Northern Ireland

Debate between Peter Kyle and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

It does show that negotiating and talking delivers more than rowing, but it also shows that people should think carefully about what they vote for in the first place.

It is a right enshrined in treaty that anyone in Northern Ireland who wants to identify themselves as British should be able to do so without impediment. I understand that, of course I do. If produce made in Sussex faced checks at the border with Hampshire, I would have something to say about it. I have also asked myself this: if the protocol checks were taking place between Ireland and Northern Ireland, instead of in the Irish sea, would nationalist communities be demanding action today? I believe that they would. So the demand for action is warranted; it is based on real concerns, not confected ones. The mystery to me has always been why the Government took so long to act. Why did they wait until the devolved authorities had collapsed before seeming to care?

By the time I was appointed to this job, the DUP had been voicing concerns about the protocol for well over six months—they were ignored. A month before I was appointed, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) had published an article calling for article 16 to be triggered—it was met with silence. Then, in February, the Executive was collapsed, followed four months later by the Assembly. In all that time, there were no visits by the Prime Minister, and no meetings with party leaders, either in Northern Ireland or in Downing Street. Not a single statement was made to this House. As a result of that neglect—believe me, it is neglect—we are now faced with two problems. The first is solving the technical issues created as a direct result of the original protocol, negotiated by the Government and voted for by every Conservative Member. That protocol, I remind the House, was created, negotiated and hailed as a “great deal for Britain” by this Government at the time. Lest we forget, it was voted for by every single Member on their Benches, including those affiliated to the European Research Group faction.

Secondly, that period of neglect created a political problem that this Government are paying the price for right here today. Put simply, when the DUP was raising concerns about the protocol from within the devolved institutions, it was ignored by the Government in Westminster. When the DUP collapsed those institutions, it was rewarded with a prime ministerial visit and, ultimately, the renegotiation of the protocol. The message from the Government could not be clearer; the learned behaviour of dealing with this Government is that if you act functionally within the devolved Administration, you are ignored, but if you act outside the Administration, you are unignorable. In this period, the other Northern Ireland parties have been denied their place within the Government as well, through no fault of their own. So if you disrupt and act outside the structures of government, you get all the attention in the world. You even get a Prime Minister travelling abroad on your behalf to renegotiate a deal we had hitherto been told was not renegotiable.

[Jim Shannon]

This is not only about neglect or ignorance. Does the shadow Minister recognise that Tony Blair, the former leader of the Labour party, said that we cannot move forward without Unionist participation in this process and this framework? Bertie Ahern, another former instrument in the peace process, also said that we cannot ignore Unionism. Does the shadow Minister agree that Unionism cannot be ignored, and that our point of view has to be core to the whole issue of how we find a process to go forward?

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and for the opportunity to have this exchange, as it gives me the opportunity to say something. I can only speak for the Labour party, and for myself as the shadow Secretary of State, in saying that his party, as with every other party in Northern Ireland, will never be ignored by my party or a future Labour Government. As I am about to explain, it will be most rewarded, and will have most attention and agency in political life right across the UK, from a position within the devolved authorities. I understand the point he makes—Tony Blair and others were right—but these are all leaders who gave the attention to the DUP and every other party at the point at which they needed it. They did not wait until devolution had collapsed before paying those in Northern Ireland and their parties the respect they are owed and due.

Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Peter Kyle and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), on retaining his position on the Front Bench. I am sure that he had an anxious few days waiting by the phone. I also congratulate his boss, the Secretary of State, who I know is engaged elsewhere on business related to Northern Ireland.

As I start my comments, I am very conscious of the opening remarks of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) about the sensitivity of the issues that we are discussing here today. I am very aware of the sensitivities relating to identity and language in Northern Ireland. As I have said numerous times, I regret that I am standing at the Dispatch Box speaking to these comments. I wish that all these issues had been resolved within the Assembly. I hope that the follow-up from this—let us be honest, the Bill will pass—is that that can be redressed and that any wash-up that needs to come will be dealt with locally.

For reasons that I will come on to, I do not want to take up too much time of this debate. Northern Ireland voices need to be heard, and I am glad that so many have been heard so far. Our view is that the Bill broadly keeps with the identity and language commitments made in the New Decade, New Approach agreement. Language and identity issues have clearly always played a part in the peace process, and this Bill is a welcome development in creating an unambiguous framework for them.

It is important to remember that the Bill is an amalgamation of three draft Bills. These separate Bills were published alongside the New Decade, New Approach agreement. They were supposed to go through the Northern Ireland Assembly where I am sure that, with scrutiny, they could have been improved on and developed. Again, it is with regret that we are dealing with the legislation in this place, but the Government are right to uphold their commitment to take the legislation through Westminster when Stormont is unwilling or unable to do so. Nevertheless, it does present a challenge for how we approach the amendments today. We are conscious of not straying too far from the deal that was struck some years ago between the then Secretary of State, the political parties in Northern Ireland and the Irish Government.

Moreover, there was a very short period of time between the stages of the Bill in this House. As a result, there have been fewer opportunities for the Opposition to engage with important stakeholders. Some of the groups that I have spoken to feel frustrated that they have not been consulted to the degree that they would have wished. I had a constructive meeting with representatives from the Ulster-Scots Agency yesterday, but I would not want the Committee to misconstrue having a meeting as an endorsement from them. I fear that others may have done so, and I do not want to fall into the same trap. They have misgivings about the Bill and I have committed to meet them again afterwards to understand their concerns and to see how they can be addressed. As I said to them yesterday, I understand that this is most likely to happen from a position of this Bill having passed through Parliament. I would like to explore with them how the issues they are raising can be addressed, and I hope the Minister will similarly agree.

May I remind the Committee that the agency was set up by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement? I hope the Minister will keep engaging with it as much as possible. I have also met with Conradh na Gaeilge—

[Jim Shannon]

Before the hon. Gentleman moves off Ulster-Scots, I understand and respect him for his meetings with all the organisations that he should meet, but when he met the Ulster-Scots Agency it put forward a point of view on this legislation, asking for the same thing we are asking for. How does he see this legislation addressing the concerns of the Ulster Scots, when it is here to make those changes?

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for the comments he made earlier, which I learned a great deal from. I see this going forward via the Northern Ireland Assembly taking it forward in Northern Ireland. That is how it must happen. I am happy, from the Opposition perspective and as the aspiring Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to start engaging and keep the engagement going, but I am aware that the best place to resolve these issues is within Northern Ireland itself. I hope we can create the circumstances and the Government will redouble their efforts to deliver on the commitments made to all parties in Northern Ireland, which so far have been elusive.

I also met yesterday with Conradh na Gaeilge, which has suggested parts of the Bill it believes could be strengthened regarding the Irish language commissioner. Taking this Bill through in one piece in this place, instead of in three separate Bills in Northern Ireland, has let those groups down. I am grateful for all the help those organisations have given—their expertise is invaluable. I also note that the Government Minister in the other place stated that he saw this legislation as being open to updates in Stormont once the Assembly has returned.

Our Opposition amendments 15 to 17 are probing amendments, and I hope the Minister will engage with them in good spirit. The amendments are simple and would expand the definition of public authority within the Bill to include the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. There were amendments accepted in the other place to address concerns that had cropped up since New Decade, New Approach. For example, the addition of the Castlereagh Foundation was not part of the draft legislation, but keeps within the wider agreement.

It is with that approach in mind that we have tabled our amendments today. The Bill currently excludes the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission from being subject to the proposed statutory provisions. As these bodies have a base in Northern Ireland and focus solely on Northern Ireland, it does not seem logical that they are not included. It seems to be accepted that both bodies will have a substantial role to play once the legislation is established. Considering the Northern Ireland Office is taking such an active approach with this Bill, I do not think it is unreasonable for it to have regard to the principles in it.

When these matters were discussed in the other place, the Minister conceded this point when he said:

“Of course, given the close interest of the Northern Ireland Office in the New Decade, New Approach commitments on which the Bill delivers, I would still expect consideration to be given to the national and cultural identity principles set out in the first part of the Bill, and the guidance issued by the respective commissioners. I would expect much the same with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 July 2022; Vol. 823, c. 1020.]

For the benefit of our friends and hard-working members of Hansard, that was said in House of Lords Hansard, Volume 823, debated on Wednesday 6 July.

I do not believe that the uncertainty between what is expected and what is legislated is necessary. That is something the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission itself has made a compelling argument for amending. Its detailed briefing on the Bill stated:

“While it is reasonable to expect that such public authorities will act in good faith and comply with the Bill to the best of their ability, if they are not supported to do so it is likely that their actions will be significantly limited”

It recommended that the interpretation of public authority be amended to reflect section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which goes far beyond what our amendments suggest.

There is also the example of how Welsh language legislation works in this regard, which the Government could learn from. I am very curious to hear whether the Government’s views on amendments 15 to 17 have developed.

Turning to other amendments under consideration, we are supportive of amendments 6 and 7, which received support from all parties when they were discussed in the other place. We share the concerns about qualifying cultural expression on the basis of the sensitivities of others. Human rights groups have pointed out that it is not clear how that should be interpreted in practice. Without further definition, the concept of the sensitivities of others is subjective. We are concerned that it could restrict free expression purely on the basis of the prejudice and intolerance of others to such expression. When I put that to the Minister on Second Reading, he stated that,

“the approach we are taking is consistent with the draft legislation published alongside NDNA; it really is for OICE to implement this in practice.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 198.]

We understand why the Government do not want to stray too far from what was previously agreed, but that puts the new Office of Identity and Cultural Expression in a very difficult position as it will have to work out immediately what “sensitivities” mean in practice.

To take a step back, the Bill has been praised for trying to depoliticise language and cultural issues in Northern Ireland. In my opinion, the amendments would improve the Bill in that regard as there would be no further debate on the meaning of “sensitivities”. Using a human rights basis would provide much more certainty about the limits of cultural expression.

Finally, we are sympathetic to amendment 1. It would oblige public authorities to give due regard to the commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition. When I met the Ulster-Scots Agency, it felt very strongly about that. The agency helpfully pointed me to the relevant passage of New Decade, New Approach, which says:

“The functions of the Commissioner will be to…provide advice and guidance to public authorities, including where relevant on the effect and implementation, so far…affecting Ulster Scots”.

The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has said:

“For the Commissioner’s advisory function to be meaningful, public authorities must be required to have regard to that advice.”

For that reason, we support amendment 1.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Debate between Peter Kyle and Jim Shannon

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Kyle]

I will give way, and then I must make some considerable progress.

[Jim Shannon]

What probably keeps all of us who have lost loved ones going has been that flicker of life, or flicker of a candle, with the opportunity that, possibly some day, someone who has carried out despicable crimes will be made accountable. What keeps us going is that we believe that some day those people who thought they would get away with it will not get away with it. That is what we are all about.

[Peter Kyle]

One more time, the hon. Gentleman brings humanity and lived experience to the debate in an extremely powerful way. The first job I had on the Front Bench was as the shadow victims Minister, and everything he has said applies also to victims of other serious crimes in other circumstances, but never more so than it does in the situation we are addressing today. I am very grateful for what he said and how he said it.

There are warnings from the human rights safeguards established by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement that this Bill is not compliant with the European convention on human rights. The Government have failed to convince anyone that the new independent body and the immunity panel, which are at the core of their proposals, will lead to more information for victims and their families. In fact, the Secretary of State has said openly that only “one or two” people might end up giving information to this new body. He said that just last week in an interview for The House magazine. That seems scant compensation for shutting down all coronial, civil or criminal actions. I want to share the words of Julie Hambleton, whose sister Maxine was killed alongside 20 other innocents in the Birmingham pub bombings in 1974. In her words:

“Our loved ones did nothing wrong. They were law abiding, tax paying citizens. There is nothing in this legislation that provides anything for victims’ families or survivors.”

Turning to our amendments, amendment 111 would ensure that any review conducted by the independent body is carried out in line with the standards of Operation Kenova. During debates on legacy, the only process that was praised time and again by members of all parties was the work of Jon Boutcher and Operation Kenova. Crucially, their work has managed to gain the trust and support of victims, families and the security forces. Our amendment is based on a definition of reviews, which Operation Kenova has provided, that would greatly strengthen the reviews in the Bill. It was surprising to hear the Minister’s lack of awareness about a review as compared with an investigation, because both legally and most certainly in practice, there is a very profound difference with a review, which our amendment addresses.

Our amendment would mean that a review must have access to all material relating to the case held by Government agencies. It would establish whether any forensic opportunities exist to identify those responsible for the crime. It would identify potential witnesses, members of the security forces or suspects who may be able to assist with understanding who was responsible for the crime. It would conform to nationally recognised standards, be conducted with integrity and objectivity, not overlook any investigative opportunities, and identify and share investigative and organisational good practice.

Given Operation Kenova’s success in gaining the trust of so many of those affected by legacy issues, we should take every opportunity we can to learn as we seek a way forward. Victims need and deserve to be persuaded that the Commissioner for Investigations is going to carry out more than a desktop review of deaths and serious injury. These standards for review are not exhaustive and could be built on further, but the starting point should be what we have seen work in legacy and Operation Kenova. This is a probing amendment in the hope that Members in the other place will take a fuller and more expansive look at the issue. I think the amendment strikes to the heart of the Bill, but I will not push it to the vote today, in the sincere hope that it is one of the central planks of investigation in the other place.