ireland Departments now face are the result of tough decisions not being taken by elected representatives in Northern Ireland, not just this year but in successive years before that.

Funding alone will not solve those issues. They need strong and responsible leadership by a stable, devolved Government.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for giving way, but I know that he will go down the predictable line that all this would be sorted out if we had an Executive. How does he juxtapose that with his comments on 23 October, when he made it clear that

“we will not have devolved government in Northern Ireland”

until Unionist demands are met and the jurisdiction of EU Law comes to an end? Does he admit that the idea that the Executive will be a magic wand is a fallacy?

[Mr Baker]

There is no question of admitting any kind of fallacy. What I was saying with the quote the hon. Gentleman referred to was really a reflection of the DUP’s position. In a sense, I am grateful for his party’s clarity about what it requires to go back into government. From my engagement with its voters in Northern Ireland, I think they know that a price is being paid by not having the Executive up. It would be churlish of me not to admit that those voters—it was a small section—wanted to pay that price, but others will be devastated by the consequences of not having the Executive up. It is only fair that I, as a Government Minister, reflect the full spectrum of opinion, and people in Northern Ireland very much want the Executive back and dealing with the issues before it.

As for a magic wand, I would be the first to admit that government is difficult, whoever is in power. All these decisions are difficult—they are difficult decisions in difficult times—and there is no question of a magic wand. However, everyone in this House is aware of the devolution settlement, and I am sure everyone here would want Northern Ireland Ministers to be taking decisions in an accountable way locally. However, there’s no question of a magic wand, and I would be the first to be realistic about the conditions the hon. Gentleman and his party have set out for going back into the Assembly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) on this matter. At the outset of my speech, I also refer to the very kind comments made about our colleague Alex Easton. In the course of today’s events, he has sent a little text message thanking colleagues for their kind messages. The unbreakable heartache he must be going through will be unfathomable to most, and we leave him in the care and grace of his God and saviour at this time.

Turning to the less solemn issue of the Budget in Northern Ireland, which this House is passing, I chided the Minister earlier that no doubt he would say that, if we had a functioning Executive up and running in Northern Ireland, the Budget at Westminster would not be necessary and everything would be much better. Legislating for the Northern Ireland Budget Bill at Westminster is of course a mark of the failure of the Government to create the conditions to help restore the Executive. The Democratic Unionist party cannot do that on its own, despite the childish comments from some that, if the DUP just got over the protocol, this thing would be sorted out. If it were that easy, most of us agree it would have been sorted out, but it is not, because there is a problem here that has to be addressed.

It is now two years since the protocol came into effect and the Government have still failed to fix the problem of the protocol. I remember the first debate in the House back in the new year, in January, after the protocol had come into effect. I said then that within a week it was clear that the operation of the protocol would be an unmitigated disaster for Northern Ireland and we should move immediately to trigger article 16. I was told that that was premature and, “Don’t be silly, that cannot be the case.”

It has taken two years for the penny to drop. Among the architects of the protocol, even Leo Varadkar in recent days has indicated his regrets at signing up to it. Former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern was in the House at the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee today and again said that this matter has to be resolved. Thankfully, the chorus has started to change. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East is right to single out the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), for, I think for the first time from the Dispatch Box, making it clear that Unionists have actually got a point here, and sooner or later that point has to be addressed.

Six months after I gave my comments in 2020, in a Command Paper, the Government accepted that the

“combination of serious economic and societal difficulties, along with the obvious diversion of trade, would justify”

triggering article 16. That was 18 months ago. We are in what is called the can-kicking phase of the protocol’s existence, with the can just being kicked down the road and nothing actually being done, when all the evidence clearly suggests things should have been done years ago. They were flagged up. There was no excuse not to do them—they were flagged up and should have been done years ago.

A further year on, with no substantive action having been taken and following the understandable and inevitable collapse of the Northern Ireland Executive, the Government introduced the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, claiming the legal justification of necessity. In international law, the doctrine of necessity requires “grave and imminent” peril, yet a further six months and more have passed and the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill appears to be stalled in the other House.

I know the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, and indeed others, want the DUP to put hope over bitter experience and take this Government on trust and restore the Executive before the protocol has been fixed, but the Minister of State will know that it is not going to happen. I have referred to his comments on 23 October when he set the standard; it is a very good and high standard and it has to be met. The Government have got to deal with Unionist demands on the protocol. Those are not just my words but the Minister’s words, and I appreciate his echoing them. There is no point in the Government’s complaining about legislation for a Northern Ireland Budget in this House given that they have failed to address the problems of the protocol over the past two years, when they have had ample opportunity to do so. I hope they will address them now.

I do not criticise the Government for legislating on this matter. I want His Majesty's Government to govern. I do not want them to manage; I do not want them to hold the ring until something better comes along. There will be things with which I disagree and there will be things that I oppose, but it is the Government’s job to govern for our region of the United Kingdom when devolution is not in operation. I therefore do not criticise the Bill on that point of principle, but I believe it has taken far too long for the Government to act, and as a result the public sector finances in Northern Ireland have continued to deteriorate. We need to address that as a matter of urgency.

The options do not get any better if the inevitable is delayed. The time and the personal political credibility of the Government were wasted when they were playing around saying that there would be another election. That was the time for them to act immediately. They should have acted when the leader of my party pulled the First Minister out of government, but it is not a matter of 20 days or so but a year since that happened. The Government have had a year in which to do something about this, not just since the election but well in advance of it. A great deal of time was wasted over that year when the Government were not grappling with the issue.

As my colleagues have already pointed out, devolution of itself does not generate money, with the exception of the rate take. It is important to guard against the idea that an Executive would be an answer to many of the serious challenges faced by public finances. That is not abrogating responsibility; it is a statement of fact. We should not pretend that the Executive is a solution to all our problems. The mere fact that devolution does not produce money is one indication of that. Ironically, spending in Northern Ireland will probably be higher this year in the absence of an Executive—because the Secretary of State was able to secure flexibility from the Treasury—than it would have been if the Executive had been in place. This comes at the cost of next year’s Budget, which I think will be a worry for many people.

There are three points that I want to leave with the Minister. First, the Budget does not deliver on NDNA commitments. As some of my colleagues have already observed, NDNA spelt out the need for a sufficient increase in resources to allow the number of police officers to rise to 7,500, but the Budget does absolutely nothing to achieve that. In passing the cultural legislation, the Government placed reliance on the purported implementation of the NDNA agreement, but the Budget flies in the face of that approach when it comes to policing, which is something that will affect everyone in Northern Ireland.

Secondly, the Budget fails the children of Northern Ireland. It is one thing to set a challenging Budget at the beginning of a financial year, but it is quite inappropriate to impose damaging and undeliverable cuts in the final months. I think that all Northern Ireland Members—and, I hope, the Government—have received copies of a letter that was sent jointly and uniquely, for the first time, by the chief executive of the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools, the chief executive of the Controlled Schools’ Support Council, a chief executive in the Irish sector, the chief executive of the Catholic Schools’ Trustee Service, the chief executive of the Governing Bodies Association Northern Ireland, the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education, and the chairperson of the Transferor Representatives Council. That letter spells out very clearly that the authors

“question the lack of parity”

between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. They ask:

“Why is the education of a young person in NI valued less than those in England, Scotland and Wales?”

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) went into that in some depth. He has significant knowledge, having for a long period headed the section that set the exams in Northern Ireland. I am delighted for Scottish kids. They get the equivalent of £7,600 per pupil. In Wales it is about £6,600, and here in England it is £6,700. Northern Ireland gets £6,400. There is a significant decrease in the moneys available to help children in Northern Ireland, and that crisis is not addressed by the Budget that this House and this Government are presenting to us this evening.

[Gavin Robinson]

To add to that, I outlined the difficulties of the squeeze over the next three financial years, which will see £2,000 taken from the spend of every household in Northern Ireland. That is almost 10% in public spending off every household in Northern Ireland over the next three years.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank my hon. Friend for putting that on the record. It is clear that this Budget and the squeeze that he identified—set by this House—leaves the Northern Ireland education system facing a funding crisis that will affect every child and young person, not just this year and next year but for years to come.

The third point I want to leave with the Minister is that this Budget makes next year’s Budget even more difficult. I touched on that in my earlier comments on being able to get money out of the Treasury. Though it was not highlighted in the Secretary of State’s November statement, this Budget is balanced only by robbing from next year’s Budget. That will make it even more difficult for any new Executive to agree a Budget, given the cost of living crisis and wage pressures. In the absence of reforms or additional funding, it is difficult to see how next year’s Budget will be credible at all.

At the outset of his comments the Minister thanked the various permanent secretaries in Northern Ireland for taking on a very difficult task. It should be pointed out that the various permanent secretaries in Northern Ireland have described this Budget as grotesque. They are not happy being left to carry the can. We find ourselves in a constitutional netherworld where the Secretary of State dips in and out of devolved responsibilities formally and informally in a manner that is frankly unacceptable. That has been referred to by former senior civil servants as an affront to the democratic process.

Although Parliament has the right to legislate for Northern Ireland in the devolved field, it is only in very narrow and carefully defined circumstances that it has the power to take executive decisions. We have seen the Government taking legal powers to intervene in areas such as abortion law and the implementation of the protocol, but not to tackle hospital waiting lists or Dáithí’s law, as raised by the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), to allow Northern Ireland’s new organ donation laws to take effect.

Many will question the political morality of the choices that the Government have made and the right to do that, but it is equally unacceptable, in the absence of direct rule, for the Minister to make Northern Ireland civil servants answerable to him. Direct rule is a legitimate choice for the Government to make in the absence of devolution. It is not a choice that we are asking them to make, but indirect rule where the Secretary of State seeks to wield power without taking responsibility is not acceptable. It puts civil servants in an intolerable position. They are expected to make the cuts but do not have the authority to bring forward the reforms. I go back to my first point to the Minister: govern, do not manage. That is the job and that is what should be done. I hope that the Government will act now. There is an old saying that if you break it, you fix it.

By signing up to the protocol, the Government broke the institutions first created by the Belfast agreement. Rather than asking Unionists in Northern Ireland to do the politically impossible, the Government should face up to their own responsibilities. The Budget will pass this House tonight, but very soon the constitutional no man’s land must come to an end. Either the Government should fix the protocol so that new arrangements can be supported by Unionists as well as nationalists, or they should take responsibility for decision making in Northern Ireland in a way in which they can be held accountable properly and thoroughly by this House.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 29th November 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Three weeks ago, I stood at this Dispatch Box setting out my profound regret that the Northern Ireland Executive had not been restored by the legal deadline of 28 October. As I said then, I believe strongly that the people of Northern Ireland deserve a functioning Assembly and Executive, where locally elected representatives can address issues that matter most to those who elect them. That has been denied to the people of Northern Ireland since February, and Northern Ireland has been without fully functioning devolved institutions for the bulk of this year. That is both unacceptable and a cause for alarm.

What the people of Northern Ireland would welcome is getting their devolved institutions up and running. They are worried that almost 187,000 people in Northern Ireland have been waiting for more than a year for their first out-patient appointment; they are concerned that there is a higher share of working-age adults in Northern Ireland with no formal qualifications than anywhere else in the UK; and they are worried that a quarter of children in Northern Ireland are growing up in poverty.

There is also a legitimate and strong concern about the functioning of the Northern Ireland protocol. This concern is felt very strongly indeed in the Unionist community. It is clear, though, that the Executive will not return overnight, and that a further election in the immediate term would be unlikely to produce a significantly different result.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way so quickly into his speech. He used the term “considerable alarm”. I wonder whether he is pondering what is taking place in the Hutch criminal trial in the courts in Dublin and the implications that the outcome of that trial could have for the operation of any political activity not only in Northern Ireland, but in the Republic of Ireland. Is that being factored in to the Secretary of State’s alarm?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

The trial is certainly being watched assiduously by my officials and me. However, this Bill is about the restoration of the Executive in Northern Ireland—something that is very important indeed. Unfortunately, the time has come for the Government, and indeed for hon. and right hon. Members in this House, to take action in response to the governance gap that has emerged in Northern Ireland, and that is what this Bill seeks to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I absolutely will. Indeed, depending on the passage of the Bill through this House and the other place, when the power falls to me, I intend to act on it rapidly. I am fully aware that it is a heartfelt plea from the people of Northern Ireland that their politicians should be active in the Assembly and working on these issues—people are quite cross that they are not.

[Ian Paisley]

Is the Secretary of State equally deeply angry about those abstentionist MPs from Northern Ireland who get allowances and run offices but do not take their seats in this House, and is he prepared to take immediate action and amend his own activities today by removing those allowances? Will he be consistent on that matter?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

The hon. Gentleman will be talking about Sinn Féin Members of Parliament. I guess I would compare their take-home pay, allowances and everything with his—it would not be the same. I am just essentially taking the same principle and using it in a slightly different way.

We do not, I am afraid, have the luxury of waiting for a restored Executive to take these key decisions. That is why it is right that we give civil servants the legal cover to keep things moving. To aid them in doing that, I will shortly publish draft guidance on taking decisions in the public interest and on the principles that should be taken into account in deciding whether or not to do so. Again, that mirrors the approach that was taken previously in 2018. Final guidance will be published after Royal Assent. We recognise, though, that this is not a long-term solution, and civil servants cannot be left to take decisions indefinitely. That is why these provisions will last for six months or until an Executive reforms—whichever is sooner.

Clauses 6 to 9 make provision for certain public appointments that would usually have to be made by, or require their approval of, Ministers. That largely mirrors provision made in the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018. This is another sensible step and will ensure that key appointments, which are necessary to maintain governance and public confidence in the institutions in Northern Ireland, can still be made.

Clause 10 will allow me to do something that has just been mentioned: take action when it comes to the pay of Members of the Assembly—or MLAs, as they are usually known. At a time when taxpayers’ money, and indeed taxpayers themselves, are under enormous strain, it is simply not acceptable that MLAs continue to draw a full salary while unable to conduct the full range of functions for which they were elected. The clause will therefore allow me to amend the pay of MLAs in this and any future periods of inactivity, drawing on sections 47 and 48 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle]

The shadow—sorry, the soon to be shadow Minister intervenes to point out that the Prime Minister went to the conference in Blackpool, which he did, and we are very grateful for it. I hope that he will soon make time to go to Northern Ireland himself and perhaps use the power of his office to convene multi-party talks and get some progress over there. This matters, because it was a Conservative Prime Minister who personally championed, negotiated and signed the protocol into international treaty. It is not unreasonable to expect it to take a similar level of involvement to change it.

The Bill before us allows the Secretary of State to delay elections, but it does not explain how the Government will use the extra time they are buying themselves. The first deadline in the Bill for restoring the Executive is 8 December. That is next week. It is unclear how the Government have used the period from 28 October to 8 December to find solutions to restore the Executive. Sadly, I can go back even further and say that it is not clear how the Government have used the entire six months since the Assembly elections. For months the Executive have been collapsed, and there was no visit from the Tory Prime Minister and no multi-party talks in Downing Street. There was not even a statement to Parliament. I would like to think that, had the current Secretary of State been in place back then, he would have done so, because he has respected the House by giving multiple statements since, for which I am grateful. It is a shame that there was no such similar action in that period.

The most recent update on the Northern Ireland protocol negotiations came from the Foreign Secretary during his appearance at the European Scrutiny Committee on 15 November. He said:

“I do not want people to be defeatist, but I also do not want people to run away with the idea that we are just on the cusp of some amazing breakthrough”.

He went on to say that he wanted to “manage expectations.” The Bill gives the Northern Ireland Secretary the power to extend the deadline by a further six weeks to 19 January, but no further. It is not clear whether the Foreign Secretary is bluffing or the deadlines in the Bill are too short.

That matters, because over the next few months, the Government have built up hopes that a deal is imminent. The delegated powers memorandum says of the decision by the Secretary of State:

“Parliament will have an opportunity during the passage of the Bill to scrutinise fully his likely decision and the basis on which he will make it. Any decision he takes will necessarily have to be made very shortly afterwards.”

I hope that when he responds to the debate the Minister is crystal clear on this. He must explain what progress has been made to reach a negotiated solution on the protocol and on restoring the Executive.

Other powers that the Secretary of State gains through the Bill include the ability to make public appointments, cut Assembly Members’ pay and set regional rates. We have been assured that the clauses relating to those measures are all based on previous legislation. Public appointments and rate setting are necessary powers for practical reasons. I hope that Members all agree with the need for the appointment of a Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People and of commissioners for the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission. Setting regional rates will provide businesses with certainty. It is also fine to cut Assembly Members’ pay, as that has been done before. Northern Ireland is suffering more from the cost of living crisis than any other part of the country, so I understand why residents would want that part of the Bill to be introduced.

[Ian Paisley]

I want to give the hon. Gentleman time to outline issues that have alarmed him. Does what has happened in the criminal courts in Dublin, including the Hutch criminal gang trial, create or provoke alarm in the Labour party? He will recall that, historically, whenever the IRA was involved in a major bank robbery, such as the Northern Bank robbery, and whenever its activists colluded with FARC guerrillas, that brought political institutions to a shuddering halt. Does he believe that the implications of what has been revealed in the Hutch criminal gang trial will have another shuddering impact on political activity?

[Peter Kyle]

The hon. Gentleman raises extremely serious issues, which relate to the Republic of Ireland and an ongoing trial. I watch that trial closely and await its outcome. I do not think that it would be appropriate at this point to comment on a trial that is under way, but I am grateful for his intervention.

Significantly, the Bill gives civil servants greater decision-making powers to allow public services to function. These decisions will be based on guidance issued by the Secretary of State. However, we should be aware that we are asking a lot of civil servants. Yesterday, Jayne Brady, head of the Northern Ireland civil service, gave an interview in which she said:

“We are in a period of keeping the system running, compounded by a requirement to make savings. But equally we won’t be moving and addressing those big systemic issues. That is why it is so important that we get the Executive up and running.”

I want to pay tribute to civil servants, who will undoubtedly do their best in the challenging weeks that lie ahead, but the big systemic issues require political leadership and political decision making.

Last week, I had the pleasure of visiting beautiful Enniskillen, where I witnessed first hand some of those acute challenges. In the local hospital, I saw outstanding facilities that are going unused because of the struggle to recruit the clinicians needed to keep services going. I spoke to nurses whose pay deals have been agreed by Ministers but are blocked by the absence of an Executive. Once again, nurses’ pay in Northern Ireland has diverged from pay in other parts of the United Kingdom. Those nurses are essential in tackling the longest waiting lists in the UK. Those issues need to be resolved, and they need to be resolved quickly.

I also want to put on record my thanks to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, whose officers have had to deal with recent attempts on their lives by terrorists. It is worrying that in these times there has been a partial freeze on the recruitment of new officers due to the lack of a budget. Northern Ireland needs a restored Executive so that decisions in such crucial areas can be made locally, instead of here in Westminster. The Government must use the extra time that the Bill gives them to make concrete progress. After months of uncertainty and neglect, it is the very least that people of Northern Ireland deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Ian Paisley]

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

[Carla Lockhart]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman gives us his opinion. My opinion is clearly very different: we will not be persuaded, bullied or coerced—whichever way people want to put it—into something. As far as we are concerned, we have an objective that we want to achieve and a mandate from Northern Ireland, and we will deliver on our mandate.

[Ian Paisley]

Can my hon. Friend explain how removing the salaries of some MLAs will suddenly make the Assembly work, when under the terms of the Belfast agreement, which the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) obviously supports, we cannot have a working Assembly unless Unionists are part of it? I fail to understand the logic of that position. Does my hon. Friend understand it?

[Jim Shannon]

In the Unionist community that we represent, people are clearly not persuaded by the actions that have been taken. As their elected representatives in this House, we feel very strongly about the matter, and so do their representatives back home.

The existential threat to Northern Ireland is the root of the entire issue. The problem that other parties have is that the DUP is taking a principled stand against an issue that has proven detrimental to Northern Ireland. It should not be an issue that sends Northern Ireland back into the past and divide Stormont down the middle. The DUP has remained strong and certain on the protocol, and there are no plans to dodge the issue of MLA salaries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to reflect on the points that Front Benchers on both sides of the House have made about the Dublin criminal trial? Does he agree that if the current crisis were not going on, the trial would be an equally huge and significant crisis for the body politic not only of Northern Ireland, but of the Republic of Ireland? The Government really need to prepare themselves for the tsunami when the verdict eventually comes.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend and colleague for reminding us of that important factor, which cannot be ignored. The leader of Sinn Féin across all Ireland, north and south, is a Member for her political party down south and has jurisdiction through her party in Northern Ireland as well, so what happens in Dublin will clearly have an impact on Northern Ireland. I therefore believe, like my hon. Friend and others, that we cannot ignore the issue in this House. That is the point that I think he was making, and I concur totally.

The DUP was proud to table new clause 7, but it was not selected for debate. It would have changed the date of the local government elections in 2023 to take into consideration the King’s coronation celebrations. Because Northern Ireland elections are conducted under proportional representation, counting takes significantly longer than is normal in other parts of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My goodness, what an excellent debate this has been.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) told us why we are here. “We are here because we do not have an Executive,” he said, “and we do not have an Executive because of the protocol.” With great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), the Chairman of the Select Committee, I think it must be said, on the basis of realistic observation of the factors at work, that the hon. Gentleman is right: that is indeed why we are here.

The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), said that the Bill was the “least worst” option, and I agree with him. As has been said several times, this is not a position in which we would want to find ourselves today. I think that Members in all parts of the House and all parties represented here, including the Democratic Unionist party, have made it clear that they are devolutionists and would like the Executive to be back in power; but I will return to the protocol in a moment. The Bill is a responsible—if hugely regrettable—piece of legislation, but we wish we did not have to do this.

I will try to deal with as many of the points that have been made as possible, conscious that I will be dealing with the amendments themselves in Committee. The Labour Front Benchers asked how we would use this time, but I was extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Hove for referring to the need to engage with the concerns of Unionism. Let me also record my thanks to Minister Byrne, from the Republic of Ireland, who tweeted about the need to recognise those legitimate concerns—although we need to do that in a way that is acceptable to nationalism, and I was grateful to the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), for referring to a move I had made in that direction. We need to have the humility to recognise the interests of our negotiating partners, and to say, as DUP speakers have said today, “Yes, we are willing to use our law to defend their interests.”

Since I have led myself on to this territory, I will just say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) made an exceptionally powerful speech, which I hope will be heard in the European Union. However, I also hope it will be heard together with the exceptional speech made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), the leader of the DUP. I think that anyone listening to his speech and appreciating that it was made in earnest—and, of course in good faith—will understand what forces at work here will allow us to restore the Executive in Northern Ireland, and restore it in a way that can endure and carry us through the 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We all want to be there celebrating that agreement—I am pleased to see Members opposite nodding—with the institutions up and running. I think that all parties to the protocol, having listened to the speeches that have been made, can see very clearly those forces that are at work.

Members on the Labour Front Bench have asked us how we will use this time well. It is very clear how we need to use this time. We need to use it to persuade the European Union, and indeed ourselves, to work with great political resolve to deliver change on the protocol. This extension provides space for that further progress, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will continue to work with our colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to that end. It has always been our preference to resolve issues through talks. The Foreign Secretary and Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič are speaking regularly and UK Government officials are having technical talks with the EU.

[Ian Paisley]

Can the Minister update us on how the talks on veterinary medicines are going? Will we have a solution on that before 16 December? Can he also outline whether any more of my constituents will be receiving VAT notices from the Republic of Ireland for goods on which VAT has already been paid in His Majesty’s territories here?

[Mr Baker]

The right hon. Gentleman makes his point with great clarity and force, but I think he encourages me to stray a little too far from the Bill on this occasion. If I recall correctly, I have replied to him on the question of veterinary medicines—whether through a parliamentary answer or a letter, I forget. I think I have signed off a reply, but I will check.

Officials are continuing to hold technical talks, but the reality is that there is still some distance between us, even though some of our technical solutions are relatively close. I say to Members on the Labour Front Bench that we need to continue to show resolve. Anyone watching this debate will see that a great degree of consensus has broken out on all sides. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, the Chairman of the Select Committee, referred to our bromance, and although I have to tell him that he is not actually my type, people might like to observe the good will that exists in all parts of the House. We all want to get the protocol resolved so that we no longer have to talk about it, get the Executive up and running and move on to providing the good government that the people of Northern Ireland deserve.

Before moving on to other contributions, I want to join Labour Members in thanking the PSNI, particularly in the difficult circumstances it has recently faced.

With great respect to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I do not think that his visiting Belfast and holding multi-party talks will be a silver bullet. We can see plainly what the obstacle is to the formation of the Executive, and we need to focus our efforts on the European Union. I should just say that the Prime Minister’s attendance at the British-Irish Council in Blackpool was the first such attendance by a Prime Minister since 2007, and I am grateful that he had the opportunity to meet the Taoiseach.

The Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, made a point about the normalisation of politics, which elicited an interesting response from the leader of the DUP, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley. We have to be extremely clear that we are always going to uphold all three strands of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and the right hon. Gentleman set out clearly that that involves the consent of all communities. During my short experience of being in Northern Ireland, I have heard from the public there—and from a number of Members here, including the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna)—that people are clearly in the market for normal political government that concentrates on public services, and that there is a desperate need for that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee for making that point.

The role of the Irish Government was brought up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). I want to be absolutely clear that we are not considering joint authority, nor will we. We have kept the Irish Government apprised of our plans to maintain public services in Northern Ireland in the absence of Northern Ireland Ministers. The Irish Government share our commitment to devolution and the Good Friday agreement. We are pleased that we have begun to transform our friendship and relationship with Ireland, and we will continue to do so.

A number of Members, and particularly the hon. Members for North Down (Stephen Farry) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), raised the position that officials will find themselves in. We recognise that civil servants should not ideally be put in a position where they need to take political decisions themselves, but we simply cannot bring forward this further extension without taking measures to ensure that some decisions can be taken in the meantime. We believe that the Bill provides Northern Ireland’s civil servants with the clarity they require in order to take the limited but necessary decisions to maintain the delivery of public services during this period.

Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Gentleman misconstrues what I am saying. My support for the Bill is not based upon the fact that the Minister is an hon. Friend in party political terms. I heard the hon. Gentleman say that the Minister does not understand the Bill and that the Government, whom I am proud to support, seem hellbent on appeasing people who are in a politically different place from him. He suggested that the Minister was kowtowing, if one will, to a Sinn Féin agenda.

I have suffered some unfair and untrue brickbats from hon. Members over the time I have chaired the Committee. I say politely to the hon. Member for Strangford that it has to stop. This is New Decade, New Approach, and the Government are trying to move things forward with fairness and equity, respect and support for all of those whom the Government recognise as citizens of the United Kingdom. That is the central mission. That is what underpins New Decade, New Approach. That is the bedrock of the Bill. It has my wholehearted support.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Thank you, Dame Eleanor, for calling me in the debate. Its focus has already tended to drift towards the issue of language, but the Bill is about identity and language. I want to comment specifically on identity and the amendments that affect that.

Identity is a pithy matter. It is not so easily defined, and it affects us all in very different ways. Dame Eleanor, you have been to my constituency on many occasions. You will know that if you go to the townlands of Dunseverick or Ballintoy and raise your eyes to the horizon across the great Dalriada bay, first and foremost you will see Scotland—the outlan of your home nation. At the same time, standing in that part of my constituency, Belfast, the capital city of Northern Ireland, is almost 70 miles away. The capital city of the Republic of Ireland, Dublin, is about 160 miles away—some might say that it is 160 light years away. The identity of that part of my constituency, which infuses itself in the people of my constituency and those of that northern corner of Ulster, is a strange mix of Ulster and Scot; an identity that is unique.

If we are to deal with the protection of an identity, we need to get back to what the law states. The law in Northern Ireland is about protecting heritage, culture and equality; it is not a single-minded thing just about language.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

rose—

[Ian Paisley]

Of course, I give way to another Ulster Scot.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

It is not just something that is contemporary. The view from the Glens of Antrim is beautiful, but the kingdom of Dalriada used to cover much of Scotland; it was both Ulster and Scotland. Historically, that culture and identity is embedded in the DNA of the people. What I find most offensive is that the Bill does not reflect the historic significance of my Ulster Scots, Ulster British heritage and culture, and it does not afford it adequate protection.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that point, which he makes powerfully.

When we deal with identity in this framework, we are dealing with equality law, we are dealing with equal rights, and we are dealing with something that has an impact across the whole of this kingdom, because it is about a person’s individual and community perspective. That enforces who and what we are. It is nebulous; it is shadows; but it is who and what we are, in terms of our identity. That cannot just be written down, with the Government saying, “We will give so many millions to the Irish language and so many millions to this other thing, and then we will have protected everyone.” That is not how equality legislation should work. It should be much more thoughtful and detailed.

If we are to take a perspective only on the language issue, according to the latest census in Northern Ireland, the language spoken by 95.3% of people is English. The next largest language is spoken by 1.1% of people in Northern Ireland, and that is Polish. There are no protections in our law for that. The next language, at 0.49%, is Lithuanian. There are no protections outlined about that. We come to the Irish language, spoken by 0.32% of the population, followed closely behind by Portuguese on 0.27%. So if we are to characterise this as a matter of language protection, let us protect the Polish language in Northern Ireland and the Polish people, who make a major contribution to employment. Let us identify and protect those cultures that are actually under threat, not cultures that are emboldened in certain ways by money and resources that appear to many to be unending. That is what the Bill should really be addressing, if it is about language protection.

When we come into this building through Westminster Hall, we pass under that marvellous window—the rights, equality and liberties window—that faces the portrait of Moses. That window contains representations of scrolls, and each and every one of those scrolls signifies disability rights and equality rights—I know that the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), is not interested in any of this—and all the legislation that the House has made on emancipation, the right to vote, and women’s rights and liberties. If we in the House are to make a piece of legislation to deal with equality in a part of this kingdom, we should ensure that it is fit for purpose. The reason why there is a screed of amendments on the amendment paper is because the Bill is not fit for purpose as equality legislation. It is severely damaged, and it would not reinforce the rights and liberties of the people we have talked about.

I think that the Minister expects Unionists just to vote for the Bill, to accept it and to swallow it down. In the negotiations that he hosted, I discussed the issue with him. Other Members of the House will not vote for it. They will not be compelled to vote for it or be under any pressure whatsoever to vote for it because they do not come through the door to the Chamber, yet the Minister will hand them issues that address a lot of their rights and concerns. They are entitled to have those concerns, but that damages and demeans the issues that I have put on the agenda and in Hansard today.

The starting point for me is this: if the Bill is already broken, at what points is it not fit for purpose? Let us take New Decade, New Approach. The Chair of the Select Committee was quick to point to that as the starting point, the refresh and where we are supposed to be. Actually, the Bill breaches what was outlined in “New Decade, New Approach”. My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) went into some detail, and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), in an intervention, identified where some of the breaches are. Where a negotiation has taken place on what a Bill should say and do, we are used to seeing that Bill reflect the New Decade, New Approach agreement. But this Bill is completely at variance with the issues negotiated and put into New Decade, New Approach. That is why the Bill is not fit for purpose. No matter where one stood on New Decade, New Approach, that is what the Bill is supposed to represent. As a House, we should collectively take offence when we are told, “This Bill represents what was in New Decade, New Approach.” It is pretty obvious that it does not—it just doesn’t. That is the point that the Minister needs to address. In the same way that the Belfast-Good Friday agreement has been breached by the protocol arrangements, New Decade, New Approach has been breached by the Bill. That is the problem. That is why Unionists are agitated about this and why it should be fixed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

Even those are not protected. The powers of the commissioner are to give guidance, not direction, as is the case with the Irish language.

[Ian Paisley]

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

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

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Who’s laughing?

[Ian Paisley]

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

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

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

The reality is that under the office of identity there are a number of principles set out about how identity should be respected. The office can monitor how those principles are being adhered to and report to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absurd to believe that the current make-up of the Assembly will offer any comfort when the same Assembly, during the jubilee year of her late Majesty the Queen and the centenary year of Northern Ireland, refused to allow us to put up a little rock in the grounds of Stormont, a little stone, to commemorate the fact that Northern Ireland was 100 years old? It refused to allow us to plant a rose to mark the jubilee of her Majesty the Queen, yet the Minister expects us to have confidence that the same Assembly will protect our identity when it will not even allow us to mark our identity in that way.

[Ian Paisley]

My right hon. Friend really drives home the point. The problem is that it is not one or two minor encroachments; it is a catalogue and the catalogue is growing. It is not as if it has diminished in time and these were examples from years ago. These are examples at some of the most key moments in our identity as a people: when we celebrate the jubilee of her late Majesty and when we celebrate the historic foundation of the state we cherish. When those things are threatened in the immediate past, I agree wholeheartedly with the point made so powerfully by my right hon. Friend. Under the Bill, the Government and the authorities in Northern Ireland will be obliged to listen to and direct people by one side, but they can ignore the other. If anyone on the Government Benches or the Opposition Benches thinks that that is a sensible way to address this issue, they really need to tell us how, because it just will not work. That is, and will continue to be, a recipe for disaster.

We should expand the protection of culture and heritage, because we are only going to protect one tiny part. As was outlined in the St Andrews agreement and later put into law, as section 28D of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, by the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006, the Government are duty bound—Minister, I would really like you to answer this point—to “adopt a strategy” and proposals that “enhance and develop” heritage and culture. It does not say anything about language. It talks about heritage and culture, which embrace language and all those things. The law is telling us that we should have protections that develop our heritage and culture, yet the Bill will limit our heritage and culture, and any protections that will be put on them.

Members have already identified the vast resources that are spent on identity and language in Northern Ireland, and the balance is very much out of kilter—extremely so. In fact, it is through the floor on one side and through the ceiling on the other. That is how out of kilter it is. Until that issue of resourcing is properly addressed, the Bill will be unfit for purpose. Minister, I would like to see proposals and protections for my identity. I would like to see them genuinely put in place. Until that happens, the Bill will be a travesty.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

Go raibh míle maith agat, Dame Eleanor. I rise to proudly support the Bill and I welcome the fact that it is back before us so quickly. I confess that I had some hope that another Bill may well be here today as well, but that does not seem to have materialised yet.

It would be useful to reference some of the comments that have been made about the Northern Ireland Office. Frankly, I have a lot of criticism to make of the Northern Ireland Office, as many Members have, but the new Minister has hit the ground in many ways through his engagement, so all credit to him. Let us be clear, however, that the Northern Ireland Office is doing only two things.

First, it is doing its best to faithfully implement what was agreed by the Northern Ireland parties in New Decade, New Approach, including by my colleagues on the DUP Benches. We had extensive or, dare I say it, tortuous negotiations—I stress that word “tortuous”—over two or three years to try to get some way forward on language and culture issues, so that we could get our institutions restored and they could get down to work. That comes from the history of there being little progress on the language issue since St Andrews. It is important that we do our best today to faithfully implement what was agreed in New Decade, New Approach. Time has moved on and there are issues, which is why I am supporting some of the amendments. However, we need to be cautious about doing anything that unpicks what was agreed, because there was a carefully balanced compromise at that stage.

Secondly, I stress that it is regrettable that this House has to do the work to put this into law. The Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive had the chance to do that, notwithstanding covid, over the previous two and a half years, but that opportunity was not taken up. That process would have allowed much more scrutiny and a whole range of interest groups to tease out the issues.

I will focus primarily on amendment 1, which has tended to dominate much of the debate. It is important that we do our best here—I know it will be difficult—to separate language and culture from Unionism and nationalism as political identities. They are not the same. We often—sometimes lazily—end up in that position, but that does not really address the subtleties around language and culture in Northern Ireland, where we have a shared heritage. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) referred to Dál Riata, the kingdom that spanned the northern part of the island of Ireland and Scotland, but he also referred to Ballintoy, a town name that has an Irish root. Surnames, townland names and the names of towns and villages across Northern Ireland reflect the different language roots. There are many, many names, including in many places that would be perceived as being dominated by Unionists and Protestants, that have those Irish origins.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the hon. Member for making that point, because that diversity is there every single day of the week. Ballymena in my constituency is the middle town—the middle place—in the area. That is what it means: the middle part. I embrace those things as they are part and parcel of the identity of our culture and our country. I emphasise that this is not about despising something, but about making sure that if we are going to legislate on it, we get it right. The Bill fails to meet the New Decade, New Approach agreement, as I hope he agrees. No matter what side of the argument someone is on, it fails to meet it.

[Stephen Farry]

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

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 4th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Carla Lockhart]

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

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

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

[Carla Lockhart]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Lloyd]

If the hon. Member had listened to me, he would know that the reference I made—the case of the Ormeau Road killings—was precisely that: a civil court process that revealed that collusion had taken place. [Interruption.] Well, it was a court process that led to the discovery; I am not sure where we go beyond that.

[Ian Paisley]

In the debate about the difference between murders that have occurred, and whether they have affected one section of the tribe in Northern Ireland or another section, I often remember often the words of John Hume, speaking from the Bench in front of us, when he once said that Irish Republicans killed more people in the name of Ireland and Irishness than all the other groups on our island put together. I think, whenever we get things into proportion, we see where the real killing fields were, and we should not allow any piece of legislation to distract us from getting those people to justice.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Conor Burns]

I give way to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), because he has not had a go yet.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The Minister is so generous; his days in Ballycastle served him well. He says that he wishes to improve the Bill, and we have to take that at face value. Many cross-party and cross-community amendments have been tabled from across the House and we want to test his sincerity. Will the Government accept amendment 115, for example? It states that

“certain offences of sexual violence listed in Schedule (Exempt offences) must not be treated as within the scope of immunity from prosecution.”

What is the argument against including that in the Bill?

[Conor Burns]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Conor Burns]

I need to make a little more progress, but I will come back to my hon. Friend towards the end. The Committee will then want to hear from other Members.

The Bill also places a duty on the commission not to do anything that would risk prejudicing or would prejudice the national security interests of the United Kingdom, that would risk putting or would put the life and safety of any person at risk, or that would risk having or would have a prejudicial impact on any active or prospective criminal proceedings in the United Kingdom. Members will recognise that these are standard but important protections. Reports will be produced and issued as soon as possible after a review has been carried out, unless the commissioner for investigations refers any conduct of individuals in the final report to a prosecutor.

Clauses 18 to 21 address immunity from prosecution. After we published our Command Paper in July 2021, many individuals and organisations told us that the unconditional statute of limitations for all troubles-related offences is too painful to accept and is not right. We also heard from those in the veterans community who feel uncomfortable with any perceived moral equivalence between those who went out to protect life and uphold the rule of law and the terrorists who were intent on causing harm. Based on what we heard, we adjusted the proposals in the Bill.

Clause 18 establishes that for someone to get immunity from prosecution for a troubles-related offence, that person must request immunity from the commission, provide an account that is true to the best of their “knowledge and belief” and in doing so disclose conduct that would be capable of exposing them to criminal investigation or prosecution. It makes it clear that it is possible for people to rely on previous statements and sets out how the commission can formulate an offer of immunity, and how an individual must be notified about the outcome of an application for immunity. In response to amendments 101 to 105, in making a decision on whether or not to grant immunity the panel must take into account any relevant information that holds or obtains as part of the investigation. That might include information that the commission has obtained as part of the investigation, either from disclosure from relevant authorities, or from biometrics or witness testimony from individuals who engage with the commission.

[Ian Paisley]

On this test of the veracity of the witness, will the material that the Minister referred to in his earlier comments—the intelligence material—be made available, completely and totally? Will it be retained afterwards, in case there is a civil trial, or will it be shredded and destroyed? What is going to happen to that great bank of material that he referred to, which could confirm whether a person is telling lies through their teeth or whether they are telling the truth?

[Conor Burns]

The hon. Gentleman asks about an important point. Central within this legislation will be the passing over of the state’s information—the intelligence gathered in the course of the period of the troubles and held by the authorities. That will include information on members of the security forces, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and others. It will also include intelligence that has been gained and retained about terrorist organisations and individual actors within that. The panel will be able to see and make judgement on that. As I explained, there are protections, as there rightly are all the time for those of us who have to deal with this source material, for named individuals who might be at risk by that information coming into the public domain. However, we are of the view here that the widest possible disclosure is the way in which this body can gain credibility, acceptance and authority. It is only on the basis of that credibility, acceptance and authority that the body will have the ability—[Interruption.] There will be no destruction of evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

It is absolutely right and proper that the shadow Secretary of State refers to the victims who will be watching our debate, and probably hanging on every word that is said. It is therefore important that we treat this very sensitively. It is 39 years ago, almost to the day, that Iris Moffitt-Scott’s husband was shot dead for doing no more than his job ploughing a field on their farm—shot dead because he was a UDR part-time soldier. The day he was murdered was his child’s first day at school. In the case of the two officers murdered in Lurgan, just a few days ago their orphaned children gave an interview on our television screens. It is one of the most powerful interviews I think I have ever heard in which the next generation of those who have suffered tell their story. This is not over. The legislation does not end it. This only begins another generation of suffering.

[Peter Kyle]

The hon. Gentleman speaks from the heart and puts on record the experience of many, many families across Northern Ireland and across Britain who suffered at the hands of terrorists during that time. He is right; they need to be respected. I am pleased that their experiences are being brought into our proceedings today, and I am grateful for his intervention.

On Second Reading, there were thoughtful contributions from across the House. Members from Northern Ireland demonstrated how the troubles had touched the lives of everyone in their constituencies. Members who had served in the armed forces spoke about their experiences serving our country and the impact of being questioned about their service many years later. In Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, the vast majority of veterans deserve the chance to talk about their experiences and their service with pride. Speeches demonstrated a profound respect for victims’ families and the dignity they have shown.

There was a consensus that this Bill needs substantial changes if it is to begin to make up for the failures of successive Governments on behalf of victims. With victims in mind, the amendment I have tabled would mitigate some of the worst effects of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

I think in my earlier intervention I may have said that he was a part-time member of the UDR, but I was wrong in that. He certainly was not—in fact, reports at the time record his family saying he was a friend for all, a man with friends right across the entire community. There was no justification. His local canon, I think, indicated that the only reason he was murdered was that he was a member of the Protestant community. It was a straightforward, dirty, evil sectarian murder and it must be called out as that. As my hon. Friend will know, for those of us who grew up through those days—I was 17 at the time; he is slightly younger than me—our days were punctuated by the sounds of those bullets and bombs going off. Our news bulletins were punctuated by the soundtrack of the troubles. Unfortunately, this legacy Bill does not bring that soundtrack to an end.

[Gavin Robinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that.

I have made reference to some of the substantive amendments that we will consider on Monday. I want to raise a series of amendments that I hope are not controversial, which representatives from across Northern Ireland would be able to accept, and put them forward in the hope that the Minister can offer some positivity. Then we will get on to the substantive amendments that I think will form part of our considerations later on.

An innocent victim: we know what that is. It is somebody who has been injured through the troubles through no fault of their own. They have not engaged in illegality; they have not gone out to damage, to murder, to kill. They have been injured. The Government accepted that definition when they published regulations around troubles pensions. There is an opportunity, which we can come back to on Monday when we talk about memorialisation, for this Government to provide a legal definition of an innocent victim.

There has been a debate about immunity. The legislation talks about its being general immunity, and that has caused concern for victims. The Minister, through engagement and with the NIO, has been very clear that it is immunity specific to an event, but covers the generality of offences during that event. The immunity attaches to the incident and not the person. I think the Minister should take the opportunity to clarify that and look at whether that can be strengthened through amendment.

I had an exchange with the hon. Member for Bracknell on clause 20 subsections (1) to (4). Subsection (4) is unnecessary. It suggests that the panel does not need to take information from anywhere other than the person before it, but subsections (1) to (3) suggest all the relevant information that the panel can and should take into account in making its determination on an individual incident. Clause 20(4) should be removed.

Amendment 97 is one that I hope hon. Members will engage with. An assessment must be made of whether the individual perpetrator who is giving information to the panel has done so truthfully, to the best of their knowledge. If they lie, if they seek immunity and spin the process out, playing with victims and their families, there is no consequence for them whatsoever. At the very least, amendment 97 would see a file issued to the Public Prosecution Service.

Amendment 119, which I referred to, is about the glorification of terrorism. The last thing we should do, if we are truly interested in achieving reconciliation in Northern Ireland, is to offer someone immunity only for them to go out and talk positively or proudly about their heinous exploits. That would be a fundamental outrage. We will never get reconciliation in Northern Ireland if we empower people to rub salt in the wounds of victims and their families there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

Thank you for calling me, Mr Evans. I want to speak first to amendment 98 and then to amendment 115 if I get an opportunity.

Amendment 98 is very specific. It says that those who have previously been arrested and perhaps even charged but who have then fled justice will not be able to benefit from this process. Why are we saying that? It is very simple. The evidential material is there. These people have evaded justice—they have evaded the entire process of law—and they now have the opportunity literally to get out of jail scot-free.

If the amendment were to have a name, it would be the Rita O’Hare amendment. Although she is not the only example, she is a very good example of the sort of person the amendment would encapsulate and capture—there are many other notorious examples, but hers is a specific example. She is now a Sinn Féin employee. She has worked in the United States of America and the Republic of Ireland. She tried to kill Warrant Officer Fraser Patton in October 1971. She was arrested and charged with that and with malicious wounding. When she was on bail, she fled, evaded justice and got sanctuary in the Republic of Ireland, where she continued her dastardly work. Indeed, in 1979, she smuggled more explosives and ammunition and faced a shorter jail sentence. The Republic of Ireland refused to send her to Northern Ireland.

Rita O’Hare then went to the United States of America, where she has had a glowing career. It has been so glowing that if we look her up on Facebook or elsewhere on the internet, we can see her standing with no less a figure than President Biden in one of her most recent posts. We can also see her standing with President Obama in one of her posts. Then there is Mr. Richie Neal, who likes to visit Northern Ireland and lecture people about peace and prosperity—there he is, arms around a person who has evaded justice in Northern Ireland and who should be facing justice.

The amendment would capture that type of person and say, “There's a body of evidence here. You’re not getting away with this. We’re going to put you through due process and get the sort of justice that Warrant Officer Fraser Patton is entitled to.” That is what the amendment would do, and I urge support for it.

I got the Minister into a fairly broad discussion about amendment 115, but I think it was worth while, because we got to the kernel of the issue. There should be nothing preventing the Government from accepting this amendment. I do not accept that it is outside the scope of the Bill. I do not accept the woolly and quite condescending argument that we cannot tie this issue into Protestant and Catholic stuff or Ulster Volunteer Force and IRA stuff. We can—speak to Máiría Cahill; speak to others. If a victim finds that someone could benefit from this legislation—if it is enacted—and the name is sparked off, it will have a trigger effect. They will say that that is the person who abused me. It will have that trigger opportunity. Therefore, if we do not address this sexual offences matter immediately, we do ourselves a gross disservice. I hope that the Minister has been listening—I think that he has—but, more importantly, I hope that we have not just fine words and eager listening, but actual actions that will speak much louder than words.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 24th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a good and important point. He is quite right. One of the challenges is the point about balance that I made a few moments ago. As we go forward it is important, first, that records will be made available in a way that they have not been made before, going beyond what we have done before with a legal duty for the first time on Government Departments, agencies and bodies, which will mean that a whole range of information will be available for the commission to look at. Of course, if people come forward with information, particularly in a demand-led process, as I will outline in a few moments, it will provide an opportunity for people to seek the investigation of crimes by an investigatory body with the right kinds of powers. Those crimes were committed in the vast majority, as he has rightly outlined, by terrorists who went out to do harm in Northern Ireland.

We as a Government accept that, as part of this process, information will be released into the public domain that may well be uncomfortable for everyone. It is important that we as a Government acknowledge our shortcomings, as we have done previously in relation to that immensely challenging period. It is also important, as hon. Friends have said this afternoon, that others do the same. Some families have told us that they do not want to revisit the past, and we must respect that. The new commission will therefore be demand-led, taking forward investigations if requested to do so by survivors or the families of those who lost their lives. The Secretary of State will also be able to request a review, ensuring that the Government can fulfil their obligations under the European convention on human rights.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State used an interesting phrase when he said that others must play their part. On the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, we have heard evidence of hundreds of people being murdered along the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland but the terrorists having then fled to the safety of the Republic of Ireland for sanctuary and stayed there. What assistance, if any, has the Republic of Ireland given? Will any evidence that is gathered there never be made available to the commission in Northern Ireland? Will we therefore have a blindsided, one-sided process that does not allow the Republic of Ireland to be held to account for its covering over and hiding of terrorists for decades?

[Brandon Lewis]

I know that the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues have previously raised cases with both me and the Irish Government. One thing that was outlined in the papers that were signed off and agreed by me and the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Irish Government around a year ago was that the Irish Government also committed to bringing forward legislation in Ireland on information recovery, to deal with that very point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

Where is it?

[Brandon Lewis]

I have not seen it yet, but I hope we will soon see something from the Irish Government to ensure that in both jurisdictions we are working to make sure that people have as much access to information as possible.

Written reports of the commission’s findings will be provided to the families or survivors who request an investigation. The reports will also be made publicly available, to provide accountability by ensuring that wider society can access the commission’s findings and understand and acknowledge the events of the past.

After we published our Command Paper, many individuals and organisations told us that an unconditional statute of limitations for all troubles-related offences was just too painful to accept. They said that we must not close the door on the possibility of prosecutions, however remote the chances might be. We have also heard from those in our veterans community who are uncomfortable with any perceived moral equivalence between those who went out to protect life and uphold the rule of law and terrorists who were intent on causing harm. Of course, there never could be a moral equivalence of that type.

For the reasons I have just set out, we have adjusted our approach to make this a conditional model. To gain immunity, individuals must provide, if asked, an account to the new commission that is true to the best of their knowledge and belief. That condition draws parallels with aspects of the truth and reconciliation commission that was implemented in South Africa, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) outlined. The commission will require individuals to acknowledge their involvement in serious troubles-related incidents and to reveal what they know.

Let me turn to a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and others. The provisions will also apply to individuals who have previously been provided with the so-called on-the-run letters, or letters of comfort. When issued, those letters confirmed whether or not an individual was wanted by the police, based on evidence held at that time. However, I want to be crystal clear that the letters have absolutely no legal standing and cannot be used to prevent prosecution under this new approach.

[Brandon Lewis]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. That is why I made the point I just made, which I will repeat because I want to be absolutely clear about this: these letters have no legal standing. They cannot and will not be accepted and they cannot be used to prevent prosecution under this new approach. The new body’s investigations will continue regardless of people holding those kind of letters.

[Ian Paisley]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

Yes, I can give that assurance. As will be shown throughout the Bill’s passage, we are absolutely determined that it does not institutionalise the kind of problem that we are seeking to resolve, as well as, obviously, looking to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. I can give my right hon. Friend that reassurance.

[Ian Paisley]

rose—

[Brandon Lewis]

I shall take one more intervention and then make a fair bit of progress.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the Secretary of State allowing this intervention. On the matter of the on-the-runs, can he confirm that Rita O’Hare is still wanted by the authorities for her deeds in respect of the murder of British personnel? Can he confirm that an elected representative in Northern Ireland holds an OTR letter?

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

I agree fundamentally with my hon. Friend. I urge the Secretary of State to continue his conversations with Minister Coveney. It might be a step in the right direction to say that one of the commissioners could or should be a nominee of the Irish Government. I know that that would be contentious for some, but in trying to build that consensus and share the obligation, it may—there is no guarantee—pay a dividend.

[Ian Paisley]

Can the hon. Gentleman reflect on what the Secretary of State said at the Dispatch Box? He said that, more than a year ago, the Republic of Ireland indicated that it would bring forward something, but it has brought forward absolutely nothing. I do not think that augurs well; I think that it will turn a blind eye to the issue for as long as possible and do nothing, because if the veil is lifted on its legacy of the troubles, it will not be a pretty sight.

[Simon Hoare]

Well, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who is no longer in his place, referenced, it has taken two general elections and four years to bring this Bill to fruition, so I am not sure that we are in a position to lecture, or are entirely innocent on that point. As we all know, however, heaven rejoiceth when a sinner repenteth, and it is not too late for both sides to build that consensus and to bring forward either conjoined proposals or separate but mutually corresponding ones. That would be a good thing.

On clause 5, which relates to full disclosure, subsection (1) is absolutely right that

“A relevant authority must make available”

the items that are listed, but subsection (2) says that

“A relevant authority may also make available”,

which depends on interpretation. The relevant authority could have some information that it thinks might be important and of relevance to an inquiry, but that has not been specifically asked for and that might be unhelpful to that authority, so it might hold it back. I would like to see the compelling nature of “must” in subsections (1) and (2), and I am certain that amendments will be tabled to address that.

The Bill needs to give further thought to how the PSNI interlinks with the commission. I hope that the PSNI will allocate the about £30 million that it spends currently on legacy purposes to invest in providing resource and support to the new process.

In summary, this Bill is not perfect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

We have heard a number of helpful and interesting contributions on what is a difficult subject. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) made an important and interesting point when he identified that there should be significant amendments to the Bill. Those amendments, if carried in the way he suggested, would change what the Bill does, and we look forward to them in hope and in expectation, because change to this Bill is necessary. Many Members representing all types of constituencies in Northern Ireland and all parties across this House have rightly stated that they are opposed to it. It has failed the Northern Ireland test of getting any sense of consensus whatsoever, and it is important that that is placed on record.

It is disappointing that Labour Members have not contributed to this debate in the way that we would have expected them to do, given that it was in 1998 that the genie was let out of the bottle when all terrorist prisoners were released from jail. That set on course a series of events that has told us that justice in Northern Ireland will be served up very differently for everyone. It is important that people recognise that, since 1998, we have been served a catalogue of abuse to the justice process. Let us consider the letters of comfort that were secretly issued, and the on-the-runs processes, which were a total disgrace.

These events have even been characterised in the recent series “Derry Girls”. I watched with interest the other evening as two characters fell out with each other over the release of prisoners. They came from the same tradition and similar families but they fell out because, as one of them said, “Your brother committed murder and he shouldn’t be let out.” That is how it affected all families in Northern Ireland—Protestant and Catholic, across the divide. It was appalling. Even the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry), who supported the Belfast Agreement, has indicated today how that jarred with him. It is important that hon. Members recognise that the genie being let out of the bottle then is how we got here today with this legislation, which says, “If we can do it once, we can do it again. We can undermine the rule of law again, because we did it once.” Perhaps that is why the Labour Benches are empty today—because it is unsatisfactory for Labour Members to stand on their moral high horse and read a lecture about the morality or immorality of this. Maybe the finger is pointing back at them and what they did in 1998 has finally come home to roost. That is an important point.

I mentioned earlier the case of Rita O’Hare, who tried to kill a soldier called Frazer Paton in Belfast 51 years ago. She evaded justice when she was given bail. She fled to the Irish Republic and went on the run. She got a job in the United States of America, where she has been Sinn Féin’s director of publicity since the 1980s. She cannot come back to Northern Ireland because of an outstanding warrant, but under this Bill she gets off the hook. What is she going to do—read a little story to an inquiry tribunal and tell it what actually happened? She will never serve a day in jail for attempted murder, she will never serve a day in jail for possessing the murder weapon and she will never serve a day in jail for maliciously wounding a soldier, all because of this piece of legislation. We need to call it out for those reasons.

On Sunday I had the privilege of standing in Ballymena Memorial Park as we unveiled a memorial to the Royal Ulster Constabulary George Cross Foundation. As we stood and listened to the names of the fallen from County Antrim, as tears fell on widows’ cheeks and as orphans and colleagues of the fallen stood around the memorial, it was obvious that this legislation is not a cri de coeur that no one will be left behind, as some hon. Members would have us believe. The RUC will be left behind and the victims will be left behind.

The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) rightly said that not a single victims group, not a single party—for different reasons—and not a single rights group in Northern Ireland, including the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, accepts that the Bill is compliant with article 2 of the European convention on human rights. Some hon. Members go to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on behalf of the House to uphold the European convention on human rights, and we chide Russia for breaking it, yet we are putting legislation through the House that contravenes the convention because it is not article 2 compliant.

It is perverse when we hear hon. Members calling in this House for war crimes to be identified and for people to be brought to justice in another part of Europe, because there is an attempt to conceal and forget war crimes here in the United Kingdom. Veterans have been fed an unfair diet this afternoon with the idea that the Bill will be very good for them, but it will not be. They are getting a crumb off the table, and that crumb is blue-moulded and will not taste very good because, instead of veterans being able to hold their head high and walk tall and proud for the great service they gave to our nation in Northern Ireland, this legislation marks them out as getting some sort of dodgy special deal, like 1998 all over again. It does not do them the justice to which they are entitled, and it does not exonerate them in the way they should be.

For many years, hon. Members on both sides of the House campaigned for justice for the victims of Libyan-sponsored terrorism in Northern Ireland. The next time I hear an hon. Member say they want to see justice for victims across the United Kingdom who suffered due to Libyan-sponsored explosives in the hands of the IRA, I will take a double look, because this Bill stops that in its tracks.

My constituent Billy O’Flaherty, a police officer, lost his limbs in Ballymena because of a Libyan-sponsored bomb in the hands of the IRA. I have to go and tell him tonight that, as a result of this Bill, he is never going to get justice. He is never going to see the people who tried to murder him and who murdered his colleague on the same day put behind bars. The Bill will not get us to a point of justice.

If anyone in this House honestly thinks that somehow terrorists are going to walk into a review process and ‘fess up to all the bad things they did and that it will all be forgotten, they are absolutely wrong. This is not about reconciliation. It was wrong to call this reconciliation because it will not reconcile the differences; it will drive a stake between people and leave communities—not a community—in Northern Ireland feeling let down once again.

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

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 7th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We will begin the wind-up speeches at 8.34.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

There is truth in the point made tonight that, almost five days into the crisis, the Prime Minister of this nation has not spoken. That is wrong. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom ought to have spoken on Thursday evening about this issue. He should not shut up about it until the issue is resolved. These are his responsibilities. When we view a constitutional crisis through the prism of a divided community, which is what Northern Ireland is, we create suspicions and we raise concerns unless those matters are properly addressed. There is a fear among some people that the Conservative and Unionist party that governs this nation is actually an English nationalist party that is concerned not about a border in the Irish sea but about a red wall on the mainland island, and that that is what eats it up every single day. If that is this Government’s only concern, they are betraying the Union and the Unionist people.

That is the reality of where we are this evening. It is obvious to all of us who have been warning about this crisis—whatever side of the divide we are on, whether nationalists, Unionists or whatever—that this was bound to come to a head. That is the unfortunate reality of what has happened.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The hon. Gentleman is aiming his artillery at the wrong enemy. The truth is that this protocol and trade across Northern Ireland are no threat whatsoever to the integrity of the single market. This Government have done their level best to try to get trade flowing completely freely; it is the EU that is making it so impossible.

[Ian Paisley]

No one from that side of the House needs to lecture us about the support that this party and the people of Ulster have invested in this Government—no one. The only reason that GB has Brexit is the support that the Unionist people of Northern Ireland gave to the right hon. Gentleman’s party. Let us make no mistake about that. The reality is that, if the Government had given a fair deal to all the people of the United Kingdom, we would not be debating this issue this evening and the institutions of Northern Ireland would not be teetering on the brink of collapse. I fear that, alarming as the situation is in Northern Ireland, this will not be easily brought back together. The comment made by the right hon. Gentleman, who is a close friend of mine, betrays a lack of understanding of how deep the hurt and the cut is in Northern Ireland this evening. That must be addressed urgently.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Conor Burns]

I am immensely grateful to my hon. Friend. He makes that point incredibly powerfully. Members from across the House will look forward to planting oak saplings in their constituencies to mark this amazing achievement of Her Majesty’s platinum jubilee. The Foreign Secretary is on the Front Bench. I know her well; I served with her in International Trade. She is on the case. There is absolutely no reason why oak tree saplings should not be planted in Northern Ireland as they are in every other part of the United Kingdom.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The Queen’s Green Canopy is a wonderful way to both celebrate the jubilee and promote the environment. Tomorrow, in Dervock, Bushmills, Ballymoney and Ballymena, a number of primary schools will plant trees to mark Her Majesty’s jubilee. I encourage the Secretary of State, the Minister and, indeed, the Foreign Secretary, who will be in Northern Ireland tomorrow, to take the opportunity to visit one of those schools and encourage young people as they promote the environment, honour Her Majesty the Queen and encourage our country to look positively to its future.

[Conor Burns]

I entirely agree that all Members across the House will look forward to planting trees on the amazing anniversary of Her Majesty’s reign. I was in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency just before Christmas, at my grandfather’s former primary school in Armoy. The event is cross-community and cross-tradition, and we are all looking forward to celebrating it. I will happily accept an invitation, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would, to join the hon. Gentleman in his constituency and plant a tree.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 27th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Conor Burns]

The primary responsibility for job creation is private sector business. It is entrepreneurs; it is people who create products and sell them to customers. What we are doing is making sure that businesses in Northern Ireland, as across the rest of the United Kingdom, have the tools to create the jobs and to create wealth and prosperity across the whole of Northern Ireland.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The Minister will know that sport is an economic driver. He will also know of the bid for the world rally championship to take place in Northern Ireland next year. What encouragement can the Minister and the Northern Ireland Office give to ensure that that is a successful, proactive event that will lead to spin-offs and job creation?

[Conor Burns]

The hon. Gentleman is a huge champion of that project. We are well aware of the proposals that are being worked up, and I understand that the Executive and Tourism Northern Ireland are looking at them. If they come forward with proposals that work they will find a willing partner in the Northern Ireland Office. I will not commit to how many wheels or what part of the vehicles we will pay for, but we will step up to help to make this project a reality.

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

Ian Paisley Excerpts

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

In the last interregnum, what has been happening on education, health, housing and infrastructure? This is about delivering prosperity and peace, lives and livelihoods. All of us who pick up the baton of public service should always remind ourselves of that. Particularly as we come out of covid, the communities of Northern Ireland need us all, whether those working in Stormont or those here, to be resolutely focused on meeting and delivering on their needs, as we will in every other part of the United Kingdom.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a sensible point about the extension of a crisis period. We currently have a situation where a crisis could last for days, and we are now potentially extending that by up to six months. Irrespective of what side of the debate they are on, I ask Members across the House to contemplate whether they would tolerate in their part of the United Kingdom a crisis in statute that is allowed to perpetuate itself for up to six months before it ultimately comes to the buffer zone, or to the point at which it has to be delivered. That point needs to be considered by all hon. Members when they vote on this measure.

[Simon Hoare]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, who serves with me on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Thank heavens this is not being dealt with as emergency legislation and rushed through in a 12-hour sitting, but once again it speaks of dealing with Northern Ireland as something other, or as something different, and with a set of circumstances and rules that none of us would find tolerable in England and my constituency of North Dorset, or in Wales or Scotland. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point that we should all be conscious of.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

Like the dreary steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone, we keep coming back to the phrases and mantras mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart): “We must support the Belfast agreement, provided it is our interpretation of the Belfast agreement.” The two-faced approach from some hon. Members, who say we must support the Belfast agreement and never change it while tabling amendments to change it, is not lost on anyone back home.

I do not often quote the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), but I agreed with her wholeheartedly when she said that she wishes to support the locked-in sectarianism of the Belfast agreement. Think of it, we are discussing measures that a Member of this Parliament—

[Claire Hanna]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

No, I will not. The hon. Lady had a good opportunity to make a speech. It may not have been her finest moment, but she has made a speech and I think I am entitled to take that speech apart, which she has made very easy for me. She wishes to support the locked-in sectarianism of the Belfast agreement, and it is incredible that she is asking this House to do that. That follows closely on the heels of the previous Member for Foyle—

[Claire Hanna]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If Members are referring to content, they should quote me accurately. I said that the current designation structures, as operated, were locking in sectarianism. Is it appropriate for Members to misquote other Members?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point of order. It is important that Members do not misquote other Members; that is very important indeed. The hon. Lady has made her point. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman feels that he has misinterpreted her words, he will respond, or he may feel that the clarification that she has just given has put what she said on the record.

[Ian Paisley]

Of course, this is not the first time that Social Democratic and Labour party Members have opposed the Belfast agreement and called for changes when it suits them. The previous Member for Foyle talked about the “ugly scaffolding” that surrounded the Belfast agreement—

[Colum Eastwood]

Maybe the hon. Member will give way to me, will he?

[Ian Paisley]

Of course, the “ugly scaffolding”—

[Colum Eastwood]

No? Do you want to give way?

[Ian Paisley]

I will in a moment.

[Colum Eastwood]

Good man.

[Ian Paisley]

I am never frightened to give way, while others are, and the Member knows that, so he should not worry about that. I will give way in a moment. The SDLP Members are getting particularly ratty now, because some of the points that have been made are being put back to them—that they are supporting an inherently flawed agreement. Many in Northern Ireland want to get to normal, democratic politics. One reason why we have the problems that have been highlighted today and why we have the problems that necessitate the Bill is that we do not have fundamentally democratic institutions in operation in Northern Ireland. I would love to see those institutions come into place.

Some of the amendments that have been tabled are about keeping in place and reinforcing the sectarian nature of the agreements. For example, we are told that the petition of concern is there to protect minorities, and that provided that that minority is a nationalist minority, that petition of concern should be retained, but whenever some people believe that at some point in future it may be a Unionist minority, the petition of concern better be done away with pretty quickly, because we would not want that Unionist minority on the island of Ireland having protections and rights. That is not lost on many people outside this House.

Does the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) still want to intervene?

[Colum Eastwood]

I would love to—if I can remember the hon. Member’s point. I thank him for giving way. On his point about the former Member for Foyle, of course, he negotiated the Good Friday agreement when the hon. Gentleman and his party were standing outside with placards, shouting and cheering. By the way, they were shouted down by the people of Ireland and the people of Northern Ireland, who voted massively in favour of the Good Friday agreement. Of course, the hon. Gentleman’s party has been implementing the Good Friday agreement ever since it did the thing at St Andrews. You talked about the petition of concern—

[Colum Eastwood]

indicated assent.

[Ian Paisley]

I think the point is not lost on anyone watching that the Member has lost.

Let me turn to some of the issues that have been raised. People have talked today about threats to the institutions—threats that they might be brought down by the Democratic Unionist party. Of course, when the Justice Minister made it clear on Radio Ulster that she did not find it comfortable being in the Northern Ireland Executive and might leave it, that was not characterised as a threat to the institution. It is amazing that when one does one thing, it is characterised in one way, but if anyone else from a different tradition indicates their concerns about the institutions, it is suddenly characterised as a threat to democracy and to the process, when it is no such thing. The fact of the matter is that the Unionist people of Northern Ireland have rights and expect their Unionist politicians to defend those rights, and we will defend their rights. No matter what the cost and no matter what the price, those rights will be defended, come what may.

The current hon. Member for Foyle made the point that the Justice Minister could not be someone from the nationalist tradition. I would make the point, which is not lost on anyone, that the last time there was a Unionist Justice Minister was in 1971—

[Stephen Farry]

What about Claire Sugden?

[Ian Paisley]

Unionists are not allowed—[Interruption.] Well, David Ford, I do not think he was—

[Colum Eastwood]

Claire Sugden is a Unionist.

[Ian Paisley]

She is an independent. There was no one brought from the main Unionist party into the Justice Department, because the nationalist parties would object to that and not allow it to take place. It is very clear to all those who see that what suits one party at one time will only be used provided that it does not encourage or support the Unionist tradition. That is why there are many objections.

People from Northern Ireland will look on at this—I will use the phrase fiddling while Rome burns. Some people may think that more attractive than others do, but I certainly do not. Many people know that a torpedo has been fired at the Northern Ireland institutions and it is outside the control of the Unionist parties and nationalist parties operating in the Assembly, and that torpedo is, of course, the Northern Ireland protocol. Until and unless the Government in this place resolve themselves to do what they said in their Command Paper in July this year, that torpedo will eventually hole those institutions below the line. When that happens, no amount of hand-wringing in this place and no amount of declaring one’s dying loyalty to whatever interpretation of the Belfast agreement people feel they wish to support will salvage those institutions.

I urge the Government to move immediately—now—and to do what they should have done by invoking article 16 of the protocol and resolving that issue once and for all. Otherwise, we will continue to have the cherry-picking that we have seen in this place, with one party wanting the language provisions, another party wanting to address the issues to do with abortions and another party then wanting something else. That will go on in an infernal circle for all to see. I encourage the Government to move on that protocol, and to move immediately.