Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Bill

Debate between Carla Lockhart and Claire Hanna

2nd reading
Tuesday 29th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Carla Lockhart]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for bringing us back to the Bill. The fact remains that we would not need it if the protocol was resolved.

Moving on to MLAs’ pay, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who chairs the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, seems determined to punish MLAs for his party’s failures. His party gave us the protocol, and in doing so undermined the fundamental building blocks of the institutions and the Union which they claimed to cherish. His party failed to act when the DUP offered time and space to find a replacement and avoid the position in which we find ourselves. Does he accept any responsibility?

Let me be absolutely clear: DUP MLAs will embrace any pay cut that the hon. Member for North Dorset, or anyone else for that matter, imposes on them, whenever it comes. That will not change their stance or the stance of the DUP. As someone who was in the Assembly when pay was cut last time, I can assure the House that we are in politics because of our conviction, not for the pay that we receive.

Our refusal to enter the institutions has the support of our community, which will allow us to return to them only on the basis of respect for our constitutional position and the restoration of the integrity of the UK. The Minister of State knows that, because he heard the message loud and clear in Hillhall when he visited my constituency and the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) last week.

Today, Members are exercised about the pace and severity of a pay cut. They ought to be exercised about the reality that should a new way forward not emerge soon, there will be no MLAs, no Ministers, no Stormont and no devolution. Furthermore, should those who now seek to exclude Unionism from the institutions under the guise of reform continue to undermine the agreements they claim to cherish, restoring those institutions will be increasingly difficult. It is telling that the same voices fell silent for years when Sinn Féin refused to enter the institutions. Indeed, rather than demand their exclusion, Alliance and Social Democratic and Labour party representatives stood at protests shoulder to shoulder with those blocking government. The double standards, and the desire to exclude Unionism from the institutions, are not lost on my community.

[Claire Hanna]

Does the Member acknowledge that only three or four days ago I stood shoulder to shoulder, so to speak, with a member of her party when addressing provision by the education authority? Does she acknowledge that working with members of other parties on different issues is not the same as endorsing their entire policy platform? She made an accusation again about my party withholding government. Is she going to keep repeating that falsehood, or does she acknowledge that cross-party working does not mean that we buy into the entire manifestoes and approaches of other parties?

[Carla Lockhart]

We will have an opportunity to read Hansard and the Member’s contribution today, so we will be able to see that there is a clear ignoring of Unionist views and a clear sidelining of Unionism and the many people on whom the protocol continues to impact.

Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Carla Lockhart and Claire Hanna

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Claire Hanna]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Carla Lockhart]

No, I will not.

[Claire Hanna]

Will the hon. Member retract that?

[Carla Lockhart]

I will not retract what I have said. It is absolutely correct: you stood shoulder to shoulder during the time when the Executive were pulled down by Sinn Féin at the behest of its demands. The same political activists will adopt the same approach should they not be appeased again. Like many others, there is little faith in the Northern Ireland Office's ability to withstand such demands. That is a road to further instability and division in our Province.

Intertwined with this issue is the role of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and in that context we have tabled amendments 26, 27 and 28. These amendments underline the importance of political accountability and consensual ministerial agreement in the exercise of the functions of the headline offices and bodies established by the Bill. The two commissioners and the director of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression will ultimately be appointed by the First and Deputy First Ministers. Compliance with guidance or directions mutually agreed by those Ministers must therefore be a defining feature of their operation. We would point out that the wording “must comply” is drawn word for word from the three draft Bills published in the aftermath of “New Decade, New Approach”. The existing drafting in this Bill reneges on that provision, emphasising the power to direct rather than the duty to comply.

There is an urgent need to place consensus working and cross-community protections at the heart of our politics. That is the key to the parity of esteem that all parties claim to value and cherish. As I have said before, it is ignored in the Bill, and the Government have the opportunity to address that.

Amendment 1 and amendments 2 to 5 address the duty to have regard to Ulster Scots guidance, and the current imbalance in the enforceability and robustness of the functions of the commissioner for the Ulster British Ulster Scots tradition in comparison with those specified in the Bill empowering the Irish language commissioner. The amendments, if accepted, would extend the grounds on which a complaint can be brought to the commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition to cover the conduct of public authorities in relation to all the guidance that they issue. Importantly, it would deliver parity of esteem by applying a due-regard duty for advice and guidance to the Ulster British Ulster Scots commissioner comparable with that which applies to the Irish language commissioner. The Bill, as currently drafted, creates an office for Ulster British Ulster Scots in which the commissioner can be ignored. With no binding duty or incentive for public bodies to adhere to recommendations from the commissioner, the likely impact of such a commissioner is seriously restricted. To the Unionist community, such a toothless tiger is not acceptable. We will not be bought off with the image of a commissioner with the substance of a ghost.

It is window dressing to expand the scope of the Ulster Scots commissioner to arts and literature but not to include guidance issued in those areas as eligible for the purposes of complaints. Limiting the scope to language is not fair or balanced. It has always been recognised that in order for the Unionist community to be afforded a commissioner who is of equal value to it as the Irish language commissioner is to the nationalist community, it must have a broader focus than language, because the development of bilingual service provision in Ulster Scots has never been a priority for Unionists. If adding arts and literature to the scope of the commissioner was deemed necessary by the Government to offset the risk of the added value for Irish language trumping Ulster Scots, it follows that the parameters of the complaint’s mechanism should also be extended.

Amendments 21 and 22 seek to right a failure in the Bill as drafted relating to the Castlereagh Foundation. The amendments tabled by my party colleagues in the other place would have required the Secretary of State to take action and establish the foundation. The eventual provisions to be enacted are ambiguous and provide an escape clause for the Government to farm out the function to an outside body without a clear explanation.

Throughout my comments, I have cited instances in which there is a departure from NDNA, and we see this once again in relation to the Castlereagh Foundation. The NDNA obligation on the Government to fund the foundation is precisely that: an obligation on the Government. We do not believe it would be appropriate to vest this power on the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression irrespective of whether it is deemed an operationally independent branch. Moreover, the change ushered in by the Lords does not go far enough in respect of funding and establishment. It is not appropriate for clause 8 to rest as merely a permissive power which the Secretary of State may or may not use.

Let me now deal with our amendments relating to cost to the public purse. Amendments 31 to 35—again, in the names of my colleagues and me—address the fact that there is currently no mechanism in the Bill to ensure transparency and accountability with regard to public spending on each of the bodies and officers established. It would be wholly wrong for one office to run at a disproportionate cost to the other in fulfilling its duties. The existence of such a mechanism is therefore vital to ensuring parity of esteem between the various traditions.

An indicative £9 million is stipulated in the explanatory notes in relation to the establishment and operation of the two commissioners and the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression. However, there is no equivalent assessment of the likely financial implications for public authorities of having to give due regard to Irish language best practice standards and respond to advice on Ulster Scots. This is alarming: it is alarming for councils, who are looking at double-digit rate rises on hard-pressed householders; it is alarming for housing associations and our Housing Executive, who have record waiting lists and a homelessness epidemic to address; and it is alarming for our health trusts, who face unprecedented pressures.

Northern Ireland Protocol: Veterinary Agreement

Debate between Carla Lockhart and Claire Hanna

Wednesday 15th December 2021 Westminster Hall

[Claire Hanna]

The point is that the UK has made it very clear that it will not sign up to commit to those rules. That is fundamentally the issue—that the UK has not agreed, as a continuum, to adhere to those rules. Yes, obviously the soil has not changed over the new year, so I understand some of the frustrations, but those could be addressed by exactly the sort of veterinary arrangement that the hon. Member for Rochdale suggests, and that businesses across the UK have been suggesting. It is perplexing to me that all of the parties across the board in Northern Ireland did not get together to call for that, because at different times all of them said that an SPS arrangement would be acceptable. That unanimity and that consistency of message from Northern Ireland’s political representatives would have been very powerful.

In the absence of that SPS arrangement, which I would love to see, the protocol is the show in town at the moment. It is nobody’s first choice; nobody loves it; nobody would have designed it. It is a bit like that thing about getting directions in Ireland—“I wouldn’t start from here,” and you would not start from the protocol, but the reality is that all the other options have been taken off the table. I genuinely understand the frustration and confusion of constituents and consumers, reflected by the hon. Members for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and for Strangford. They say that all of a sudden the rules are different, but that is because of Brexit, which in every way was always going to mean barriers. Brexit is, by definition, a set of trade barriers. That is why some of the rules have changed. In Northern Ireland, businesses were clear before the referendum that they were very happy with the status quo—being able to trade north, south, east and west.

[Carla Lockhart]

The hon. Lady makes a valid point. Some of the regulations and rules brought in at this point in time are Brexit-related. However, will she not accept that more are actually protocol-related? Had NI left the EU on the same grounds as GB, we would not be in this position and would not be dealing with issues such as seed potatoes, the Queen’s canopy and all the others listed here today.

[Claire Hanna]

They are issues that flow from Brexit and from the trade and co-operation agreement voted through by a large majority in the sovereign Parliament of the UK. I did not support it. The hon. Member did not support it. But that was the settled arrangement.