Israel/Gaza

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, less than two weeks ago, I commenced our party conference by reading Psalm 122.1 read the words:

“Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: They shall prosper that love thee. Peace be within thy walls, And prosperity within thy palaces”.


For over 40 years, I have been taking groups to visit Israel to walk the pathway where our saviour walked and where one day my saviour will return.

The attack on Israeli civilians by Hamas gunmen on 7 October was nothing less than pure evil. The Hamas attacks were marked by murder, kidnapping, rape and torture. As others have said, it was the bloodiest day in the history of the State of Israel, with the murder of 1,400 civilians, including 260 young people at a music festival, and thousands wounded both physically and mentally, and over 200 hostages taken. Indeed, it was the greatest loss of Jewish life in a single day since the Holocaust.

Sadly, just like the Holocaust deniers of the past, there are many across the world who totally blinker themselves and peddle the narrative that Israel was to blame for this slaughter of the innocents; or they try to minimise the magnitude of the atrocities carried out by these hate-filled fanatics who invaded Israel with the intent of butchering, burning and capturing innocent civilians. We cannot allow this dangerous propaganda to go unanswered. The undisputable truth is that numerous heavily armed Hamas terrorists with murder in their hearts entered into different Israeli villages and left unbelievable carnage behind them. They did so unashamedly, cheering as they recorded their actions in order to gloat over their atrocities—yes, they recorded the innocent being shot, stabbed, tortured and burned. They bound, gagged and riddled with bullet holes the bodies of young and old. Hamas celebrated the beheading of men, women, children and babies, and yet there are those within our society who seek to justify these actions.

Let me make it clear that those who claim that the Hamas gunmen were soldiers fighting for a just cause are totally deceived. They were evil assassins who murdered the elderly, disabled, children and babies; they raped women, even abusing a dead young woman’s body, having been instructed to kill anyone and everyone. The inhumanity of their actions is unbelievable yet true and it must be condemned by all. Noble Lords may ask how such inhumanity could happen in 2023. Hamas’s stated aim is the obliteration or annihilation of Israel, not peaceful co-existence with Israel. Its actions are therefore taken seeking to achieve its evil ends.

Those who planned this attack did so to cause maximum fear and distress to innocent civilians. Over recent years Israel has been bombarded with numerous rockets fired from Gaza and Lebanon, but what happened on 7 October was completely different. Hamas carefully planned its attack; it knew when and where it would happen and had every opportunity to make preparation for the needs of its own people—the Palestinian people whom it claims to represent. Yet, within days of the attack, the news media talked endlessly about shortages of food, fuel, water, medical supplies; in other words, shortages of everything—but let us note carefully, no shortages of rockets. These are still in plentiful supply.

Why did Hamas not make preparations to feed or alleviate the suffering of its own people? If the truth is told, it did not care. Indeed, the truth is that the Hamas terrorist organisation has been happy to use and abuse the Palestinian people, making them human shields and using their grievous suffering as a part of its propaganda machine to suck in a receptive world.

Even parts of our own media are afraid to call out Hamas as a terrorist organisation and content to call its murderers “militants” or “fighters”. There is absolutely no excuse for creating the impression of a moral equivalence between Hamas and Israel’s armed forces. When the hospital was bombed in Gaza the world’s news media were quick to blame Israel but, when independent sources as well as government agencies researched the evidence, this was found to be totally untrue. The blast at the hospital was from a missile fired in Gaza and hundreds of Palestinians paid the price with their innocent lives, yet Hamas used this tragedy to stir up anti-Israeli hatred across the world and, even after evidence has been produced to the contrary, the narrative has not changed.

The State of Israel has a right to defend its citizens from terrorism, and its fight is a fight for survival. Israel cannot co-exist with Hamas, which is out to annihilate it. Either Israel will defeat and wipe out Hamas or Hamas will continue to destroy Israel. We in Northern Ireland were subjected to countless acts of terrorism from the IRA, an evil organisation with terrorist links with Hamas. It too carried out barbaric acts of terror. It too murdered babies, abducted and killed innocent civilians, some of whose bodies have never been recovered.

The people of Palestine are indeed suffering, and a mother’s tears there are the same as in any other area of conflict, but the Israeli Government have exhorted the innocent to leave the Hamas enclave before they attack the enemy. The people living in the villages of Israel were not given that warning. Hamas ordered its terrorists to kill, kill, kill without mercy, to behead or do whatever they liked against peaceful civilians and glory in their evil deeds.

It is deeply worrying to see that anti-Semitic attacks in this country have increased sevenfold from the same period last year. Will the Minister ensure that His Majesty’s Government continue to protect Jewish people living in the United Kingdom and take resolute action against those who seek to threaten them?

As I said earlier, this is a fight for Israel’s survival. I stand with the people of Israel and pray for the peace of Jerusalem.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 7th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I want briefly to follow what the noble Lords, Lord Murphy and Lord Dodds, have said. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, may be right about the European Union not wishing to negotiate with regional politicians. It has a long-standing position on that; the EU-Canada trade agreement got bogged down because of the Wallonians, I think, who blocked it for quite some time. But never mind what the European Union or Dublin thinks. This is what matters: what our own Government decide on who is going to speak for the United Kingdom at these talks. If our Government decide to involve people and politicians in Northern Ireland, that is our business. It is not the European Union’s business. At the end of the day we know what its stance is, but that is neither here nor there if our Government decide that they are going to create their own negotiations. Who they take advice from and consult in the United Kingdom is entirely up to them, so I do not see that as an obstacle.

I gently remind the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, that the first decision in our amendment to the Belfast agreement at St Andrews was to remove the necessity for cross-community consent for the election of the First Minister. Had that remained as it was, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson would be First Minister, not Michelle O’Neill.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, I shall make a short comment on Amendment 40 proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. It says that

“this section does not have effect unless it has previously been approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”

Surely that is not an honourable reflection of the Belfast agreement, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, told us, overrides all the international agreements. The spirit, and a fundamental pillar, of the Belfast agreement is cross-community support. If what the noble Baronesses are saying is that the amendment actually means “by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly with cross-community support”, I challenge them to put that in and make that clear. However, I know from the previous contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, that she does not mean that. She means a simple majority and going back to majority rule, which has disappeared in Northern Ireland over the past 50 years—much at the behest of her former colleagues.

I therefore challenge the noble Baronesses to state clearly: do they desire recognition and an honourable reflection of the fundamental pillar of the Belfast agreement? When they speak about

“a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly”,

are they clearly stating that that is with cross-community support? If they are not, then they are not upholding the Belfast agreement and all the pretension in this Committee is only empty rhetoric.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. I have just a couple of small points before dealing with some of the wider issues raised by the amendments tabled in this group.

First, on the negotiations, I do not disagree with the involvement of Northern Ireland parties, as I said previously. It was suggested earlier—I think by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, who I regret is not in his place at the moment—that it did not matter what the EU thought as long as the British Government involved the Northern Ireland parties, but we are not talking about consultations; we are talking about negotiations. I think the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, put his finger on it: it is about getting people around the table. If you are going to negotiate, you need the EU and the Irish Government to be on board. The fact is that, regrettably, they have not changed their position from their previous utterances, where they said that this is entirely a matter for the EU, not for regional parties or any individual member state Government; they have said it is for the European Commission, negotiating under the mandate given to it by the Council of Ministers.

My second point is on the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, raised about the joint First Minister nomination, which was also raised on the previous set of amendments. It should be remembered that the Saint Andrews agreement took place towards the end of the 2000s, in an effort to restore devolution after years in which it had been brought down—again, by Sinn Féin, given the fact that it was out murdering people in the streets, and had not decommissioned its weapons, despite promises that it would do so. There was the famous quote by the late Lord Trimble, who said, “We have jumped, now it is your turn.” Of course, Sinn Féin never did reciprocate. As a result, we had the Northern Bank robbery, and the institutions were down for three or four years. They were eventually restored as the result of Saint Andrews, and that was a cross-community agreement which made the arrangements in relation to the nomination of First and Deputy First Minister. That was the result of a cross-community agreement, so the idea that that is contrary to the principle is simply wrong.

I fully endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said about her amendment. It is an important amendment which deals with an issue that has caused considerable concern and anxiety in Northern Ireland, which is the fact that thus far the courts have ruled that Northern Ireland’s constitutional position, Article 6 of the Act of Union, has been subjugated by the Northern Ireland protocol. That is a legal ruling. If we are paying such close scrutiny to the legal technicalities, the legal position set out in the Bill and all its intricacies—which is perfectly proper—we cannot then simply dismiss the ruling of the courts in relation to the Act of Union as neither here nor there. This is an important matter for unionists. It is the foundational constitutional document of Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom, so this is no small matter. It is something that is being challenged by unionist political leaders right across the board, and it is therefore important that it is addressed.

That is why the Belfast agreement, as amended by St Andrews, is in some considerable difficulty, because the protocol has this effect on our constitutional position. The fact is that we have another series of amendments, tabled in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Suttie, about “consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly”, which does not include the cross-community element—the cross-community vote. Again, this says to unionists that, while some are prepared to defend and speak up for the Belfast agreement, and say that this is all about protecting it, when it suits them they just change it. The Belfast agreement provides for votes like this on a cross-community basis, yet time and time again we see things being tabled in this House which undermine the agreement. We are told that we should respect the agreement and its spirit, yet here we have amendments that go against what is in the Belfast agreement—never mind the issues about the east-west relationship and strand three of the agreement, which are trashed by the protocol, and the removal of the democratic consent mechanism for the protocol itself, which means that the Assembly had absolutely no say at all before the protocol was introduced. So we are in a very difficult situation.

There is no doubt that unionists have lost a large degree of confidence in the institutions of the Belfast agreement. On what was agreed in 1998, many of us opposed those elements which released unrepentant murderers back on to the streets of Northern Ireland after serving only two years for some of the most heinous crimes imaginable of murder and depravity—people from both sides of the community were allowed to walk free from jail. The Royal Ulster Constabulary was consigned to history, and there were all sorts of issues about Sinn Féin being admitted into government while the Provisional IRA was still murdering people in the streets, as I said, and were still fully armed. Those of us who opposed these things were told, “You’ve got to accept all these things in the name of peace.” Many people did accept them; there was a referendum, it was passed, and the institutions were set up. But unionists had to accept into government people who parties here in Westminster—and, ironically, the parties Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil in the Irish Republic—would not accept into coalition with them. Northern Ireland is lectured all the time about democracy and accepting Sinn Féin into government—and we have accepted Sinn Féin into government, as per the votes of the people who gave them votes and demanded a coalition arrangement. However, the same people who lecture unionists refuse to have anything to do with them in terms of a coalition in the Irish Republic—and I imagine that neither the Labour Party nor the Conservative Party would admit them into a Government here.

We are seeing that the basis of the settlement in 1998 is now continually undermined. The principle of consent has been breached as a result of this protocol. We now have increasing clamour, including recently from the Irish Taoiseach, about changing the rules of the Belfast agreement and how the Assembly should operate. Indeed, I understand that the Taoiseach went so far as to say that it was a matter for the Irish Government, the British Government and the parties. I am sorry, but strand one is a matter for Northern Ireland parties and the UK Government; it is not a matter for the Irish Government. They are entitled to be involved in strand two and strand three issues, but not the internal government of Northern Ireland. This is causing real concern among unionists. We are in a dangerous situation, and not just because of the protocol but because we are seeing that the Belfast agreement is now going to be completely undermined if some people get their way. Majority rule, which, as we have heard, has not happened and has not been the case in Northern Ireland since the early 1970s, is something which has been railed against for over 100 years. However, as a result of boundary changes and the rest, as soon we have a non-unionist majority in the Assembly—it is not a nationalist majority; unionists are still the biggest designation—and because that now does not suit Sinn Féin, the SDLP or even the Alliance Party, some say, “Let’s change the rules.” If unionists had been suggesting such a thing in the late 1990s, during the 2000s or up until 2019, we would have been howled down as being in breach of the very fundamental principles of the Belfast agreement.

The more talk there is of that; the more talk there is about joint authority in the event of no devolution—something that, again, is entirely contrary to the Belfast agreement—the more talk there is about the protocol being rigorously implemented or not changing the protocol in the way it needs to be changed to get unionist consent; the more we are in danger of seeing the restoration of the Assembly and the institutions of the Belfast agreement receding further and further into the distance. That is the reality. We do not want that to happen. We need to get a grip. The more delay there is, either in negotiations or in the UK Government taking the action needed to restore unionist faith in the political process in Northern Ireland, the longer the institutions will be down. This Government cannot have a situation in which Northern Ireland is left in limbo, where no decisions are taken by anybody, where there are no Ministers and where civil servants do not even have the powers they had the last time. We need Northern Ireland to be governed. The UK Government, who have sovereign responsibility under the Belfast agreement and their constitutional responsibilities, need to take responsibility and act for the good government of Northern Ireland.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, I shall add a few remarks. The constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom is a very important issue for many people in Northern Ireland, and certainly for the unionist population. There is no doubt whatever that the protocol is undermining and has undermined Northern Ireland’s position. I believe it is a vehicle to continue to undermine the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. The protocol has brought a profound constitutional change to the very heart of the United Kingdom, because the courts have now ruled that the meaning of the Act of Union, the foundation of the union, has been changed by the protocol, courtesy of it being given direct effect in UK law through the withdrawal agreement Act, with the effect that this subjugates the meaning of Article VI of the Act of Union to the protocol.

I was asked this afternoon how many years I had been in public life in Northern Ireland. It is hard to believe, but in May next year, it will be 50 years: 37 years in the council, 25 years in the other House as a Member of Parliament, 16 years in the Northern Ireland Assembly—and so it goes on. And then in this place here. Now, over the years, I have seen and witnessed, sadly, Northern Ireland’s position being pushed on to the ledge of the union, as it were—pushed to the side. Our position in the United Kingdom has been undermined.

I have to say to your Lordships’ House that the unionist people are very suspicious of both Front Benches, and indeed other parties in this House. When it comes to defending positions, Dublin will defend the nationalist and republican position, but who will defend the unionist position? You would expect the United Kingdom Government to do that, but it is sad to say that successive Governments have not been very good at it. As my noble friend Lord Dodds mentioned a moment ago, certainly strands 2 and 3 give Dublin the right to have a say. But when it comes to strand 1—last week we had the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in conference with the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic to talk about whether there should be a poll in Northern Ireland and an election for the Northern Ireland Assembly. Those are the internal affairs of Northern Ireland, yet the basis of the Belfast agreement was that Dublin has no right to a say on such matters. That once again makes people suspicious.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

For the avoidance of doubt, and for the information of the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, when I say “consent and agreement” I mean consent, and it must be the consent of all the people—unionists and nationalists.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

I thank the noble Baroness. That then begs the question: why is it not in her amendment? Why is it simply the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which in fact removes it from cross-community consent? That is not what they are talking about here. If it had been, it would be in this. I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, saying that this would be looked at on a later date. I trust that this will be taken on board. We will not move forward unless there is cross-community consent, and there is no cross-community consent and no unionist consent for this protocol, which they believe is a vehicle for taking Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, this is an extraordinary clause. The speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, introducing this group, proved the point. She argued that Ministers could, under this clause, act in a way that is incompatible with the Act of Union. My interpretation of this clause is similar to that described by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in the discussion of the previous group, in that it gives Ministers the ability to do pretty much anything. There is no restriction on powers. Maybe the Minister had been briefed that there was. Clearly, in this clause at least, that is not the case. That is the point that many noble Lords have been trying to get across to Ministers, and it is the underlying reason for much of the unhappiness with this Bill.

It is probably a bit tedious for the noble Lord, Lord Bew, to listen to us wittering on about this again and again. I completely understand that, as it does seem rather separate from what is happening on the ground and the political issues that he quite rightly says the Bill is really all about. I totally agree with him on that. Nevertheless, the method that the Government are choosing to deal with these political issues is one which gives them these quite unprecedented powers. We have come across this sort of thing many times, but we have never seen it quite as blunt as this. That is why they are getting a sort of two-pronged dissatisfaction with this approach.

The amendment in my name refers specifically to subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b). This is the bit where Clause 22 makes it clear that Ministers would be breaking international obligations and gives them permission to do so. Obviously, if the Bill became law, Ministers would not be breaking domestic law because it would be domestic law, but they would be breaching their international obligations. Ministers’ answers on this issue have been far from convincing. How is passing the Bill responsible if we do not know what the Government are going to do? We do not know that because they are giving themselves such wide powers. If the powers were in some way restricted to issues relating to the problems that the Bill tries to solve, perhaps the Government would be on a firmer footing. However, we are at such a precarious point; for example, there may be elections and there may not be.

I am trying not to have a dog in this race but, from the discussion we have just heard, it is absolutely clear that the problems being described are real and need to be dealt with. They need a Government who are properly engaged and will deal with them seriously. A clause such as this one says the opposite to all communities. Who knows where this will go? There is obviously no trust in the Government on this issue. We have heard it; it is very clear. Even the people who broadly support the Government’s approach do not trust them to do this correctly and do right by them. That is a big problem. It is a problem here in getting support for this clause, but it sure as heck is also a problem on the ground in Northern Ireland.

The Government have got themselves into a real mess on this issue. The powers in the Bill are not constrained to a particular purpose. I just do not know how the Government will deal with this. We have been told that we will get a letter, as if this is a discussion that the Government could not have foreseen, anticipated and had proper answers for. While we are doing our job of going through this Bill, the Government do not have an answer on what was foreshadowed well by noble Lords’ contributions at Second Reading but have to go away and write us a letter. It is not good enough. We need to know the Government’s response to that issue, and particularly on this clause, before we can properly proceed.

I completely agree with everyone who said that we must have the restoration of the political institutions. Some people seem to think that the Bill will help but we disagree. We think that it is bad politics and will lead to more disappointment, probably disappointing the very people who have come here tonight to support the Government in this endeavour. This clause is a problem; the Minister has learned that very well, I think. I am afraid that listening to tonight’s exchanges has made me more convinced than I was before that we on these Benches cannot support this clause unless something shifts dramatically before we reach Report. I just do not know where we go with this Bill.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

It is getting late—we are almost at dinnertime, I hope. The point is about international law. Clause 13 would exclude the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which is conferred by the protocol. The test of necessity under international law requires consideration of the necessity for resiling from the protocol by reference to each individual provision: we do not look at it as a whole, we ask whether there is a necessity for this or that. My question to the Minister is: what is the necessity in international law for excluding the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice? What is it about the European Court of Justice that so concerns Ministers?

We have debated at some length, and I agree with all the speeches that have been made on the subject, the difference between “appropriate” and “necessary”, but the test in international law is necessity. Ministers may well think it is appropriate, for political reasons, to exclude the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice—I well understand why that may be the case—but can the Minister please tell me how it satisfies the test of necessity to exclude that jurisdiction?

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, this is the third day we have been debating the Northern Ireland protocol and I know Members may be tired or exhausted, but it seems from a unionist point of view that a lot of Members of this House are either tone deaf or totally blind—because they desire to be—about the reality of the situation with the protocol. I do not know how many times Members have to be told that the protocol is totally unacceptable to any unionist elected representative, any unionist within the Northern Ireland Assembly, or indeed any unionist Member who sits in either of the Houses here. That seems to have been just cast aside.

A few moments ago, we listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, who stressed how important it is that the protocol is not just re-established but is put fully into operation. Then she stressed how important it is that the Northern Ireland Assembly is given its place to support this protocol. I say gently to the noble Baroness, for whom I have a personal respect, having known her for many years in the other place and in the Northern Ireland Assembly, that maybe she has forgotten that majority rule is no longer in existence in Northern Ireland. In fact, the behest of her community, and indeed the marches on the streets and other activities by others she would not necessarily associate herself with, ensured that majority rule was no longer in existence in Northern Ireland. She is basing her remarks upon the acceptance of the Northern Ireland Assembly, debating and then supporting the protocol with Sinn Féin, the SDLP, the Alliance, the Greens and a few other parties, but not one unionist.

Maybe the Committee needs to learn this fact: the very basis of the Belfast agreement was predicated upon cross-community support, not majority rule. That was decided, and indeed lauded and applauded, by every part of this House. We are also constantly reminded that nothing, but nothing, must be done to undermine the Belfast agreement. I noticed that when the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was speaking, he mentioned the polls and what the polls are saying. I suggest we should be very careful about what the polls are saying, because they certainly got it wrong on Brexit and it seems that they got it wrong on the election in Israel just yesterday. I suggest that, since we listened to the Secretary of State say that Northern Ireland is heading to the polls, rather than telling us what the polls are saying, when the people of Northern Ireland speak we will find out what the unionist community believes about the Northern Ireland protocol.

It may surprise noble Lords, but there is a party in this House that when it takes a manifesto to the people, actually stands by its manifesto. I know that is a novel thing for the Government Benches over the years, but it is not novel for the Democratic Unionist Party. I suggest that noble Lords refrain from telling us, because to be honest, I am fed up with people telling us what the people of Northern Ireland want. Let the electorate speak. The Minister, or rather the deputy at the Northern Ireland Office, has told us that we will shortly hear the date of the Northern Ireland election. Therefore, the Northern Ireland protocol will be put to the electorate and we will see what the unionist population believes concerning that protocol.

I note, before I finish, that on a previous occasion when I was speaking the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said that it was novel for us to support or base our opinions on the Belfast agreement when we opposed that agreement. I remind him why we opposed it. It was because the Belfast agreement was putting unreconstructed terrorists into government who would not support the police or law and order. In fact, it took another agreement, the St Andrews agreement, to bring them to the place where they had to say that they would give up their weapons, that the IRA weapons would have to go and that they would actually support the police and call upon their community. So, when noble Lords mention that we did not support the Belfast agreement, that was on the basis of the Belfast agreement at that time bringing in unreconstructed terrorists.

As one who suffered from those terrorists, I say without apology to the noble Lord and to the Committee that I did not agree at that time, but I am also long enough in public life to know that the Belfast agreement is an international agreement and therefore this House has constantly told us that we must do nothing to undermine that agreement. I can tell the Committee clearly that, day by day, those who say that the protocol must continue are undermining the Belfast agreement within the unionist community. I trust and pray that the Government will wisely accept that the Bill is not perfect, but it is certainly better than anything I have heard anyone else suggest we should move forward on.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments brings us to the role of the European Court of Justice, with Clause 13 classifying any provision of the protocol or withdrawal agreement that confers jurisdiction on the ECJ as “excluded provision”. When the Government negotiated and signed the withdrawal agreement, they agreed to a limited role for the ECJ in certain cases. This clause ends ECJ jurisdiction, even when it does not directly relate to excluded provision, and there is a question mark about whether the Government are acting in bad faith on this matter.

Subsections (4) and (5) have been included, according to the Explanatory Notes, to allow Ministers to make arrangements for the sharing of relevant information with the EU. Can the Minister say more about this? To our knowledge, the UK has still not given the EU access to real-time customs data, as required under the withdrawal agreement.

The scope of the power in Clause 13 is very wide. The DPRRC said:

“Parliament has no knowledge of the Government’s plan but is meanwhile expected to rubberstamp all the regulation-making arrangements.”


This point has been made by a number of noble Lords, not least the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge.

Amendments 21B to 23C, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hain and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, on the potential consequences for the operation of the single electricity market, are very important. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify the legal position. I also hope he will rise to the challenge put to him that the UK Government have every intention of maintaining an all-Ireland electricity market. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 31st October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for his clear elucidation of the impact of these amendments. To give a practical example, the dairy industry in Northern Ireland, which I mentioned earlier, is largely all-Ireland in nature, because the greater proportion of the processing of dairy products is in the Republic of Ireland. If grain comes into Northern Ireland through either the red or green lane and could be used by a dairy farmer, the DAERA vet—the department vet—cannot certify whether the milk is produced to EU standards. How can he do so with no certificate? The milk is therefore not going south for processing. That also applies to animal healthcare products. The green and red lanes probably work for retail, but not for food processing. It does not work for primary processers who export.

It is worth noting that in 2021 the Northern Ireland dairy industry represented 31% of UK dairy exports overall. Green and red lanes, or the dual regulatory zones envisaged in this Bill, would cause huge damage to the dairy industry. I know that certain elements of the dairy industry, such as Lakeland Dairies, have had discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Caine, and, prior to that, former Minister of State Burns. I know it would be deeply appreciated if the noble Lord could have further discussions with them, because they know the practical outworkings of that.

Further to that, it is clear that these issues are fundamental to the negotiations, including the technical negotiations, that should be going on between the UK and the EU. We want to see resolutions to these issues. I recall what my noble friend Lord Hain said: where there are problems with the protocol—such as with its implementation—there are solutions. If there is good will on all sides, exactly those negotiations will try to resolve those wrinkles and difficulties.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, having listened to the debate thus far, I have again noticed that a number of noble Lords seem to be exercised about the DUP’s well-known opposition to the protocol. To be clear, not one unionist or unionist party in Northern Ireland accepts the protocol. Rather than just mentioning the DUP, I ask noble Lords collectively not to obsess over the party and realise that there is a serious problem to be dealt with. Clearly, we have an impasse at present, and until the Northern Ireland protocol is dealt with, we will not move forward into an Assembly. That must be restated.

In this group we are confronted with the proposal that Clause 7 should not stand part of the Bill. The clause deals with the option of dual regulatory routes, which arises from the Bill creating a regulatory route that does not involve complying with the protocol. Thus, those proposing the removal of Clause 7 once again engage their argument that the doctrine of necessity cannot be applied and thus excuse us from complying with the protocol. In that context, they maintain Clause 7 should not stand part of the Bill.

Once again, it seems to me that arguing for necessity and a special dispensation not to obey international law is not the best way of addressing the protocol problem. In making this case, I will pick up on the assertion made by some noble Lords that this Bill is problematic not only because no commitment was made to it in the 2019 Conservative manifesto but because the manifesto suggested that the Conservative Party was committed to the protocol. It seems to me that one can assert on this basis that it would be wrong for the Government to bring forward a Bill such as this only if we pretend that Articles 1 and 2 of the protocol are not part of it.

Not only do Articles 1 and 2 subject the protocol to the Belfast agreement treaty, but Article 30 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties makes it plain that, in the event of any conflict, the Belfast agreement should prevail. This clearly implies that if the operation of the protocol undermines the Belfast agreement, action must be taken. This is more than implied in Article 2, which actively places as a matter of international law an obligation on the UK Government to ensure that the operation of the protocol does not diminish the rights set out in the section of the Belfast agreement

“entitled Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity results from its withdrawal from the Union”.

As other noble Lords have pointed out, the operation of the protocol is dramatically diminishing the right in the relevant section of the agreement to

“pursue democratically national and political aspirations”.

This right can no longer be pursued in relation to 300 areas of law that have now been removed from a legislature that includes legislators elected by Northern Ireland and placed in a legislature where Northern Ireland has no legislators. This means that, rather than international law being the enemy of this Bill, it is its friend, because the Government are subject to an obligation in international law—Article 2 of the protocol—to take action to ensure there is no diminishment of the right to

“pursue democratically national and political aspirations”.

There is an additional international legal imperative in this regard which should not be overlooked. It arises from Article 3 of the protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law arising from the case of Matthews v United Kingdom. Matthews lived in Gibraltar and was subject to legislation made by the European Union. As in the case of Northern Ireland, this legislation was made by the European Parliament, in which Gibraltar had no representation. Paragraph 64 of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case concluded:

“In the present case, as the Court has found (see paragraph 34 above), the legislation which emanates from the European Community forms part of the legislation in Gibraltar, and the applicant is directly affected by it … In the circumstances of the present case, the very essence of the applicant’s right to vote, as guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, was denied. It follows that there has been a violation of that provision.”


This case is of seminal importance, because it established that it is not lawful for any jurisdiction to be subject to legislation made by the European Union when the citizens of the said jurisdiction are not given the opportunity to elect their own representatives to the EU institutions to make that law. The Matthews judgment rings out loud and clear across Northern Ireland. The legislation imposed on Northern Ireland, courtesy of parts of the protocol, denies the very essence of the right to vote, as guaranteed by Article 3 of the protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, for giving way. I am following his argument very closely. I do not understand why that argument will not apply to the red route under a dual system. The dual system, by definition, will include the EU route, which will automatically apply EU rules for trade with Northern Ireland, which will still apply to all the areas that he said will have no say.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention, but I want to develop the point on the Matthews case and the human rights.

In the Matthews case, the party at fault was not the EU, which was not a contracting party to the ECHR, but the United Kingdom Government, who were deemed to have failed in their treatment of the people of Gibraltar in allowing them to be subject to the EU without representation. The failure of the UK with respect to the Northern Ireland protocol is even starker, coming, as it does, in the aftermath of the Matthews case law. Some might seek to defend this arrangement on the basis that four years after being subject to EU law without seats in the EU legislature, the protocol affords the Northern Ireland Assembly a vote. Crucially, however, this is not a vote on the legislation made under the protocol but on the protocol itself: the arrangement whereby 300 areas of lawmaking for Northern Ireland are given to the EU, notwithstanding that Northern Ireland has no representation in the EU legislature. Rather than giving MLAs the opportunity to scrutinise, amend and vote on all the laws passed in the previous four years, the vote is effectively to determine whether or not the constituents of the MLAs should surrender their votes in relation to the determination of the law to which they are subject in some 300 different areas, having been denied any vote, even in this regard, during the first four years when their votes were, effectively, taken from them. In this context, we need Clause 7, and indeed this whole Bill, to meet the demands of international law with respect to Article 2(1) of the protocol and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In conclusion, this matter concerning the Northern Ireland protocol may not be the flavour of the month for many in your Lordships’ House, but it must be dealt with to the satisfaction of both communities in Northern Ireland, not one.

Queen’s Speech

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, I shall base my remarks on the issue of trade and investment, with specific reference to Northern Ireland.

In the executive summary accompanying the gracious Speech, Her Majesty’s Government set out their intention to grow the economy and address the cost of living, and in the present circumstances that will be very challenging. The summary states:

“We are using our Brexit freedoms to deliver an independent trade policy and strengthen our links with the world’s largest and fastest-growing economies”,


but in relation to Northern Ireland trade I wonder what Brexit freedoms the Government are talking about. The summary continues:

“The Government recognises that this is … a worrying time for businesses given the global situation. Energy prices have increased globally, while businesses are navigating supply chain issues as the world economy recovers from the pandemic and adapts to the shock of war in Ukraine.”


While businesses in other regions of the UK endeavour to strengthen links with the world’s largest and fastest-growing economies, we in Northern Ireland are grappling with a protocol that is destroying business links between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This is happening in spite of the Government’s pledge to protect and strengthen the UK internal market as part of the New Decade, New Approach agreement, which states:

“The Government is absolutely committed to ensuring that Northern Ireland remains an integral part of the UK internal market … we will legislate to guarantee unfettered access for Northern Ireland’s businesses to the whole of the UK internal market”.


However, the protocol conflicts with the articles of union. Article 6 places citizens in all regions on an equal footing in terms of trade and prohibits barriers to trade within the United Kingdom. A single unified internal market is therefore a key block in the constitutional foundation of the UK, yet the High Court has found that the protocol has subjugated Article 6 of the articles of union, and the constitutional position of Northern Ireland and the essential state functions of the UK have been altered without the express will of the people of Northern Ireland, in clear violation of the Belfast and St Andrews agreements. We were assured that the principles of consent and mutual respect were at the heart of the Belfast agreement, but we know that under the protocol these principles have been binned. I welcome the Government having belatedly acknowledged that the protocol has been built on sinking sand, and that not one unionist party or representative supports its enforced implementation.

No one can deny that the protocol is harming the health, wealth and prosperity of our people. The fact remains that most of the trade in Northern Ireland is to and from our largest market—namely, Great Britain. Products coming into the Province have to be inspected at EU border posts. Many firms in GB will no longer supply to Northern Ireland, which reduces choice for our people, adds unnecessary costs to industry and increases prices to a community that has the lowest disposable income across the UK, thereby increasing poverty and deprivation at a time when the cost of living is significantly rising.

Indeed, some major trading companies claim that a lorry load of goods going into stores in Northern Ireland takes 20 people eight hours to load, because of the paperwork involved. Had that same lorry gone directly to the Republic of Ireland from Great Britain, it could have been loaded in 20% of the time. While only 0.2% of goods going into the European Union flow through Northern Ireland ports, these account for 20% of the total number of EU border checks. This is an absolute disgrace. The protocol itself provides for unilateral action, yet its application leads to serious economic, societal and environmental difficulties or the diversion of trade. No reasonable person can deny that this is happening.

Members of those parties that support the continuation of this situation ought to hang their heads in shame. Some take their stance because of their undying loyalty and allegiance to the European Union, irrespective of the democratic vote across the United Kingdom to leave it, while others do so because of an anti-unionist stance promoting an all-Ireland economy to the detriment of the prosperity of the people and aimed at creating a united Ireland by stealth. The protocol has been the vehicle to energise a significant displacement of trade from GB to the Republic of Ireland, thereby gaining the Republic a competitive advantage in its protocol operation. That is not by chance, but by design.

Our Province deserves better. My party is determined to ensure that, if devolution is to be restored and is to function for all, it must be on the basis of mutual respect and consent. In the past, unionist concerns have been ignored. Northern Ireland deserves to be a respected and worthy part of this United Kingdom, enjoying the prosperity enjoyed by all other regions of that union.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness’s contribution; she speaks on issues in Northern Ireland with great insight. I assure her that yesterday my right honourable friend met the chairman of Marks & Spencer, and we meet business leaders regularly. Indeed, part of our approach has been underpinned by what businesses themselves are saying. The Road Haulage Association has said that the protocol has caused an increase in the cost of moving goods to Northern Ireland of between 34% and 35%. The Federation of Small Businesses has said that the current arrangements have

“created new bureaucracy, increased costs and impacted supply chains.”

I assure the noble Baroness that, as I indicated through my right honourable friend’s meeting yesterday, we meet businesses regularly—as does the EU, as the noble Baroness acknowledged. Specific official-level meetings have been regular and consistent. For every meeting that takes place at the ministerial level, there are official meetings both in the preamble and as post-outcome meetings. Looking at my list here, there have been 10 meetings since December led directly by the Foreign Secretary. As I said, the pre and post meetings certainly indicate our commitment to finding a practical resolution.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, although I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s Statement, there is no doubt that resolute action to deal with this deeply offensive protocol must be taken. Firm and welcome words alone will not satisfy the community that certainly I come from. My colleagues and I await the proposed legislation and will honourably judge the same in accordance with the mandate we received in the recent election. However, does the Minister accept that devolution in Northern Ireland will not be restored until the protocol issue is resolved? A fudge will not satisfy.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord’s contribution. Again, I assure noble Lords that I and my noble friends on the Front Bench will continue to engage with your Lordships’ House on the practical proposals as they come forward, to ensure that we work through the details of the proposed Bill. I agree with him on the importance of having a functioning Executive and Assembly. It is very much part and parcel of the solution in ensuring that we do not just find practical resolutions to the protocol issue and its continuing challenges but avail ourselves of the opportunities for all people across Northern Ireland.

Overseas Development Assistance: Budgets and Awards

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I first put on record that I note the sentiments of the noble Lord and the excellent work that he does in this area. However, I am sure that he, equally, will recognise that the UK economy is today 11.3% smaller than it was last year and undergoing its worst contraction for 300 years. The deficit this year is projected to be double its peak during the financial crisis. This does require difficult decisions, they have been taken and the Government have committed to restore the 0.7% as soon as the fiscal situation allows.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]]

My Lords, many see the announcement of quite major cuts to the overseas development assistance budget as a tragic blow to the poorest and most marginalised people in the world. It seems that the Government have not even spared countries that have been ravaged by disease, war and poverty. How does the Minister answer these charges, at such a critical time of pandemic? Is not this investment in such countries money well spent?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord’s final point. Any money spent in respect of alleviating the suffering of humanity, wherever that may be, is money well spent. On his challenge to me to justify this, I can point no further than to the support we have given throughout the Covid-19 pandemic to helping countries directly. We are also the people who put the architecture in place for the COVAX facility, which is now helping people with vaccinations globally, through a contribution of £548 million made by the UK.

Tamil People in Sri Lanka

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Scott]

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct that the new Government would have been aware of the report.

Only a political solution that recognises the rights of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka, including that to self-determination, can address the root cause of the conflict. The Sri Lankan constitution already provides for an autonomous assembly, much as Scotland or Wales has in the United Kingdom. That assembly should be given to the Tamils. People should have power over their own destinies. I am calling not for changes to the existing constitution, but for people to honour the existing constitution.

The change in Sri Lanka’s political leadership should create a chance for the accountability process to work and help those who need justice. It should not be used as an excuse to delay that justice further and kick it into the long grass. I am fairly sure that with everything else going on in the world, the Sri Lankan Government hope that the issue will quietly go away and that people will forget about it. However, I assure the Sri Lankan Government that many Members of this House—look at the numbers present for the debate—will not forget and allow the matter to disappear. We are seeking justice for those people who no longer have a voice.

Yesterday morning, I stood in silence at the holocaust memorial, where we recognised the victims of not only Nazi persecution, but other genocides that have taken place throughout the world since the end of the second world war. I am afraid to say—it gives me no pleasure to say this—that genocide has happened. We cannot pretend that it has not happened. We are not talking about a war in which a regime tried to stop terrorism—I am the first to condemn terrorism in any shape or form by anyone—but about the women and children who disappeared, and the people who were in camps for year after year. Were they terrorists? No sane-minded person would say that they were.

The justice that is deserved and needed can be achieved only through pressure from the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada, France and every country—I could go on and on. Sri Lanka must heed the call of our Prime Minister and co-operate fully with the UN investigation on Sri Lanka by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Sri Lanka must also sign the Rome statute on the International Criminal Court, to which 123 states are party, including the United Kingdom, to demonstrate its intent to be a good global citizen.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. It has been reported that the new Sri Lankan Government are spending many hundreds of thousands of dollars to boost their image throughout the world. Is not the way to boost their image for them to co-operate properly with a proper investigation into what has gone on in Sri Lanka?

[Mr Scott]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am not going to be an advert for the Sri Lankan Government, but we know from watching our TV sets the amount that is being spent on trying to encourage people to visit Sri Lanka and showing it as a free democratic country. If the Sri Lankan Government truly want people to visit and to show that it is a free democratic country, they should prove that by abiding by the all the rules of the United Nations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak on this matter, Mr Caton. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) on introducing it and thank him for giving us all the opportunity to debate it. As he rightly mentioned in his introductory remarks, this is the anniversary of the Holocaust, so our discussion of these important matters coincides with Holocaust memorial events. As my party’s spokesperson on human rights and equalities, I am pleased to contribute to the debate. I have a passionate interest in human rights, and I hope that the debate will enable us to be part of the change that is so desperately needed throughout the world. That is the importance of it.

Sri Lanka offered asylum to a considerable number of refugees even though it is not a signatory of the 1951 refugee convention. The UNHCR co-operates with the Government, as well as with NGOs and other stakeholders, to protect, assist and find durable solutions for refugees and other people of concern. The UNHCR’s involvement in Sri Lanka dates back to 1987 when the organisation was invited by the Sri Lankan Government to facilitate large-scale repatriation of Sri Lankan refugees from India. In 1990, just as its activities were to be wound down, the UNHCR was requested to expand its protection and assistance to include not only the refugees immediately under its mandate, but the people displaced internally by the abrupt resumption of Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict.

The Tamil rebels, known as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, began an uprising in 1983, after complaining of discrimination against the then minority Tamil community. Horrendous atrocities were committed in the conflict by the LTTE and Government troops. Thousands upon thousands were killed and thousands are still missing. The numbers are enormous. Although the conflict ended in 2009, the improvements made in northern Sri Lanka tend to be more superficial than real. My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) made the point that the Government are spending money on the way things look outwardly, rather than looking at the internals and changing things on the ground. I would like to see that happen as well.

[Dr McCrea]

The House is united in wanting the truth about what happened in Sri Lanka. There should be no hiding place for any person, even those in elevated office. However, do not the United Kingdom Government need to be careful of accusations of hypocrisy, given that in Northern Ireland we have a Deputy First Minister who was part of the IRA army council, which, with his leader, Gerry Adams, ordered the slaughter of the Protestants along the border? Yet there has been no investigation of that, and when we ask about an investigation—people seem to be in elevated office—we are told the books are closed.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that salient point, on which we can all agree.

Since the end of the 25-year campaign, $3 billion has been spent on economic and infrastructural development in northern Sri Lanka. As Alan Keenan, the Sri Lanka project director at the International Crisis Group, noted, the situation in northern Sri Lanka has improved “in some ways”, but

“the government has made too much of large infrastructure and development projects, which it is able to show off to the international community, and not enough of the situation on the ground”—

as my hon. Friend said, and as we all adhere to and understand.

I remain extremely concerned about not just the discrimination against the Tamil people, which seems to be ongoing, but the risk of sexual violence to women—as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) mentioned, and which is so important—and the persecution of Christians. There are concerns from some members of the Tamil community that the Government are undertaking a practice of “Sinhalisation” of the area. Many Sinhalese fled the north due to the atrocities being carried out by the Tamil Tigers during the civil war. Some have returned, and there are concerns about the number of Sinhalese coming to the area. Estimates have suggested that there are 150,000 Sinhalese soldiers in the Vanni.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend and colleague for that intervention. In Northern Ireland, we have experienced the disappeared, although in much smaller numbers, but every one of those people is still important. When the number is multiplied to 6,000 missing persons, the magnitude is incredible. This is a technical detail, but I wonder whether the Minister will address it as it is important. In Northern Ireland, we have been able to find some of the bodies of the deceased and have an expertise in doing that. Perhaps that expertise could be loaned in some way to Sri Lanka to enable the remains of the disappeared to be returned to their families, because that heartbreak is very real for every one of those 6,000 families.

At one soldier for approximately every five civilians, the ratio of soldiers to civilians is considered one of the highest in the world. Given the figures, it is unsurprising that people are concerned by the so-called Sinhalisation.

The conflict saw a large number of men and boys either killed or disappeared—a generation lost—and there are 89,000 war widows in north and east Sri Lanka alone. Given the high military presence in the country, there are concerns that those women are more vulnerable to sexual harassment and violence. Although the Sri Lankan military are held in high admiration in the south of the country, for many in the north, especially in former LTTE-controlled areas, the army is still the enemy.

That fear and dislike of the military are vindicated by very credible allegations of human rights violations, including rape and sexual and emotional abuse of women. Tamil women are also vulnerable to sexual violence, because they are often coerced into sexual relationships with Sinhalese soldiers, sometimes for the promise of marriage and sometimes for money. That continues to be a serious problem in Sri Lanka and, for many women, sexual harassment is simply accepted as a way of life, but that should not be the case. We need to change that mindset and we must do all that we can to help the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to stop rape and sexual assaults.

Another concern I must express, because this issue is very close to me, is the persecution of Christians in Sri Lanka. We must not let the opportunity to mention that issue today pass us by. Buddhists make up 70% of the population. That is followed by Hinduism at 12%, Islam at 8% and Christianity at 8%. In northern Sri Lanka, the majority of people are Hindu, but there is a large Christian population living there, too. The persecution of Christians has escalated in recent years, with the rise of militant Buddhist nationalist groups in Sri Lanka. More than 250 churches have been destroyed or damaged in sectarian violence. That is unacceptable, and that must be stated in this Chamber today.

[Dr McCrea]

As I am sure my hon. Friend would agree, the persecution of Christians is an important issue that the Minister should be raising with the Sri Lankan Government in the meetings he will be having.

[Jim Shannon]

I hope that the Minister has taken note of that important issue. Through our own churches in Northern Ireland, and across the United Kingdom, we have missionary contacts in Sri Lanka and we are aware of what is taking place—the persecution, the destruction, the abuse and, in some cases, the injury and murder of those who have Christian beliefs.

Although the constitution guarantees religious freedom while favouring Buddhism, minority Protestants have experienced violent persecution, as well as discrimination in employment and education, which is also unacceptable. Sri Lanka is ranked No. 44 on the Open Doors world watch list.

Last year, there were 60 incidents in which Christian services and prayer meetings were disturbed and disrupted, in church buildings and in private homes. Sri Lanka has a small group of expat Christians, mainly in Colombo, and a large group of traditional and recognised churches, both Catholic and Protestant. Non-traditional Protestant churches as well as converts from a Buddhist background face the most persecution. Although there are plenty of churches in the capital Colombo, the picture completely changes in more rural areas. Most Christians meet in house churches and are forced to keep a low profile. As one pastor in the central highlands said:

“If I had put a cross on the building, they would have killed me.”

That can never be tolerated in any society and certainly not in Sri Lanka.

We need to ensure that what is happening stops. I know the Minister is interested in the matter and that we will be assured by his response, but he and the Government need to work with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to stop the persecution of minority religious groups, including Christians, as well as stopping sexual and physical violence against women.

Ukraine, Middle East, North Africa and Security

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

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

In addition to being a member of the Defence Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), I also chair the Causeway Institute, a small non-governmental body in Northern Ireland, which is involved in peace building in the region.

I welcome the opportunity to have this debate and support the broad thrust of the Government’s approach on these issues. In Ukraine and in eastern Europe generally, it is important that we stand alongside our friends and that we recognise what Russia is trying to do. We are talking about not just Crimea and eastern Ukraine, but what Russia has been doing for some time in places such as Transnistria, Moldova, South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia. There is a deliberate strategy to foment conflict and then for those conflicts to be frozen in a way that creates instability and gives the Russians influence in those regions.

The role of Poland is important. I was there just last weekend, and heard how concerned it is about what is happening in Ukraine. It is vital that we stand alongside countries such as Poland and the Baltic states. We need to reassure them that we will not countenance any situation in which they may face attack or incursion on to their territory.

We have mentioned the role of the European Union, but I have heard nothing about the role of the Council of Europe, which embraces most of eastern Europe and has a role to play in opening up dialogue on the long-term issues. Russia is a member of it. I wish to hear more about the Council of Europe—our place in it and its role in the difficulties that exist in eastern Europe—because it is tasked with the responsibility of promoting human rights and respect for the rule of law, and building democracy, and those are precisely the kind of issues that are at stake in relation to the situation in Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Some pastors and deacons from Ukraine visited Northern Ireland. Recently, one of those pastors was shot and two of the deacons were tortured and killed. What should the Government be doing to aid those displaced and suffering Christians?

[Mr Donaldson]

Whether in Ukraine and eastern Europe or the middle east, there is a recurring theme of religious intolerance and the persecution of religious minorities. We saw that not only in Ukraine, but especially in the middle east—the Christian minority has been targeted Syria, Iraq, Libya and other countries in the region. The religious persecution of the Yazidi minority in northern Iraq had devastating consequences.

We want the UK Government to take a robust position against ISIS and Islamic extremism, and we are prepared to support military action where that is required. We hope the Government will consult the House as the need arises.

It is right to support the Iraqi army and the Kurdish peshmerga forces. I welcome the Government’s important decision to provide heavy armaments to them, but the point was made about Turkey. We need to reassure Turkey that, in arming the peshmerga, there are not longer-term consequences for the situation between Turkey and the Kurds. It is a complex situation and we realise that the decisions that need to be made are difficult and challenging.

The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) made an excellent speech and some valid points. Democratic Unionist party Members endorse the view that there is a need to ensure that the Foreign Office and the security services, our eyes and ears throughout the world, are properly resourced. Like many hon. Members, I have seen the valuable work that our diplomats and security services undertake in foreign places. That work is vital to our national security, and properly resourcing it is important.

Countering the narrative of the extremists is also important. One difficulty is the lack of consensus among western nations and others on how we should do that and on what the counter-narrative should be. Our narrative is about religious tolerance and respect for human rights, but we need to find a way to communicate it, especially to young people in those countries through social media and so on. We should support locally based organisations that work to counter the extremists’ narrative, such as the Arab Network for Tolerance, a small, modest organisation that seeks to promote respect for human rights, religious tolerance and so on in Arab countries. It is important that we do our bit to ensure that such organisations have support from the UK.

Yes, the use of hard power is necessary at times, but support for what we do on a soft-power level is critical. We need to counter the narrative and explain our role in the world. How can we be involved with our allies in championing the cause of human rights and respect for religious freedom, and in promoting tolerance? The UK has a leadership role to play in that, whether in eastern Europe or the middle east. We will continue to support the efforts of the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and others in taking the battle against the extremists forward.

Western Balkans

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Westminster Hall

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

I am sorry I did not put in a note to ask to speak, Mrs Brooke: I was inspired to speak partly by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) and partly because I have just returned from Bosnia and Herzegovina. That trip was my third visit since 2009. My right hon. Friend said he did not have much experience of Bosnia and Herzegovina; perhaps those three trips have given me a little experience. Also, in the past I was a history teacher—and not a bad one—so I can claim some knowledge from that.

I want to give hon. Members a flavour of those visits. I first went out in 2009, before the election, as part of a project called Project Maja, set up by Baroness Warsi to get politicians to go out to places and do some work there. We raised some money over here, working with another charity, the Fund for Refugees in Slovenia, which is led by a remarkable lady who I think is well known to the Minister—Lady Nott, the wife of Sir John Nott, the former Secretary of State for Defence. She set up that charity, which is still going, and she still works tirelessly to help mainly refugees from the conflict in Bosnia in the 1990s. She had incredible support from Baroness Thatcher on the quiet, and the charity has raised millions over the years to rebuild homes and villages that had been destroyed.

We raised money to help Lady Nott’s efforts to rebuild two more houses up in the villages above Srebrenica. I am sure hon. Members can imagine what it was like going to Srebrenica in 2009. I went again this year, and the divisions are still palpable. Hon. Members from Northern Ireland may know more about that than I do: the only division I really know and understand is the one between Lancashire and Yorkshire—and long may it remain. We felt the tension on the streets when we were living in Srebrenica. We went up into the hills to finish rebuilding these buildings using the money we had raised with the help of Lady Nott. I never managed to congratulate her formally on being awarded the OBE in 2013, which was some recognition for the tireless work she has undertaken in that region.

We were stood in this village with a lady—we had managed to raise some money to help repair her house—in this incredibly beautiful country, almost like Switzerland up in the hills. We asked her why she had come back. This lady had lost three sons, a husband and two of her brothers-in-law. They were all killed. She was a Bosniak—a Bosnian Muslim—and had had to flee. Her house had been burned down. She came back with her daughter-in-law and her little grandchild. That was all that was left of her family.

This lady said—through a translator, of course, and a lot more was perhaps lost in the translation—“They will not win” and that they had come back for the sake of the family who were killed. We could see Serbia—we could almost touch it across the valley—yet they had come back with the immense support of the charity set up by Lady Nott.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and congratulate the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) on introducing the debate. I know something of the feeling that has just been expressed: that we will not allow them to win. That has carried many people in Northern Ireland through very difficult days with the IRA. However, the scars of war last a very long time. With war come deprivation, poverty, grief and division. How does the hon. Gentleman feel the international community has helped the area he is speaking about to heal those scars of war?

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

The people in that particular incident are aware of the international community and of the Dayton agreement, which I will say something about. However, it is even more important for them to see British politicians, such as ourselves. I was out there with my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) and for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who is now a Minister in the Foreign Office. He laid out a football pitch in this village—and, of course, given his military training, was ordering the rest of us around, but that is another story.

We felt that it was at least something tangible for those people to see politicians from what they regard as the other end of the world trying to help them, aside from the high-ranking meetings that had gone on, the treaties and all the rest of it. I do not know whether that is the case in Northern Ireland. The human dimension and human contact are one of the greatest touchstones. We were from mixed religions, of course.

The lady we met told us that people had grown up in these villages as a mix of Orthodox Serbs, Catholic Croats and Bosniak Muslims. They had grown up and played together. They had gone to church or to mosque on high days and holidays. This terrible thing then happened that divided them. Srebrenica is actually in Republika Srpska, which is part of Bosnia. I have been to Bosnia three times and I still find it really difficult to work out how that country is managed politically.

One of the points I want to make is that the Dayton agreement ended the bloodshed, but it is as though Bosnia and Herzegovina is frozen in time and cannot move forward. The international community has huge issues to consider in Syria, which we are about to debate in the Chamber, and in the east, but we cannot forget, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip said in his introduction, that we are talking now about where the spark that started the first world war happened. We still have unreconciled issues. Although there is no fighting going on, we should not forget that there is a need to move Bosnia and Herzegovina on. As my right hon. Friend mentioned, Serbia may join the European Community, as Croatia has. That would be a great thing. However, to leave Bosnia and Herzegovina out when they regard themselves as the victims seems to me to be a dangerous miscalculation.