Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Debate between Chris Heaton-Harris and Nigel Evans

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 18th July 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 20.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 20.

Lords amendment 44, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (c) to the words so restored to the Bill.

Lords amendments 1 to 19, 21 to 43, 45 to 118 and 120 to 129.

Lords amendment 119, and Government consequential amendment (a) to Lords amendment 119.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I am delighted to speak to this Bill following its year-long passage through the other place. I pay tribute to Lord Caine for his expert stewardship of the Bill in that place, as well as to all the Opposition spokespeople for their patience and engagement on the Bill.

Hon. and right hon. Members will know all too well that the legacy of the troubles remains one of the outstanding issues since the Belfast/Good Friday agreement was reached in 1998. As a Government, we have sought to make a realistic assessment of what we can do to best deliver for those affected by the troubles over a quarter of a century after that agreement and well over 50 years since the troubles began. I recognise, and I know the House recognises, that this is a hugely difficult task. That is reflected in the many valiant attempts made to address this issue since the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement all those years ago. It is also incumbent on us to ensure that any process for dealing with the past focuses on measures that can deliver positive outcomes for as many of those directly affected by the troubles as possible, as well as for society in Northern Ireland as a whole. We maintain that the Bill before us is the best way of doing that.

The Bill contains finely balanced political and moral choices that are uncomfortable for many, but we should be honest about what we can realistically deliver for people in Northern Ireland, in circumstances where the prospects of achieving justice in the traditional sense are so vanishingly small. The Bill seeks to deliver an approach that focuses on what can practically be achieved to deliver better outcomes for all those who suffered, including those who served, and it aims to help society look forward together to a more shared future.

The Bill left the House of Commons over a year ago. In that time, my ministerial colleagues and I have held more than 100 meetings with victims groups, veterans groups, Northern Ireland political parties, the Opposition, the Irish Government, academics, US interlocutors and Members of both Houses, in an effort to make meaningful changes to improve the Bill. As a result of that extensive engagement, the Government have brought forward a significant package of amendments that provide greater assurance regarding compliance with our international obligations; enhance the independence of the new Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery—I will call that by its catchy nickname, ICRIR, from here on—provide a much greater focus on the interests of victims and families; and strengthen provisions related to the process of granting immunity from prosecution to those who engage meaningfully with the commission, while keeping open the possibility of prosecution for those who fail to do so.

Let me run through the Government’s Lord amendments thematically, as well as our responses to Lords amendments 20 and 44. First there is conditional immunity and incentives to co-operate with the ICRIR. As I said from the outset, the aim of the Bill is to provide more information to more people than is possible under current mechanisms, and we will do that by creating an effective information recovery process. The commission will conduct reviews with the primary purpose of providing answers to those who want them, and will grant immunity from prosecution only if individuals provide an account that is true to the best of their knowledge and belief.

I know that is challenging for many, but conditional immunity is a crucial aspect of the information recovery process. The Government believe it is the best mechanism by which we can generate the greatest volume of information in the quickest possible time, to pass on to families and victims who have been waiting for so long. That is why the Government cannot accept Lords amendment 44, which seeks to remove clause 18 and conditional immunity from the Bill.

As many Members of the House will know, there is a significant precedent regarding limited immunities and amnesties in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, following periods of violence. That includes, following the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, an amnesty for the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons, and limited immunity for individuals who share information about the location of victims’ remains. If we look back further, the newly created Irish state legislated three times between 1923 and 1924 for amnesties, dispensing with civil and criminal liability for violence for UK state forces, republicans and Free State forces.

Through Government amendments, we are making the conditional immunity process more robust. That includes amendments to clause 18 in my name, which were agreed in the other place but fell when the clause was removed from the Bill. The commission is already required to consider all relevant information that it holds when forming a view on the truth of a person’s account, as part of their application for immunity, including information obtained through a related review. Through Lords amendment 49, we are strengthening that provision by placing the commission under a positive duty, requiring it to take “reasonable steps” to secure information relevant to that assessment.

The Government are further strengthening the immunity provisions by introducing circumstances under which immunity may be revoked, or may not be granted. I have restored Lords amendment 60, which makes it clear that where a person applying for immunity is subject to an ongoing prosecution, immunity may not be granted if there is a risk that it might prejudice that ongoing prosecution. Through Lords amendment 63 we are creating a new criminal offence for those who wilfully or recklessly choose to mislead the commission when providing information. Individuals who are granted immunity will automatically lose it if they are convicted of such an offence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

It does not answer my question.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

The ICRIR has always, as a public body, needed to comply with all its duties under the Human Rights Act. We have made it clearer, on the face of the Bill, that the commissioner for investigations must comply with those duties when carrying out their reviews. It is a very straightforward—it generally is a straightforward—answer to a straightforward question, and I hope that my hon. Friend, when he reads Hansard, will see that his questions have been answered threefold in what I have said.

Belfast/Good Friday Agreement: 25th Anniversary

Debate between Chris Heaton-Harris and Nigel Evans

Thursday 30th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; I completely concur with his statement. We should also pay tribute to Chief Constable Simon Byrne, who has introduced community policing across Northern Ireland. Community policing is something that we are all used to in England, Scotland and Wales, but it is a different way of policing—a better way of policing—in Northern Ireland, and it is definitely helping across all communities. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s words and would add to them.

As we approach the agreement’s anniversary, we must acknowledge that there is more to be done to realise other aspects of the agreement’s ambition for a society that is reconciled with the past and able to look to the future. We must never let the progress that we have seen allow us to be complacent about the challenges of the future. We are investing in the development of integrated education so that more children can be educated together. We look forward, rather than back to a divided past.

It is also our duty to tell the agreement’s story so that the next generation may appreciate Northern Ireland’s remarkable journey and build a more prosperous future. That is why, as part of our programme to mark the anniversary, we have launched the first phase of a pioneering educational package. The package has been developed by the National Archives for parents and teachers across the United Kingdom to use in assemblies and the classroom, thereby enabling this vital story to be told.

I would like to acknowledge the contribution that Members across this House, Members of the other place and those elsewhere made to the journey to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement 25 years ago and have made to Northern Ireland. No single party, Government, individual or organisation owned the journey to that agreement or owns the journey of Northern Ireland since. From the famous speech by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Peter Brooke, in November 1990 that announced that the United Kingdom had

“no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland”,

to the 1993 Downing Street declaration between John Major and Albert Reynolds that provided a pathway to a negotiated settlement on the basis of the principle of consent, it is clear that the agreement was unlocked through the achievement, bravery and dedication of a great many people in politics, public life, religion, civil society and community over many, many years.

Last week I was privileged, along with other Members, to attend a reception at Speaker’s House where I met three inspirational Members of the Youth Parliament in Northern Ireland: Izzy Fitzpatrick, Ryan Kearney and Lauren Bond. I think that all who heard Lauren will agree that she made a barnstorming speech. She spoke powerfully about her future in her nation and, notably, about the forgotten role of women in the peace process, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). I hope I can begin to put that right today.

From one of my predecessors as Northern Ireland Secretary, Mo Mowlam, who enabled the Tony Blair Government to secure the Belfast agreement in April 1998 through an unrelenting bravery, a disarming personal touch and an unstoppable belief in the potential of peace, to the Women’s Coalition and people such as Monica McWilliams—a signatory to the multi-party agreement—women played a pioneering role, and rightly insisted that their voices be heard in the peace process. Pat Hume, a consummate diplomat, endured risks and threats to get people talking, and established warm relations with families of Unionist politicians, including Daphne Trimble, who later served in the two human rights bodies created by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It is clear that the full story of the agreement cannot be told without acknowledging the contributions of those and other brave and visionary women.

As we approach the 25th anniversary of that agreement, I am also aware that we will do so without some of its other architects—not least Lord Trimble, the leader of the Ulster Unionist party and the first of Northern Ireland’s First Ministers, and John Hume, the long-time advocate of civil rights through dialogue, campaigning and peaceful protest, alongside whom I had the pleasure of serving for five years in the European Parliament. They succeeded not just because they worked tirelessly, but because they took risks. In the face of opposition and, at times, threats, they pursued their vision of what they thought Northern Ireland could be. Northern Ireland is poorer without their leadership, but they serve as examples to generations of political leaders now and to come of what politics can do.

Others, too, took risks along the way to secure the gains of the past 25 years. The leadership of Sinn Féin, particularly Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, persuaded republicanism that its future lay in the ballot box, and in 2007 the late Reverend Ian Paisley—with whom, again, I served for five years in the European Parliament —led his party into power sharing. I note the contribution of Lord Alderdice—whose party provided a powerful voice for those who were not part of either of Northern Ireland’s two traditions—to the securing of widespread engagement with the peace process; and, obviously, we recognise the role of the Progressive Unionist party, and particularly the late David Ervine, in providing clear representation for loyalism. I know that I have omitted many other names involved in the journey to the agreement, but I also know that the whole House, including the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), will join me today in recognising their collective achievement.

If this anniversary can remind us all of one thing, it should be that progress did not come easily. It took decades of tireless work, leadership and steadfast commitment. Most important, it required the willingness of people to work across divides, sometimes with others with whom it had hitherto been unimaginable to work. The lessons from the leaders of 1998 will, I hope, prove instructive for all of us who have the honour of following in their footsteps. I know that Northern Ireland is on a path to a better, brighter and more prosperous future over the coming 25 years, thanks to the foundation of peace and stability that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement provides.

We are creating a platform for that more prosperous future by investing in the people of Northern Ireland, giving them the skills that they need to succeed and harnessing their entrepreneurial spirit. Only last month the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) announced £18.9 million of funding to boost the fantastic cyber-security sector in Northern Ireland. Together with more than £600 million of UK Government investment in city and growth deals for every part of Northern Ireland, those funds will ensure that the Northern Ireland of the next 25 years will be a byword for the cutting-edge technology and innovation for which it is already becoming known. We have addressed the issues caused by the Northern Ireland protocol by agreeing the Windsor framework, which fundamentally amends the old protocol. It protects the economic rights of the people of Northern Ireland, and provides us with the basis to move forward together as one United Kingdom. We, as the UK Government, will continue to support and invest in Northern Ireland to make it an even better place in which to live, work and start a business in the years to come.

The 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is an historic moment for Northern Ireland, for the whole United Kingdom, and for Ireland. It is a milestone that will be heralded in this country, and in the countries whose contribution to the peace process made the agreement’s success possible. Today’s debate affords us all an opportunity to recognise this remarkable achievement, and to reaffirm our commitment to protecting and upholding the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and supporting Northern Ireland’s journey in the 25 years to come in order to build a more perfect peace. I commend the motion to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Debate between Chris Heaton-Harris and Nigel Evans

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

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

I thank my officials and others for their help with this legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Congratulations, everybody—particularly those in the Public Gallery.

Northern Ireland Elections

Debate between Chris Heaton-Harris and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the issues arising from the failure of the devolved Government of Northern Ireland—the Northern Ireland Executive—to form. The overriding priority of this Government is to implement, maintain and protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

“Northern Ireland is governed best when it is governed locally.”

Since May,

“that has not been possible. However, our commitment remains absolutely clear”.

The Government believe that this is the moment for restoration of the devolved institutions

“and will work to that end as a matter of utmost priority... My predecessors have all referred to critical times for Northern Ireland, and there have been many, but this year is indeed critical”.—[Official Report, 11 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 287.]

I can see you are thinking that you might have heard those words before, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is because you have: they were spoken by the then Secretary of State and right hon. Member for Neath at this Dispatch Box back in 2006.

Although these are different times, with different issues affecting Northern Ireland, I and this Government believe strongly that the people of Northern Ireland deserve a functioning Assembly and Executive where locally elected representatives can address the issues that matter most to the people who elect them. Back in May, people cast their votes in Northern Ireland to give their communities a voice in Stormont. However, for six months the parties have not come together.

On 28 October, the deadline for forming an Executive, as set out in the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act 2022, passed. That is hugely disappointing. As a result, I am bound by law to call new elections for the Northern Ireland Assembly, as set out in the New Decade, New Approach agreement. Those elections will have to take place within 12 weeks of 28 October.

Since 28 October, I have been engaging widely in Northern Ireland with the parties, with businesses, with community representatives and with members of the public. I have also spoken with other international interlocutors. I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of those to whom I have spoken think that an election at this time would be most unwelcome.

What people would welcome is having their devolved institutions up and running, because they are worried to see a massive £660 million black hole in this year’s public finances at the same time that their public services are deteriorating. They are worried that almost 187,000 people in Northern Ireland have been waiting for more than a year for their first out-patient appointment. They are worried that the share of working-age adults with no formal qualifications is higher in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. There is also legitimate and deep concern about the functioning of the Northern Ireland protocol. That concern is felt across Northern Ireland and very strongly indeed in the Unionist community.

The one thing on which everyone agrees is that we must try to find a way through the current impasse, in which I have a legal duty to call an election that few people want and that everyone tells me will change nothing. I will therefore introduce legislation to provide a short, straightforward extension to the period for Executive formation. The current period will be extended by six weeks to 8 December, with the potential for a further six-week extension to 19 January if necessary. The aim is to create the time and space necessary for talks between the UK Government and the European Commission to develop, and for the Northern Ireland parties to work together to restore the devolved institutions as soon as possible.

As I stand here, the Northern Ireland Executive have no Ministers in post. That means no Ministers to make the choices that deliver the public services that people rely on, to react to the budgetary pressures that schools, hospitals and other key services face, or to deliver the energy support payments that this Government have made available to people across the rest of the United Kingdom. Before leaving his post, the Northern Ireland Finance Minister highlighted a £660 million in-year budget black hole, but there are no Ministers in the Executive to address it.

As civil servants do not have the legal authority to tackle these issues in the absence of an Executive, I must take limited but necessary steps to protect Northern Ireland’s public finances and the delivery of public services. As has been done before, the legislation that I introduce will enable Northern Ireland Departments to support public service delivery, make a small number of vital public appointments such as those to the Northern Ireland Policing Board, and address the serious budgetary concerns that I have mentioned.

At a time when so many people are concerned about the cost of living in Northern Ireland, I know that the public there will welcome a further measure that I intend, which will address another matter that was addressed by the former Secretary of State whom I quoted earlier. People across Northern Ireland are frustrated that Members of the Legislative Assembly continue to draw a full salary while not performing all the duties that they were elected to do. I will therefore be asking for this House’s support to enable me to reduce MLAs’ salaries appropriately.

Let me end by repeating that the overriding priority of this Government is to implement, maintain and protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which has been the bedrock of so much of the progress in Northern Ireland over the past quarter-century. In recent days, some people have called for joint authority in Northern Ireland. Let me say that that will not be considered. The UK Government are absolutely clear that the consent principle governs the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, under which Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom. We will not support any arrangements that are inconsistent with that principle. In addition, we remain fully committed to the long-established three-strand approach to Northern Ireland affairs.

As we approach the 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, I have found myself reflecting on the fact that political progress in Northern Ireland has so often required courage, understanding and compromise. I hope that the measures that I have announced in my statement will allow some extra time for those qualities to be displayed once again. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Opposition spokesperson, Peter Kyle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive tone, and for the way in which we have worked together since I took over this role. I welcome the fact that he, too, noted the contents of the Fiscal Council’s report—issued yesterday—and its explanation of what such a budget deficit means in real terms for Northern Ireland’s finances, and the difficulties that it creates.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about bringing all the parties together, and I would be delighted to do so. The one thing that I suppose the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland can do is convene, and there are many conversations to be had. I know that all the parties are very willing to talk to me, and I hope they are also very willing to talk to each other. So I shall certainly take that opportunity, but I also enjoy my individual conversations with them, and believe them to be very important indeed.

The hon. Gentleman asked about updating the House and the Northern Ireland parties on the ongoing negotiations on the EU protocol. First, it is not for me to update the House on those negotiations; it is the Foreign Secretary who is conducting those. Secondly, on the basis of my experience—I spent a decade in the European Parliament, and have now spent 12 years in this place—I reckon that it is probably quite unhelpful, in many respects, to provide a running commentary on negotiations. However, I understand the sentiment behind the hon. Gentleman’s request, and I will ask the Foreign Secretary to see what can be done to offer appropriate briefings to the parties concerned.

The legislation that I will introduce is intended to create the time and space needed for the talks between the UK and the EU to develop, and for the Northern Ireland parties to work together to restore the devolved institutions as soon as possible. I think it only right that, as we move forward, I do update the House regularly on those matters.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Simon Hoare.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I welcome his proposals with regard to the pay cut, and I agree with him that now is the time for bravery, leadership and compromise, such as we saw during the period leading up to the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

My right hon. Friend said to the Select Committee recently, in relation to the rubric of the formation of the Executive, that there should be a bottom-up rather than a top-down review. May I ask him to reflect on that, given the impasse that we are in and given the more than desperate requirement for functioning devolution for the people of Northern Ireland at a time of high inflation, high interest rates and a high cost of living? Surely, in the 21st century, no one party should have a veto on devolution.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the Select Committee Chair for his words. That session before the Committee a few weeks ago was my first ever session as Secretary of State. I appreciate what he has said, in many ways, but the bedrock of the peace and prosperity that has flowed through Northern Ireland’s veins for the last 25 years is the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and the three strands are absolutely clear about both consent and majorities.

I understand that various political parties, and indeed others, are now talking about how things might change in the future, and how reformation, as the hon. Gentleman put it, could occur. I know that those conversations are taking place. However, my job at this point—and I hope that this is what my statement does—is to ensure, as I keep reminding the House, that we have the time and the space that are necessary for the talks between the UK and the EU to develop, and for the Northern Ireland parties to work together to restore devolved institutions as soon as possible.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

I, too, thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I very much echo his sentiment that Northern Ireland is governed best when it is governed locally, but it is also important to recognise that government and politics in Northern Ireland work best when there are good and productive relations between London and Dublin, and between the UK and the European Union.

Northern Ireland has been in the unfortunate position of having both its Governments paralysed by inaction over the past few months, albeit for different reasons, but we have made clear our view that the best place for Members of the Legislative Assembly to be—and where the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland expect them to be—is at work in Stormont, holding a functioning Executive to account as it gets on with overseeing the delivery of vital public services. We do not think it serves the interests of people in Northern Ireland for there not to be an Executive in place, but neither would it serve their interests to hold an election, which, if it achieved anything, would only be to further entrench already well-dug positions. We therefore look forward to the legislation on the period for Executive formation, to allow for essential decision making to take place in the meantime and to allow for some long overdue negotiations to take place.

While we have been clear that the protocol was a necessary measure to protect Northern Ireland from Brexit, we have also been clear that it is not unreasonable in the light of experience for the UK Government to try to renegotiate it. Does the Secretary of State agree that any new settlement on the protocol cannot only be about Northern Ireland and that a revised settlement will only be a better settlement if it eases trade for all parts of the UK, including the UK-EU export trading environment, rather than just trade between GB and Northern Ireland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I know that he was on the Order Paper earlier today and did not get to ask his question of me then. I had a fairly witty riposte, which I will use next time. However, based on the precedent that I talked about earlier—when the late James Brokenshire was Secretary of State, we went through this process and there was a review—the percentage that I would be looking at would be the same as then, which was 27.5%.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today and for responding to questions for 52 minutes.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Debate between Chris Heaton-Harris and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 27th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Evans. The Division bells in the immediate vicinity of the Chamber do not seem to have rung, and I am not sure whether that means that they have not rung elsewhere.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and shall ask for the matter to be investigated immediately.

National Planning Policy Framework

Debate between Chris Heaton-Harris and Nigel Evans

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

I am going to whizz through my speech and, I hope, leave plenty of time for my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) to make his comments.

I welcome the NPPF and many of its changes, because I was not happy with the original draft document, as the Minister well knows. The Minister knows also that in Daventry we are part of a joint planning unit, with South Northamptonshire council and Northampton borough council, and, although we might struggle to have a local plan in place in 12 months, we have an emerging joint core strategy across the area. If it were to be adopted as a local plan post consultation, I wonder whether it could be treated as a local plan, because it would afford those areas the protection that they would like.

I associate myself with the comments on the abolition of the regional spatial strategies and would very much like to be copied into the note—or if there is an answer today, even better—about the timing.

The Minister knows my concerns about the Planning Inspectorate, and I understand that he has written to a constituent of mine, saying that there is a chance of its duties, or the inspectorate itself, being reviewed soon, so I should like to hear something about that.

I would like a quick moment on renewable energy, my favourite subject. In previous answers to me, the Minister said that criteria can be set for renewable energy locally, but will he confirm that that could include the efficiency of such projects?

I have one point about wind farms, because, owing to the confusion in previous advice, noise has become an issue in planning. The night-time limit on mining is 42 dB, but using the same metric, we are going to allow wind farms to be noisier, at 45 dB, so could the Secretary of State confirm that the list of revoked planning policies in the NPPF includes by implication the annexes and companion guides to all previously revoked policies?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

To resume his seat at 5.40 pm, I call Mark Pawsey.

European Union Bill

Debate between Chris Heaton-Harris and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I remind the Committee that there will be no separate clause 9 stand part debate. If anyone wishes to make any comments relevant to that, now is the time to do so.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I shall speak mainly to the amendments I have tabled, talk about the general opt-ins and ask a couple of questions about the written ministerial statement that was issued last Thursday, particularly on how aspects of it might work in the future. I always have questions about the who and when of decision taking.

My amendment 27 deals with something that is missing from the Bill—the body known as Eurojust. Eurojust is not the European public prosecutor, but it represents a massive step towards a European public prosecutor. Under article 85 of TFEU, its remit falls under ordinary legislative procedure, so a proposal comes from the Commission, qualified majority voting applies in the Council and co-decision applies within the European Parliament. It already has a huge amount of power—or it will have, when it is set up.

In April 2010, the European Commission published a document delivering

“an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe’s citizens”,

which was an action plan implementing the Stockholm programme. The Stockholm programme is the five-year European Union plan for justice and home affairs measures, which was adopted by the European Council in December 2009. On page 18 of the document, the European Commission states that in 2012, it will make a proposal for an EU regulation

“giving Eurojust powers to directly initiate investigations.”

Even if the current Government do not opt into the proposal, there is nothing in the Bill to require them to seek Parliament’s or the people’s approval to opt in once the regulation is adopted, allowing Eurojust to initiate investigations in the UK, for example. This is a massive step towards the European public prosecutor. I hope the Minister will reassure me that he will address that point at some stage, if not today.

It may be useful if I provide some examples of significant justice and home affairs matters that the last Government opted into. I could have picked any issue in that category, but I chose the issue of asylum because I know that it always gets the blood flowing.

Among other things, directive 2004/83-EC

“on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted”

sets out the rights enjoyed by those who have been granted refugee status. Some of them go beyond the rights approved for the 1951 Geneva convention on refugees, such as those relating to access to the employment market and social security.

Directive 2003/9/EC,

“laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers”,

includes provisions on the rights of asylum seekers to access the jobs market in certain circumstances, and on the accommodation that must be offered to them. Directive 2005/85/EC

“on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for the granting and withdrawing of refugee status”

lays down various restrictions and requirements regarding the procedures that member states can follow in processing asylum claims and withdrawing refugee status. They include specific requirements for the possibility of legal challenge by asylum seekers to various decisions taken as part of the process.

Those pieces of legislation were part of the first wave of the construction of the common European asylum system that was first called for in the Tampere European Council of October 1999. The Commission has been pressing on with further legislation to build that common system since then, and over the past two years it has presented three proposals for directives to replace those that I have cited. The general thrust of the proposals is a desire to further “harmonise” asylum policy and processes across the EU and, as a consequence, to limit national discretion yet further. As it happens, the last Government decided not to opt into those later proposals; but what would happen if this Government, or a future Government, chose to opt into them? It is realistic to assume that, under the Bill, Parliament would have no legal control.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) that the Bill constitutes a step forward in one respect, and I congratulate the Minister on advancing so far. The written ministerial statement on justice and home affairs scrutiny laid before the House last Thursday contains a great deal of common sense, but I think that there is a need for further discussion of the consequences that will flow from it with the European Scrutiny Committee and other interested parliamentarians. Let me quote the key passage. It states that

“in circumstances where there is particularly strong parliamentary interest in the Government's decision on whether or not to opt in to such a measure, the Government express their willingness to set aside Government time for a debate in both Houses on the basis of a motion on the Government's recommended approach on the opt-in. The precise details of these arrangements to allow such debates and the circumstances in which Government time would be set aside will be the subject of further consultation with the European Scrutiny Committees, business managers”

—otherwise known as the wonderful Whips who are so kind and gentle to us all in this place—

“and the Commons and Lords Home Affairs and Justice Select Committees. These discussions will also need to determine how arrangements would operate during periods of parliamentary recess and dissolution of Parliament.”

That is all pretty good.

“However, the Government believe that as a general rule, it would be appropriate to do so in circumstances where they propose to opt in to a measure which would have a substantial impact on the United Kingdom's criminal or civil law, our national security, civil liberties or immigration policy. The Government will also put in place analogous arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny of decisions to opt-out of measures under the Schengen protocol.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 52WS.]

The written ministerial statement raises a number of questions. I shall talk about a couple of them now, but I would like to think that discussions can be ongoing and we can flesh out the detail. What would constitute “particularly strong parliamentary interest”? How, therefore, is a debate in Government time triggered? Would it be triggered by a referral by the European Scrutiny Committee? That could be complemented by an additional right whereby a certain number of MPs could trigger such a debate. Does the commitment to a debate and vote cover the opt-in to a justice and home affairs law already adopted by the other member states? The written ministerial statement seemed to indicate otherwise. Similarly, does the commitment cover the opt-in to new aspects of the existing Schengen acquis, such as common visa rules, where this opt-in is not covered by clause 6 of the Bill? Would it cover the opt-in to a pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice law that has ceased to apply to the UK because it exercised the bloc opt-out before June 2014? If it does cover that, how would Parliament be made aware that such an opt-in was being considered by the Government, given that this could happen at any time?