Northern Ireland: Industrial Action

Lord Swire Excerpts

Wednesday 17th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Caine (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness. She will not be surprised to hear that I do not share her characterisation of the Government’s approach as one of bullying and blackmail. In fact, as I set out a moment ago, the funding package on the table is extremely generous and would allow an incoming Executive to deal with all these matters and help the transformation of public services. The imperative in Northern Ireland is to get the Executive back up and running and functioning.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

This is not intended to be either blackmailing or bullying, but is there not a case for re-examining the pay for MLAs? I know they already receive a reduced amount, but the longer the Assembly is not sitting, surely the stronger the case for further reducing the amount they are paid not to attend.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My noble friend will be aware that MLAs’ pay has already been reduced by 27%. I assure him that this is a matter that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State keeps under constant review.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Lord Swire Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 11th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Godson (Con)]

I shall speak to Amendments 174 and 174B to 176. I thank noble Lords across the Committee for their support for these amendments, including the noble Lords, Lord West, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen and Lord Carlile of Berriew, in particular. I spoke at Second Reading about the memorialisation of the Troubles and expressed my concerns that the oral history project commissioned by the Bill will be politicised and will become another weapon in the battle to recast the Troubles from an anti-state perspective that seeks to justify the actions of terrorists and to denigrate the security forces, as noble Lords have pointed out. Any attempt at equivalence between those who upheld our civic values and law and order for those three decades and those who waged Europe’s worst terrorist campaign must be robustly guarded against.

One defence against this blatant revisionism designed to retell the Troubles as a conflict which republicans had no choice but to fight is the production of an official history based on proper and considered documentary evidence. The Government have confirmed that they are now committed to such a history, but there is still no mention of it in the Bill. No doubt, there are reasons for this: after all, legislation is not needed for an official history and there is still an official history programme for which, in theory, this could be produced. However, it needs to be said now that there are major problems in excluding an official history from the scope of the Bill. The official history programme budget remains small and is not designed for a project of this scale, nor to deliver it in time for it to realise the purposes which the Government have in mind.

The subject matter of the Troubles, as has been rightly pointed out, is vast, with official documents from many government departments in London and Belfast, as well as from the agencies—the RUC previously and the PSNI, perhaps, now—and the Army. It is a task for a team of historians, supported by researchers, requiring a level of funding well beyond the parameters and experience of the current official history programme. It would hardly dent the £250 million already set aside by the Northern Ireland Office for the legacy projects set out in the Bill, as stated in the UK government response to a question from the Committee of Ministers in Strasbourg in June of last year.

An official history also needs to be published at a price that is in reach of ordinary readers and marketed to them, not least those in Northern Ireland, who deserve to be able to read it for themselves. This does not fit into the current official history programme’s publishing model, with limited print runs and prices, in some cases, of £40 for a paperback and £130 for a hardback—prices that self-evidently exclude the vast majority of the public. All this cannot be right; it would be a serious mistake and it should be rectified.

Producing an official history of the Troubles that can play its role in addressing legacy and reconciliation is possible only by placing the requirement for production of an official history within the Bill and giving the Secretary of State responsibility for ensuring that it is completed in time to be a support to the broader memorialisation strategy. Established on this basis, it will provide a major additional—and credible—strand of that memorialisation and will add much value across the whole programme. I believe that that would also be its chief legacy.

With that in mind, I am proposing, in Amendment 174B, a new section to follow Clause 46, to ensure that a public history—this being the term recommended by Sir Joe Pilling, the former Permanent Secretary at the Northern Ireland Office, in his 2009 review of the official history programme—is produced. The expression “official history” suggests that it is the Government’s view that is being put forward. Historically, that has never been the case: official histories are authored by leading historians granted access to official papers. A public history, recast as such, far better reflects what it is, and all this deserves to be in the Bill.

There are other matters of concern about the proposals for academic research set out in the Bill. A substantial role will be accorded to the UK Research and Innovation councils, which will determine the projects to be funded under it. Over the last 15 years they have financially supported the work of a small group of “transitional” academics at Queen’s University Belfast, referred to by several noble Lords. This is associated with the Committee on the Administration of Justice, a lobby group focused largely on state-perpetrated violence and abuse. This has created what Dr Cillian McGrattan of the University of Ulster, whose work has been referred to, has called

“a monopolistic capture of legacy ideas, ideology and policy within Northern Ireland”.

Not only are non-violent unionist and nationalist voices and their collective memory unwelcome, but the voices of those who were oppressed and manipulated by terrorist gangs in their own neighbourhoods on whatever side of the divide are unlikely to be sought, even though they are among the most affected communities. Were such a monopoly to be replicated in the academic research into the Troubles, as the Bill presently proposes, it would be contrary to two of the six Stormont House agreement principles: that it promote reconciliation and that it be

“balanced, proportionate, transparent, fair and equitable”.

To address these matters, I tabled Amendments 174, 175 and 176 to Part 4 of the Bill, requiring that memorialisation activity promotes a culture of anti-sectarianism, that the advisory forum is not dominated by any particular ideology or outlook and that in carrying out their duties the designated persons should have due regard to the historical records of deaths as required under Clause 24 of the Bill.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, I crave your Lordships’ indulgence as a relatively new Member of the House—in fact, you can still smell the leather on my satchel. I came into the House only towards the tail end of last year, so I was not even here when this Bill came from the other place. As those who know me will be aware, I was a Minister of State for Northern Ireland between 2010 and 2012 and continue to have a passionate interest in not only what goes on there currently but what has happened in the past.

I am acutely aware of the divisions that a very one-sided approach can cause. As my noble friend the Minister will know—he was our esteemed special adviser at the time and was far more involved than I—I was a Minister of State during the publication of the Bloody Sunday report, on which David Cameron did extremely well, and the Finucane report we commissioned from Sir Desmond de Silva that followed in 2012. I gently point out that the Saville inquiry cost about £191 million by its end; we do not want to replicate that in this instance.

I support my noble friend’s eminently sensible amendments. I remember discussing all kinds of issues surrounding truth and reconciliation, such as whether to have a South African model—we went round and round in ever-decreasing circles. Critical for any public history of what went on is the co-operation of the bodies that were involved in some way, ranging from the DFA in Dublin and, critically, the Irish Government to the Security Service, Libya, the Church, Sinn Féin, former loyalist paramilitaries, perhaps the Royal Archives and Washington. We would want all these organisations to come up with any evidence that would contribute towards what we are all trying to get: an official version of the truth which everyone can subscribe to. Of course, not everybody will—there will be those who maintain their own versions of the truth, as we have heard today, but if we can get cross-party consent for such a history, we will move the dial on this.

I reiterate my support for the amendments. It was the 18th-century philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau who said:

“Falsehood has an infinity of combinations, but truth has only one mode of being”.


This public history could be just such a mode.

Windsor Framework (Democratic Scrutiny) Regulations 2023

Lord Swire Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Morrow’s amendment to the Motion. He has forensically analysed the Windsor Framework and the protocol, leaving one in no doubt that the documents are seriously, if not fatally, flawed. Although limited progress has been made, regrettably it is clear that many fundamental problems remain. As things stand, the Windsor Framework does not make substantive legal changes to the Northern Ireland protocol and the supremacy of EU law over many aspects of life in Northern Ireland.

This deal and the framework make only a few limited changes to the Northern Ireland protocol. The Windsor Framework and the withdrawal agreement itself do not permit any changes to “essential elements”. Claims have been made in the other place and in the media that these changes amount to substantive legal changes and it has been suggested that this is a brand-new structure. This is simply not correct.

Fundamentally, the root cause of the problems with the Northern Ireland protocol and these arrangements is the continued application of EU law in Northern Ireland, in particular that it covers all manufacturing of goods in Northern Ireland regardless of whether they are sold in the United Kingdom or to the European Union. The vast majority of all goods manufactured in Northern Ireland—£65 billion out of the £77 billion of goods manufactured—is sold here in the United Kingdom.

The complex easings referred to in the Windsor Framework are limited in number. They will not directly help small or medium-sized traders and in no way do they resemble a “green lane” in which it is claimed— I stress that word—that burdensome checks would no longer be required. These very limited easings are not available to all businesses. The schemes will remain incredibly complex and, crucially, the EU would retain the right unilaterally to withdraw its trusted trader system underpinning the so-called green lanes. To date, very little progress has been made and there remains a long way to travel.

No evidence has been supplied that the 1,700 pages of EU law have been disapplied. As we have heard from my noble friend Lord Morrow, Northern Ireland will continue to remain subject to the power and control of EU law, the ECJ and the European Commission on EU single-market laws governing the manufacturing and sale of goods in Northern Ireland. No evidence points to one EU single-market law being removed from Northern Ireland. Can the Minister publish a list of the laws that have been removed?

The Stormont brake is not a brake in any true sense of the word. It applies only to future changes to EU law and provides no right to change any part of the existing EU laws imposed on Northern Ireland manufacturers under the Northern Ireland protocol. It is of very limited application in theory and is likely to be unworkable in practice. I cannot envisage a scenario where a British Government would seek to apply it if it meant retaliatory action from the EU.

Governance in Northern Ireland must operate on the basis of cross-community consensus. As has remained the case throughout this process, there remains no consent within unionism for additional tariffs and barriers being implemented between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. There remains no consent for any arrangements that will see further EU regulations cause Northern Ireland to diverge from Great Britain on a range of issues. Continued divergence and regulatory differences will continue to create new hurdles and new sets of everyday problems for producers and manufacturers in Northern Ireland.

In the text of the Windsor Framework, the rights of the people of Northern Ireland under the Act of Union 1800 have not been restored. The Windsor Framework has therefore failed a key test: to legally restore the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom. Unlike the rest of Great Britain, Northern Ireland will remain subject to the power and control of EU law. The people of Northern Ireland will have no ability to vote to change or remove the body of EU laws that applies to them under the Northern Ireland protocol, whereas in Great Britain, and in this Parliament, decision-makers will have the ability and the power to change or remove retained EU laws. If Northern Ireland citizens and businesses are to be treated as equal to our fellow Britons elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the integrity of the UK internal market must be restored.

It is quite clear that the Windsor Framework document does not provide the answer to solve this. Regrettably, we are a long way from this being acceptable to a large proportion of the population of Northern Ireland. Indeed, unless the necessary legal changes are made, and the integrity of the UK and its single market is restored, this will remain unacceptable to the vast majority of those who label themselves as unionists.

Like my noble friend Lord Morrow, I want to see Stormont restored. However, the institutions at Stormont cannot work without the restoration of the delicate political balance negotiated over many years. This will not be achieved by arrangements that do not respect Northern Ireland’s place within the internal market of the United Kingdom. I am sure noble Lords will agree that the best outcome is for Stormont to get back up and running. My party is committed to doing that, and to continuing to work with the Minister and the Government, but that work has to be about delivering on the commitment given to protect Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland’s constitutional arrangements must be respected. I regret that we are not at that point yet, and therefore I support the amendment before your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, one of the reasons I voted, rather reluctantly, to remain in the EU at the time of the referendum was that I could not see a way around a border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the EU. I could not see my way around that for many months; indeed, when I was in the other place I tabled an amendment that I hoped would break through the logjam. It was not selected by the then Speaker, in a display of the usual lack of bias for which he was well known. Many of us were trying to navigate our way through what seemed to be an impenetrable fog and an irreconcilable series of arguments as to how we could ensure that Northern Ireland remained an integral and vibrant part of the United Kingdom while sharing a land border with a country that was not.

I have wrestled hard with this ever since. I am a passionate unionist. I believe passionately in the future of Northern Ireland being within that United Kingdom. Yet I cannot bring myself to support the fatal amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. I think it is too late, and I think it is wrong. I have studied this new agreement and it is imperfect—of course it is—but, as far as I can see, it is the only way forward. I urge all those who are tempted to vote for this fatal amendment to raise their eyes a little higher and to look at the larger prize. The larger prize must be to ensure the economic prosperity of Northern Ireland and the safety of its citizens.

Shortly we will host a visit from the President of the United States, Mr Biden—a man who, like a lot of American Presidents, is extremely quick to stress his Irish ancestry and credentials. I took the opportunity of looking this up this morning; in fact, the Biden family come from Sussex. He has many Irish ancestors, as do we all, but I very much hope that he will make a speech about the future of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Sussex at some future date. He might even know where he is in the world, unlike the Vice-President, who sometimes gets confused, as we know. When he comes to Northern Ireland, he should see a place with huge opportunity. That can be brought about only by security.

One of my concerns about this whole agreement with the EU was about the continuing role of the ECJ. That made me extremely uneasy—indeed, it makes me extremely uneasy to be arguing against the Democratic Unionist Party, which I respect hugely. I was very concerned about the continuing involvement of the ECJ. I listened very carefully to my noble friend the Minister, a man in whom I have implicit faith, not least because he was our esteemed special adviser when I was a Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office. In that great circle of politics, here I am, a humble Back-Bencher in your Lordships’ House, and there he is, spreading his thighs across the Front Bench and dominating all who go before him—and quite right too. I ask my noble friend—and friend he is indeed—about the role of the international arbitration council and what any appeal process would be, were that council to rule against the legislation or the disagreement taken to it.

As I have said, I will never vote for anything that endangers, to my way of thinking, the future of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. I understand where the DUP is coming from. There are elections, and the DUP has its supporters. There is a prospect of a First Minister from Sinn Féin at Stormont and of, down the road, a Sinn Féin Taoiseach in Dublin. That is going to make Northern Ireland a more challenging and very different place. I think my friends in the DUP are slightly behind the curve in all this. They are better, more cunning and more intelligent than this, and they need to think about that prospect. They need to think about how to represent not only the unionists in Northern Ireland but those who are not unionists and want good government. I tried to be apolitical in my role in Northern Ireland as far as I could, but I am a unionist. I want to see one unionist party arguing for a modern unionist Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, is right, as are others: it is absolutely hopeless to have these discussions without any sort of Government in Northern Ireland. This agreement itself says very clearly that the brake—which we have heard a lot about this afternoon—cannot become available until the Northern Ireland Executive are restored and operational; yes, that means a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister. My friends in the DUP keep on saying that they are committed to the restoration of government in Northern Ireland, and yet by tabling this fatal amendment to the Motion they would set the whole prospect of that back. They cannot have it both ways.

Northern Ireland: Security Situation

Lord Swire Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Monday 21st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

The right hon. Gentleman puts the point extremely well. There is no excuse and there can be no justification whatever for those activities. He is right: these are activities that have gone on for far too long. A very small number of people—but determined people—want to cause damage. But he is right: we are all united. It reminds us that there is far more that unites us than divides us. We should all bear that in mind. I thank him for his comments. I agree with everything he said.

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

This is a reminder that there are those still at large in Northern Ireland who choose the bomb over the ballot box. I join in all the tributes to the PSNI and the emergency services for yet again doing such a great job. This is nothing to do with Brexit at all, but the geographical location of Londonderry reminds us of the existence of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, so will the Secretary of State confirm that cross-border co-operation between An Garda Síochána and the PSNI is important and is working and that, as far as they are concerned, in pursuing these people, there will never be a border between them?

[Karen Bradley]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that, when you stand in Londonderry, you see the border is there—it is not a distant thing. People are travelling to and fro across that border every day to go to work and to doctor and hospital appointments, and to see family and friends. He is also right about the cross-border co-operation. The co-operation between An Garda Síochána and the PSNI has never been stronger, particularly as the commissioner of the Garda, Drew Hendry, was the deputy chief constable of the PSNI. It was very moving that Drew Hendry attended the national police memorial, which was held in Belfast in October, in his An Garda Síochána uniform to show solidarity with police services across the whole United Kingdom.

Northern Ireland Budget (No. 2) Bill

Lord Swire Excerpts

Money resolution: House of Commons & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 9th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Lewis]

I acknowledge the hon. Lady’s making her own position clear. I trust that, in the remarks that I am about to make, I will address precisely that point. It relates in particular to the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. If I fail to mention that later, I hope that the hon. Lady will leap up and remind me to do so. I just wish to continue with my theme for the moment, which is the Government’s initial response to the passages—the recommendations—that I just read out.

The Government said:

“While the Government believes that the most effective option to address Northern Ireland’s past is to implement the proposals set out in the Stormont House Agreement, the Government acknowledges that others have different views on the best way forward, including approaches such as that proposed by the Committee which do not involve recourse to the criminal justice system. As such, the Government intends to include within its forthcoming consultation on the draft Northern Ireland (Stormont House Agreement) Bill a section entitled ‘Alternative approaches to addressing the past’. This section of the consultation will discuss alternative ways forward and include a description of the Committee’s recommendation. The consultation will invite respondents to give their views on ‘the potential effectiveness and appropriateness of alternative approaches such as amnesties and a statute of limitations to address the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past’. Following the consultation’s conclusion, the Government will consider all views carefully to inform next steps.”

Now, all I can say is that the Committee was greatly encouraged by that positive response, and we were then considerably discouraged by the fact—which may or may not be connected with the change in Secretary of State—that we subsequently found that the consultation was not going to include the section as described officially in the response to our report. That seemed to be a step backwards.

I have heard it said time and again—this evening and in previous debates on the subject—the rather obvious truth that there is no moral equivalence between terrorists or people accused of terrorist offences, and people accused of having committed offences when they were members of the armed forces or security forces trying to protect the people of Northern Ireland. As I said, that is an obvious truth; there is no moral equivalence. However, it can be argued—and I feel that it must be argued—that there is a legal equivalence, because everybody who is accused of a crime is, in a sense, equal before the law. But something strange and particular happened in the context of Northern Ireland, and that was—this is where I come to the intervention of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)—the passage of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. If I understand the Act correctly, and I think I do, it means that nobody can serve more than a two-year sentence, no matter how heinous the crimes that they committed, in the context of the troubles in Northern Ireland, which presumably means that, in practice, no one will spend more than half that length of time—12 months—in jail. Whether it be a question of pursuing terrorists decades after the event or of trying to pursue security personnel or members of the armed forces decades after the event, at the end of that whole process, even if anybody is found guilty of a crime that would normally attract a life sentence, they will end up spending no more than 12 months in jail.

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

I am listening to my right hon. Friend’s argument very carefully. It is not just a question of how much time some of these accused former servicemen may spend in jail—it is about the question mark hanging over them in later life, and their fear that when they go back to court in Northern Ireland they will not be protected. They get all kinds of memories coming back, and feel very afraid. So in a sense, their sentence is already a life sentence while the current legislation continues.

[Dr Lewis]

I entirely agree with every syllable of what my right hon. and gallant Friend says. We are now in a perverse situation where people are being pursued decades after the event without any scintilla of a suggestion that new evidence has been found. They are put through this disproportionate and agonising process, and at the end of it, in the unlikely event that they were found guilty, any sentence that they served would in no way be proportionate to the crime. The whole process has been undermined, because while one might make a moral, political or legal case to pursue someone to the ends of time for a capital crime—a crime of murder—if one knows right at the beginning that at the end of that huge process they are going to serve only a derisory sentence, that has to call into question the legitimacy of the proceedings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a great honour to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), who made an extremely moving speech.

I plan to be brief, but I first want to thank the Secretary of State for Defence, who, in reply to my Question 1 this afternoon, said that he would set up a dedicated team at the Ministry of Defence to look at the situation of all veterans. I have sponsored two Adjournment debates on this subject, and I have also set up an informal parliamentary support group to look at the interests of veterans from all theatres.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon) on the way in which he moved his amendment. I underline the comments about his time as Defence Secretary, during which he worked tirelessly to try to stop some of this nonsense going on, particularly in respect of Iraq and Afghanistan. His amendments are a genuine attempt to try to move this debate forward and to propose a constructive suggestion.

I very much hope that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will do two things. First, I hope she will work with the Secretary of State for Defence to make sure that the unit being set up really starts to make a difference. Secondly, the consultation that she set up did not actually say anything about looking at a statute of limitations. She mentioned the word “amnesty”, but, as the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) made very clear, we are talking about an amnesty, but not a statute of limitations. In this case it would affect Northern Ireland, but I would extend it to all veterans from all theatres so that they knew where they stood and that, after a period of time, it would not be possible for them to be subject to the knock on the door. The qualification would of course be that that applied unless any new evidence became available.

[Sir Hugo Swire]

Would my hon. Friend not say that all veterans who find themselves in such a position today, tomorrow or in years to come should be looked after properly by the Ministry of Defence—provided with support, including if necessary counselling, and with security and an escort, particularly if they are going back to zones in which they are accused of committing these crimes—so that they do not feel they are not wanted, and do not feel isolated and forgotten?

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

My right hon. Friend is 100% right on that point, but we hope very much that there will not be any prosecutions in the future, or any further arrests.

The key point is that our security forces, as has been pointed out, served in Northern Ireland with the utmost professionalism and dedication in an incredibly febrile, tense and dangerous atmosphere. Young soldiers were sent over—volunteers: we are talking not about conscripts, but professional soldiers—and they were the envy of the entire world. Does the Secretary of State believe that any other army from any other country in the world would have showed the sort of restraint that our Army showed in Northern Ireland, as indeed did the police?

Some 10% of the killings in Northern Ireland were carried out either by the police or the security forces. That is a staggering figure. One has to bear in mind that every single case was fully investigated. Soldiers were operating under the law of the land—not under armed forces law under the Geneva convention, but under our own law—with the yellow book or the yellow card, and every instance was fully investigated at the time by the military police, the RUC or other authorities. That compares with the terrorists, who operated under no known code, and whose only aim in life was to kill and to maim, so how can there ever be any equivalence? How can we talk about amnesties, when our armed forces were operating under the rule of law and under the law?

I want to refer quickly to two cases. I will not mention the names, because they may well be sub judice, but I want to illustrate my concerns. First, the leader of a small patrol went into a village after a shooting incident the day before. The platoon had come under fire. A small patrol of four soldiers went into the village in a follow-up operation after an arms find. A suspicious individual was challenged but did not respond. All four members of the patrol opened fire and that person was killed. It was actually a tragic case of mistaken identity. It was fully investigated at the time by the military police and the RUC. All the evidence was pulled together. The rifles and the rounds were subject to forensic examination. After a period of months, all four members of the patrol were completely exonerated and no further action was required or taken.

We fast-forward to 2012. Under the PSNI investigation under the Historical Enquiries Team, the corporal major who had commanded that patrol was asked to go to Northern Ireland to be questioned, which he did. It was explained to him that there was no new evidence and that the existing evidence had disappeared—the rifles had long since been thrown away or whatever, and the forensic evidence was no longer available. After four days of very polite questioning, he was told that there would be no case to answer. He asked whether he could get on with his life and go back to his family and was told that he could. Fast-forward three more years and there was a knock on the door. Eighteen officers arrested him and took him to Northern Ireland. He has now been charged with attempted murder—I will not go into any more details because he has been charged.

I went to a veterans dinner last weekend at the Royal Anglian Regiment. There were more than 100 people at the dinner. Every single person who came up to me said, “What is going on? Can we not do something about this? Many of us live in fear.” In a speech given that evening, a former regimental sergeant major gave an example from Londonderry in 1972 that illustrates the difficulties that our soldiers faced, the fear they were up against and the appalling decisions that had to be taken on the spur of the moment.

In this second case, soldiers went into the crowd to snatch a demonstrator who had been throwing rocks and bricks at the police and soldiers. They snatched the demonstrator and the crowd became inflamed. The company of soldiers turned around and started moving backwards. One of the soldiers was hit on the back of the head by a rock. In those days, the helmets were not as effective as they are now and he fell down with a cracked skull. The crowd surged forward and were about to lynch him. My constituent and four other soldiers opened fire on the crowd and killed an individual. That was fully investigated at the time. It was found that they were operating under the yellow card or yellow book but that incident is now being reinvestigated. No fewer than 10 people at that dinner now fear they are among the 284 Northern Ireland veterans, men in their 70s and 80s, who may well get the knock on the door as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)]

Thank you, Sir Lindsay, for calling me in this debate. This is a deeply personal issue on which I have worked for some time. I welcome the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon).

I am cognisant of the fact that there are real issues with what has been put forward—I do not dispute that for a minute—but I echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) said. If I was still a soldier watching this place, or if I was a veteran watching this place, I could not help but go away thinking that this place still—still—simply does not get it when it comes to what we owe those who have served.

This issue is nothing to do with some of the things that have been mentioned tonight. There has been a crassness to the terminology at times. I in no way speak of the Chair of the Defence Committee, because we have been tumbling around these terms and I would understand that from him, but there is the idea that we have conflated the idea of an amnesty with that of a statute of limitations. They are fundamentally and critically different, yet they have been interposed as if this is some sort of game or legal language that we have to get around to ensure we do right by our servicemen and women.

[Sir Hugo Swire]

On that point, does my hon. Friend not agree that it was unfortunate that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman kept on inappropriately using the word “amnesty”?

[Johnny Mercer]

That is exactly what I am talking about.

Before I came to this place—I have spoken about it before, so this will not be a shock to anyone—I really struggled with the inauthenticity I saw from both the Government and Opposition Dispatch Boxes. Incidents such as the one that has just been referred to serve to highlight that. Up and down the country, there are people watching this who are veterans of Northern Ireland, of Afghanistan, like me, and of Iraq. They will be thinking, “Have these guys got my back? Do they really get it when they can’t even get the terms right? Does that give me the confidence that the Government will apply themselves to ending this ridiculous charade of prosecuting our soldiers? I’m afraid it does not.”

What happens to the amendments after I have finished speaking is up to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks, but I have to lodge again my profound and personal disquiet with the Government’s policy. I feel a personal shame with regard to the historical allegations issue. I feel that I am part of a Government who are essentially promoting a cowards’ charter when it comes to looking after our servicemen and women. My right hon. Friend talked about how he made a political decision to close the Iraq Historical Allegations Team. I worked on that issue for a year before he did that. Every single civil servant and lawyer in his Department told him it could not be done, but he took the executive political decision that he was elected to make and closed it. We need some of that political courage to be brought to the issue in relation to Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Swire Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has already said, I have had conversations, including this morning, with the Chief Constable about these matters, which I also discuss with Ministers in the Irish Republic and other politicians there.

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

Some of those responsible for ensuring the peace in Northern Ireland during the days of the troubles are now being summoned to court again. Many of these individuals are suffering from all kinds of post-traumatic stress disorders and are terrified about going back to Northern Ireland. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that anyone called back to court will be wrapped around with a package that makes them feel safe and secure?

[Karen Bradley]

My right hon. Friend, who has served in the Northern Ireland Office, knows a great deal about this matter. He is right that the current situation simply is not working—it is not working for victims and it is not working for veterans—and that is why we want to deal with it.

Northern Ireland Budget Bill

Lord Swire Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 13th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. That is what I mean by kicking the can down the road. Those decisions have to be made by Ministers; it is unreasonable to put civil servants in that position, particularly given that we learnt today—I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s announcement—that the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office will be given powers to submit reports, which will be open to the scrutiny of both Houses. I would not want to be in the position, as a civil servant, of having to make such decisions and bear that accountability, with no ministerial top cover, for any length of time, notwithstanding my earlier remarks about direct rule. I fear the consequences of such a position. It is the dilemma with which the Government are struggling.

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

On the Department of Health—this could also apply to other Departments—is my hon. Friend concerned that, although the budgets will be approved for continuing its work, there will be no room for any new initiative or flexibility, given that no Minister oversees it?

[Dr Murrison]

My right hon. Friend, who served in a distinguished way in the Northern Ireland Office, knows that full well. Decisions have to be made by Ministers, and my question is about the elements of the report, which I have highlighted simply as an exemplar, that would require ministerial direction, and the extent to which supplementary estimates might be introduced. Notwithstanding the welcome announcement of funding that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made today, to what extent can those estimates be laid before the House to achieve the purposes I described? I ask that with a certain trepidation, because I would counsel against the constant tabling of supplementary estimates, which would have the effect of introducing direct rule in dribs and drabs. If we need to look to direct rule, notwithstanding the risks, that must be clear, and not done by stealth and gradually, which would be a recipe for confusion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend tempts me down a path, with which you might have some issue, Madam Deputy Speaker, but he is right, and our inquiry will continue to consider how we can make that border as invisible as possible. I referred earlier to the Committee’s recent visit to Newry, when we took the opportunity of eyeballing the border. It is a remarkably unexciting experience since the border is invisible—beautiful, but invisible—and we need to ensure that that continues to be the case.

Hon. Members have mentioned the Hart report into historical institutional abuse. The point is well made that there will be decisions that have some financial consequences—perhaps not primarily financial, but they need ministerial input in the weeks ahead. It is difficult to see how civil servants can make those determinations, given that the subject is so politically loaded. Little that happens in and around Northern Ireland does not have a political element, but something so clearly political requires ministerial input. I therefore gently suggest that it is unfair and unwise to put civil servants in the position of making such decisions.

[Sir Hugo Swire]

I am interested to learn of the work of my hon. Friend’s Committee, which becomes more important during this tricky period. In the run-up to Brexit, Northern Ireland’s economy is perhaps more important than ever. Will the Committee take a very real interest in the infrastructure, the inward investment and the development of Northern Ireland’s economy, especially in the Brexit period?

[Dr Murrison]

Yes. I share the concerns of many about Northern Ireland’s voice at this time. Northern Ireland is at the forefront of what will happen to this country after we leave the European Union, for better or for worse—in my opinion, for better, but I am prepared to admit that there are risks and opportunities in the process. It is vital that Northern Ireland, of all the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, has its voice heard, loud and clear. It is a dereliction of duty by the institutions and political parties in Northern Ireland that that is not happening. It seems to me a betrayal of the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.

I mentioned Michelle O’Neill in my remarks about the Bengoa report and her stewardship of the Department of Health in Northern Ireland. It is a sad state of affairs that she appears to be willing the ends in her 10-year vision for healthcare in Northern Ireland without willing the means. Hon. Members have made the point today that things like health and education really worry people in Northern Ireland—it is exactly the same for all our constituents—yet we seem prepared to put other things before those extraordinarily important services. I do not think that that represents the needs and aspirations of people at all well. I hope that those parties that are not prepared to come to the table to discuss those matters sufficiently to restore the Executive reflect on that.

I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State shares my fears that, the budget process having been achieved, nothing much will happen. There is an impasse at Stormont and I see no immediate prospect of the restoration of the Executive. We therefore need to start considering what we now do to ensure that the important objectives, such as for health and education, that we have discussed this afternoon, and the apportionment of funds this year, let alone next financial year, are achieved. To do that, it seems to me that we need to look at historical precedent. The Northern Ireland Act 1974 gave special powers to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, which could scrutinise and comment on draft Orders in Council.

I suspect that the Secretary of State is giving some thought to measures that can be taken to ensure some input from people in Northern Ireland—those elected to represent views in Northern Ireland from civic society and so on. That will become urgent as we tip into the new year and start to consider the financial year 2018-19. It would be useful to hear from the Secretary of State what measures will be taken to consult Northern Ireland generally, and particularly elected representatives, to ensure that that voice is heard.

Accountability is a difficult concept with which to grapple. We are accountable to our constituents. Ministers are not accountable for much of the grey area that we have been discussing today. Sadly, that is falling between the cracks. However, we need to make as best a stab at it as we can before the Executive are restored. To do that, we need to look at institutions in Northern Ireland and try to work out how they can best give voice to public opinion and at least keep the flame of accountability alive in the Province.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Dodds]

Many people in Northern Ireland, not only Unionists but commentators, particularly in the Irish Republic, and leading members of political parties in the Irish Republic, are increasingly of the view not only that this was planned but that, as a result of the Brexit decision and the hard decisions that need to be made in government, and in advance of a possible general election in the Irish Republic next year, Sinn Féin simply wanted to opt out of government and was looking for any excuse to do so.

It is our sincere hope that that is not the case. As someone pointed out—possibly the shadow Secretary of State—the DUP was a devolutionist party long before it was fashionable among the majority of Unionists. I remember that the Ulster Unionist party, when it was represented in the House and represented the vast bulk of Unionists, had a strong integrationist wing and was very lukewarm about proposals in the mid-80s for devolution. It even went so far as to boycott the then Northern Ireland Assembly. The DUP remained in the Assembly because it believed in the principle that the people of Northern Ireland, nationalist and Unionist, should reach those decisions for themselves in Northern Ireland.

We remain committed to devolution and want to see it happen, and that is why we have set no red lines or preconditions for the formation of the Executive. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) pointed out, we have said that we are prepared to form an Executive, and my understanding is that the other parties eligible to form it also stand ready to do so immediately. The one party that refuses to do so is Sinn Féin. We are prepared to form an Executive and hold the talks in tandem. Our leader went even further and spelled out that she would accept a date being set on which the Executive would fall if the talks did not lead to a successful outcome.

We were not, then, asking Sinn Féin to take us on trust, hoping to get them into the talks and then to talk forever; we were saying, “Let’s get the Executive formed, let’s make the decisions on health and education, infrastructure, investment, housing and all the rest of it, let’s have the talks, but with the guarantee that if they do not go anywhere, it will not go on forever.” Within 20 minutes of that suggestion being proposed—a suggestion welcomed by the Irish Taoiseach and other members of minority parties in Northern Ireland—it was rejected out of hand by Sinn Féin, in our view because they do not want a way forward except on the hardest republican lines.

[Sir Hugo Swire]

If my right hon. Friend’s thesis is right and Sinn Féin has no desire to return to power sharing this side of a possible election in the Republic, is he actually saying that there is no prospect of the Executive being reformed until at least the other side of that election?

[Nigel Dodds]

I am saying that many people believe that. I am told by Sinn Féin leaders—we hear it constantly —that they do not subscribe to that view and that they want devolution up and running. I am simply pointing out that there have been opportunities in the last 10 months to move things forward in a sensible way but that they have not been taken by Sinn Féin, which makes some of us doubt the sincerity of its words. I hope that the analysis of others I have quoted is proved wrong. I remain to be convinced of the truth of the matter.

Northern Ireland: Political Situation

Lord Swire Excerpts

Monday 3rd July 2017 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

As the right hon. Gentleman may know, our consultation about political transparency concerned the narrow elements that were contained within that, but I know that other issues and other points had been raised, including the matter to which he has referred, and they will remain under consideration. As for the legacy issue, I think there is a growing consensus that we need to get the consultation out there, and show everyone the work that has been done on the implementation of the Stormont House bodies so that we begin to see that coming into effect. I earnestly hope that we will be able to move forward, and that it will take place following the establishment of an Executive.

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

Is not the simple truth that, whereas the Democratic Unionist party has managed to obtain £1 billion from the Treasury to spend on the people of Northern Ireland, Sinn Féin—Gerry Adams and those at Connolly House who are refusing to re-form the Executive—will be in no position to ensure that their constituents receive an equal share of that money, because there will be no Sinn Féin Minister in the Executive, and the money will be spent either by Ministers in this place or by civil servants in Northern Ireland?

[James Brokenshire]

I think the simple point is that an Executive consisting of a First Minister, a Deputy First Minister and other Ministers will be able to make decisions on budgets and all other issues throughout the community. The funds that have been outlined—to be spent on, for example, health, education, mental health, infrastructure and broadband—will be, profoundly, for everyone in Northern Ireland. All communities will benefit from those funds. I think that that underlines the need for the Executive, and the need to ensure that locally elected politicians are the ones who make the decisions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Swire Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend highlights the challenges that we have in seeing the Executive restored and the challenges that have emerged over the course of this year. He is right: it is so important that we focus on that task at hand and see that the time available is used so that the Executive are restored and perform in the best interests of Northern Ireland and all communities across Northern Ireland.

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

Surely the point is that, given the additional funding for Northern Ireland, the imperative will be on the Executive to reform and deliver for all people there, and to kick-start more private industry there to make the people of Northern Ireland less dependent on the state and to get better receipts back to the UK Treasury.

[James Brokenshire]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend, who makes such an important point about the real opportunity that there is for Northern Ireland. We want to see jobs, growth and prosperity—to see investment in infrastructure and that enterprise-driven economy. There is that opportunity here, and we as a Government want it to be seized and to see Northern Ireland continue to move forward.

Northern Ireland (Ministerial Appointments and Regional Rates) Bill

Lord Swire Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 24th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Anderson]

Perhaps my accent means that the hon. Gentleman is not getting what I am saying. I am talking about the realities on the ground. It is right and proper that this House hears what the obstacles are. The Secretary of State and I have talked about them ad infinitum over the past few months. We have tried to play our part in resolving them and to say to the people over there that although there are issues, they are not huge. This is not about people being let out of jail, as they were 20 years ago, on-the-runs or people being pardoned. They are relatively small issues, but they are genuine. If we cannot resolve the issues of equality and legacy, what are we here for?

The hon. Gentleman referred to the Northern Ireland Government, but I remind him that the Assembly is not even sitting. I am very clear that we will, without doubt, offer support. I have also had discussions with the head of the civil service and I am determined that it will be allowed to have the powers that it will need to carry on supporting public services in Northern Ireland. I am a huge supporter of that, which is one of the reasons why I am involved in this work.

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

Given that we are trying to achieve consensus and talk about the issues seriously, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt wish to balance the examples he cites from one side with an acknowledgement that there are still many families in Northern Ireland who have never had a proper inquiry into—or, indeed, an explanation from Sinn Féin or the IRA about—what happened to their loved ones. It is only fair that he should reflect on that and perhaps say something about it.

[Mr Anderson]

If I had not been so generous in accepting interventions—I have been happy to do so—I would have come on to that point. I did point out that I raised that gentleman’s case only because of how long ago it happened. We, as genuine, reasonable human beings—forget our status as politicians and our party affiliations—should be able to resolve matters and say that it is not right that, 48 years after something happened, families have not had the chance to see a report on the reason behind it.