Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

It was never given a chance because this Government dropped their appeal—something I will return to shortly.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Burghart]

No.

Let me start with conditional immunity. The legacy Act provided immunity to individuals in return for their providing an account to the commission that was true to the best of their “knowledge and belief”. That is the immunity to which the Government are now opposed, but I am afraid that that objection is born of acute political amnesia. This House will know that the Blair Government accepted that the price of ending the conflict was a departure from the norms of criminal justice in Northern Ireland. They gave us the early release of 483 prisoners, 143 of whom were serving life sentences, including, it must be said, the man who in 1984 tried to kill the entire British Cabinet; the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), which limits prison terms to two years; the decommissioning of weapons legislation, which allowed for the destruction of forensic evidence that would have led to convictions; and an effective amnesty for all those who provided information to the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains—in short, immunity in return for information.

We also had the controversial letters of comfort—156 of them. One was received by John Downey, thought to have been the Hyde Park bomber, the case against whom collapsed on the production of his letter. It had apparently been issued in error, but nevertheless that letter effectively granted him immunity from prosecution. Even if, as Labour now claims, the on-the-runs were not intended to grant immunity, the use of the royal prerogative of mercy on at least 13 occasions certainly was.

Even if that was not enough, it was very much the intention of the last Labour Government to create a scheme for immunity. We know that because in November 2005, Peter Hain, now Lord Hain—the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—brought legislation to this House in the form of the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, which was explicitly intended to create immunity from prosecution for terrorists. That was on the face of the Bill. The now Secretary of State was in the Cabinet at the time; he will have been supportive of that legislation—legislation that he now refers to as a moral outrage. That Government eventually dropped the legislation, not because of opposition in this House, but because of the opposition of Sinn Féin, who withdrew their support once they discovered that the scope was being extended to cover the security forces and the police.

[Colum Eastwood]

Let me take this opportunity to refresh the shadow Secretary of State’s memory. Sinn Féin actually supported that piece of legislation. Gerry Adams is on record as supporting that piece of legislation—I wonder why. Sinn Féin also supported, at one point, amnesty for everybody because it suited them. Why was that piece of legislation overturned? Because the Bloody Sunday families pressurised Sinn Féin, who in turn pressurised the Government, to drop it. That is what happened.

[Alex Burghart]

I hate to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but if he goes back and looks at the news stories from the time, he will discover very clearly that Sinn Féin withdrew their support for the Bill once the Labour Government decided they would extend the scope of the Bill to cover security forces and police officers. The republicans never wanted equity; they wanted a one-sided agreement that would privilege only the terrorists and not the Army. I say all that to highlight the absurdity of Labour’s opposition to our legislation, and to remind the House that the proposals presented to us today are the opposite of what Labour believed was necessary, in the words of Peter Hain, to complete the peace process 20 years ago.

No doubt the Government will say, as the Secretary of State already has, that they have no choice but to change our legislation because it was found to be incompatible with the European convention on human rights. But that is only partially true. While it is the case that the High Court in Belfast found that conditional immunity was incompatible with the ECHR, I am sure that the Secretary of State knows that that court, despite its considerable strengths, is not the summit of the UK legal system. The last Conservative Government were appealing the court’s finding, but when the Labour Government came into power in July 2024, they dropped that appeal and they have never explained why. They had every opportunity to take it to the highest court in the land, and they declined to do so.

In legal circles, the finding of the High Court in Belfast is considered highly disputable. Why? Because the law strongly suggests that if the same logic was applied to the peace process legislation that I have already mentioned—the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, and the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims’ Remains) Act 1999—then all of that legislation would be deemed incompatible with the European convention and would have to be struck down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

The right hon. Gentleman raises interesting and important points. We are concerned about the question of who will have access to sensitive national security information within the legacy commission’s framework? It would be good to have clarity on that from the Minister later.

Sixthly, there was some confusion on the Labour Front Bench recently about whether former IRA personnel would be able to serve as a legacy commission officer or as a member of the victims and survivors advisory group. Perhaps when we get to Committee the Minister could clear that up and provide legal guarantees that that will not be the case.

[Colum Eastwood]

Will the shadow Secretary of State remind the House who is actually in Government in Northern Ireland and if there are any former paramilitaries involved at all?

[Alex Burghart]

The Labour party is in power in Northern Ireland—it has formed the Government of the United Kingdom.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) said, it would be good to get legal guarantees about who will be able to serve on the legacy commission and the victims and survivors advisory group.

Lastly, veterans have been asking publicly for the inclusion of the word “veteran” in the Bill. They do not consider themselves victims or survivors; they consider themselves veterans, and they hope that the Government will recognise them as such in legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Fifty years ago this month, Columba McVeigh was taken away by the IRA. He was murdered and his body was disappeared. His family are still searching for his remains. Two years later, the same happened to Captain Robert Nairac. Before that, there was Jean McConville, who we know about—a widowed mother of 10, disappeared by the IRA. Eventually, many years later, her family were reunited with her remains.

The people who carried out those tragic murders—those despicable war crimes—would, if the Conservative party had its way, be free from any concern and from prosecution. Majella O’Hare was 12 years old when she was shot by a British soldier on her way to chapel in Armagh. The same goes for Majella. Patsy Gillespie was chained to a van by an IRA unit and made to drive the van with a bomb into an army base on the Buncrana Road in Derry. Patsy was killed along with five other soldiers, and the people who murdered them would be free from prosecution if it were up to the Members on the Opposition Benches.

I have to say that as I sat with the families of Bloody Sunday in a court last month and looked at their devastated faces after 53 years of searching for justice, I expected better from some of our leaders and politicians. I did not expect tweets with the Parachute Regiment insignia being put out by some senior Members of this House and I did not expect fulsome support for Soldier F from others. Let me just put this on the record, because it is important. It seems to me that lots of people who talk about Bloody Sunday never actually bothered to read the Saville inquiry—an inquiry that was, of course, set up by a British Government, led by a British judge and supported by subsequent British Prime Ministers.

Soldier F, by his own admission, killed five people on Bloody Sunday. He killed Michael Kelly and William McKinney. He shot James Wray in the back and while Wray was lying face down on the floor in Glenfada Park, Soldier G came over and finished him off, standing on top of him and shooting him in the back. Soldier F then shot Paddy Doherty, who was crying out that he did not want to die alone, so Bernard McGuigan crawled to him waving a white handkerchief. What did Soldier F do to Bernard McGuigan?

[Jim Allister]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Colum Eastwood]

I am going to finish this. What did Soldier F do to Bernard McGuigan? He shot him in the head, killing him instantly. He then tried to kill an Italian journalist who was looking through a window in the Rossville flats. Soldier F shot six bullets into that window and by a miracle Fulvio Grimaldi survived. Soldier F then went on to pervert the course of justice by lying through his teeth, claiming that four of the people he shot, who were subsequently proven to be innocent civilians, were engaged in riotous behaviour. He went to Fort George army base, where the people who were arrested that day were being held. He assaulted several civilians, including a Catholic priest, Terence O’Keeffe. He then stood a 16-year-old boy, Denis McLaughlin, up against a gas blow heater until he fainted and collapsed. What did he do then? He kicked the young fella to his feet and asked him whether he wanted a drink. When the young man answered that he did, he spat in his mouth.

A few months later, on 7 September 1972, Soldier F went to the Shankill Road—we do not hear that from Unionist politicians, by the way—and admitted shooting a Protestant man called Robert Johnston. He lied again, saying that Robert was a gunman. He was not, and the coroner’s court made that absolutely clear. Robert Johnston was totally innocent as well. I have never once heard a Unionist politician, or anybody in this House, stand up for Robert Johnston and the other man killed on that day.

[Jim Allister]

Is the hon. Member saying to this House that the evidence of the person just described, Soldier G, who he has described as a liar and a perjurer, should have been used to convict Soldier F? Does the hon. Member not accept the verdict of our court? He appeals for justice. Our courts have given a verdict on Soldier F. Does he accept it?

[Colum Eastwood]

There was one reason that I and the Bloody Sunday families accepted the verdict. It was because the point was made absolutely clear: between 1970 and 1974, the British Government, the British Army, the Royal Military Police and the RUC were engaged in a cover-up of mass proportions, when any single member of the British Army who was arrested was questioned without legal representation and not under caution. That meant that any of those cases were doomed before we even got started.

What I am laying out in this House today—and the hon. and learned Member might not like it—is not whether or not there was a conviction in the court; I am laying out the truth, not as I see it but as Soldier F admitted it, and as was found by an international inquiry of truth that was set up by the Labour Government and accepted by them as well. It was also accepted by Prime Minister Cameron, who said that what happened on that day was “unjustified and unjustifiable.” Then, we see the British Government and the MOD paying at least £4.3 million to defend somebody whose actions they knew were unjustified and unjustifiable. That is the truth. Those are the facts. He got far more legal representation than anybody would under legal aid, and if anybody wants to check those figures out, they are available for all to see.

What has happened in this debate is that people seem unable to come to the simple fact that every single murder was wrong, whether it was committed by the IRA or by the British Government, and that not one single person should be free from prosecution. They should not be allowed impunity. As for those people who stand in this House and talk about how great the British Army was and how much they care about the British Army, if that is your position, why then are you accepting and supporting people who committed mass murder?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. How many times do I have to remind colleagues about the use of “you” and “your”? There is not much time left.

--- Later in debate ---

[Colum Eastwood]

Why are those Members supporting people who, by their own admission, murdered innocent civilians—civilians who should be seen by anybody in this House as citizens of the United Kingdom? Everybody can see the hypocrisy that has been on display in this place many times. I know that many people in this House served in Northern Ireland. Well, there are lots of people at home watching this who live in Northern Ireland and they are sick, sore and tired of this. If this legislation has any chance of giving people some truth and justice, it should be allowed to proceed. We of course have issues with the Bill. We have issues around the national security parts of it and around sensitive information, and we will table amendments in that regard in the process, but we have to give this a chance. We have to give our victims a chance, and all this—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call Tom Tugendhat.

Oral Answers to Questions

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

The provisions that apply exclusively and only to service personnel are: first, the arrangements to prevent cold calling—a protocol will be agreed with the commission in relation to that—and secondly, not being required to rehearse the history when the Ministry of Defence would be perfectly capable of providing that information. The hon. and learned Gentleman, being a distinguished lawyer, will know that, in respect to other arrangements for witnesses, the law requires that they are available to all witnesses.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Many families have been struggling and campaigning for years for truth and justice, and they are now hopeful that we can get to the truth. We know that MI5 admitted only a few months ago that it had not given all of the files over to Operation Kenova. I am also aware that there are many Northern Ireland Office and MOD files that have not yet gone through the freedom of information process and are therefore not available to the National Archives. Will the Secretary of State commit today to ensuring that those files are available to the new legacy commission?

[Hilary Benn]

The legacy commission has the right to receive all information that it requires to do its job. We are proposing in the legislation to amend the arrangements for disclosure, to require the Secretary of State to conduct a balancing exercise, which was not in the previous Act, and to require the Secretary of State to give reasons, in line with standards that apply across the UK. In addition, any decision of the Secretary of State is open to be judicially reviewed. Those are important changes that I hope will give people in Northern Ireland greater confidence.

Northern Ireland Troubles

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said. I hope he knows that I will do anything and everything I can to try to find a way forward, in partnership with as many Members of the House as possible. For a long period of time, this question has been subject to the bipartisanship which, in the main, has characterised relations between the parties in the House on matters to do with Northern Ireland. I recognise that there are disagreements in relation to one aspect of what we are putting forward; that does not mean that we cannot work together on the others.

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about the importance of seeing the legislation required in Ireland to give effect to the proposals. I was standing next to the Tánaiste when he made it quite clear—to give an example—that he would ensure legislation was in place to deal with the commitment to enable witnesses to give evidence to the Omagh public inquiry before the hearings resume in March. That seems to be an important example of good faith.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I suppose that the Secretary of State will forgive some of us for being cautious before we are ready to believe that the Government, the state and any paramilitary organisation will give over the information that is required. In fact, right now there are families across the road in the Supreme Court in legal dispute with the Government because the Government are withholding information from them. We know that there is a pattern.

When it comes to inquests, will the Secretary of State look again at the sifting process? Will he give family views primacy when it comes to deciding which cases will have an inquest? Will he drop his proposal to give himself the power to appoint judges in that inquisitorial mechanism? The important principle of the independence of the judiciary needs to be held up.

[Hilary Benn]

On inquests, there are three statutory tests that the Solicitor General will have to apply. In answer to an earlier question, I indicated what they are. Family views will be one of the considerations, but if inquests cannot proceed because of sensitive information, would it not be more sensible to put it into the commission, which can deal with sensitive information, because it has provision for closed hearings?

No doubt my hon. Friend will make the point about appointment processes when we come to discuss the Bill. However, on the agreement on the information-retrieval mechanism, I point out—this is also relevant to the point made by the Opposition—that that was negotiated by the previous Conservative Government and the Irish Government, and it formed part of the Stormont House agreement. What is the purpose of it? It is to enable those who have information to pass it to the body, which can then pass it to the families, and that information will be a protected disclosure, which is not the same as immunity.

That system has worked well through the independent commission for the location of victims’ remains in recovering quite a number of the remains of those who were abducted, tortured, murdered and buried by the IRA. I hope that it is a step forward in going back to what was agreed at Stormont House by the previous Government, the Irish Government and the political parties—well, not all of them—and will be welcomed on all sides.

Oral Answers to Questions

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

The Supreme Court judgment was in 2020, and the last Government could not find a legal solution in almost three years. I am committed to finding one, and I promise that I will update the House when we have found it.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

2. What discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on funding for an addiction treatment centre in Derry, in the context of the New Decade, New Approach agreement, published on 9 January 2020.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Fleur Anderson)]

With New Decade, New Approach, the UK Government committed to make funding available for a range of projects aimed at supporting community and reconciliation initiatives. My officials regularly discuss these commitments with their devolved counterparts. On addiction services, it is now for the Northern Ireland Department of Health to consider how best to use this funding and bring forward a business case to the Government on that basis.

[Colum Eastwood]

The people of Derry were made a promise during the NDNA negotiations. I remember, because I negotiated that particular part of it. They were promised that the Northlands addiction treatment centre would be given £1 million for the development of a brand-new addiction centre. The Northlands organisation has saved countless lives in Derry, but it has now been told by the Department of Health in Stormont that its core funding has been cut, and that the promised money is not guaranteed. Does the Minister agree that the Department of Health is in no position to undermine an international agreement?

[Fleur Anderson]

The hon. Member is a powerful advocate for his constituents, for the Northlands centre, and for the need for services to tackle the scourge of addictions. I join him in recognising the need for support for people with addictions, but given that this matter is devolved, it is now up to the Department for Health to present a business plan, based on its review of addiction services, for the services that will provide the best support for the most people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

As I pointed out in my previous answer, the Windsor framework, which was negotiated by the previous Government and was a huge improvement on the Northern Ireland protocol, is the only available means of managing the challenge of having two systems, with two different sets of rules, and an open border. Not all Members of the House may want to recognise that fact, but it is a fact, and we have to deal with it.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Secretary State will be aware that over the past couple of decades investment from US companies in Northern Ireland has been important for economic growth and for cementing the peace process. As we all await the announcement from the President of the United States later today, will the Secretary of State give some thought to supporting businesses that could be detrimentally affected by any potential tariffs in Northern Ireland?

[Hilary Benn]

We are going to have to wait and see what the US Administration decide. As I have already indicated, the Government will take the steps that are necessary in the national interest, but we are seeking to negotiate an agreement, and that work is continuing, notwithstanding what is announced later today.

Northern Ireland City Deals

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

The right hon. Member is very generous and kind to me, but I cannot claim credit for the Belfast city deal—it was unaffected by the announcement that the Treasury made—and the signing of the full financial deal for the Derry and Strabane city deal was scheduled anyway. After clarification, that deal is going ahead, but when I meet the chief executives shortly, I hope to learn more about the point she raised about the practical impact. It is important that we understand the impact; that will inform the representations that are made.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

It seems to me that these questions would be better directed at the Treasury, because that is where the decision was made. I thank the Secretary of State for the work he did over the weekend after the 17th to secure the much-needed Derry city deal. He has said that there will be an update in the Budget about the other two deals that have been paused. Can he confirm whether that will be an update or a decision?

[Hilary Benn]

Although my hon. Friend encourages me to, I will not speak for the Chancellor. She will tell us what is in the Budget when she stands up on 30 October.

Patrick Finucane Murder

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the Opposition spokesperson for his opening remarks, and I will respond directly to his very legitimate questions.

What is unique about this case—I apologise for the length of the opening statement but I thought it was really important to take the House through the history—is the commitment given on two previous occasions by the Government of our country that there would be a public inquiry. To come to his last question, it sets no precedent, but there were exceptional circumstances relating to this case that led me to take this decision.

I will of course, especially as the Finucane family have been waiting 35 years, seek to establish the inquiry as quickly as possible. We have to appoint a judge. The judge then has to be consulted by myself about the terms of reference. The time it takes will depend on how the inquiry unfolds. I am acutely conscious of cost—the hon. Gentleman’s point was extremely fair—which is why it seems to me that, given all the material and information that is already out there, what the inquiry can most usefully do is not seek to go over all of that, but interrogate the information, material and witnesses as necessary. As the Supreme Court made clear, that is what has been missing that led it to conclude that this was not article 2 compliant.

We have a commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act, and we will begin that process shortly, finally laying to rest the conditional immunity. The hon. Gentleman will have heard what the Government have said about civil cases and inquests. On the independent commission, while I shadowed this role in Opposition and since taking up the office of Secretary of State, I have been very clear that while we want to return to the principles of the Stormont House agreement, there needs to be information recovery and there needs to be continuing investigation. It is true that the agreement envisaged two separate bodies, but those functions are combined in the ICRIR. As I have been very frank in saying, now that body has been established and all its staff appointed, I really do not see the point in abolishing it only to recreate something that looks very much like what we have today. It is a pragmatic decision that I have taken. I also made clear in my statement that I am committed to considering further steps to strengthen the ICRIR’s independence and its powers as necessary. I hope that provides the hon. Gentleman with the reassurance he was looking for.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

On 17 January 1989, Conservative Minister Douglas Hogg claimed in Parliament that solicitors in Northern Ireland were

“unduly sympathetic to the cause of the IRA.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 17 January 1989; c. 508.]

Seamus Mallon MP responded that he had

“no doubt that there are lawyers walking the streets or driving on the roads of the North of Ireland who have become targets for assassins’ bullets as a result of the statement that has been made tonight.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 17 January 1989; c. 519.]

Three weeks later, lawyer Pat Finucane was shot 14 times and murdered in his own house in front of his wife and three children.

I commend Geraldine Finucane and the Finucane family, including of course the hon. Member for Belfast North (John Finucane), on their tireless campaigning to get to this point, and I thank the Secretary of State for finally doing the right thing on behalf of the British Government in announcing this inquiry. When does he envisage the inquiry beginning?

[Hilary Benn]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his appreciative words. He alludes to a very, very unhappy history in this and many other cases. I do take the point made by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) about all the pain and suffering that all families have experienced, but in this particular case, I have decided that this inquiry is the right thing to do.

Northern Ireland

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

This Humble Address reads like a love letter to the DUP—I just caution the DUP not to get too comfortable, because I am not sure that it will be a forever love. A couple of weeks ago, the Secretary of State said in this House that we needed the majority “consent of both” the Unionist community and the nationalist community to achieve constitutional change in Ireland. I wrote to him after that asking him to correct the record, because, of course, we only need a simple majority to see constitutional change in Ireland. He wrote back to me correcting what he had said, but he has not corrected the record in this House. Will the Minister take this opportunity to do so, please?

[Mr Baker]

I will correct the record: all that is required is a simple majority, just as the hon. Gentleman says. I am sure that we all regret the confusion that has arisen. I will later in my speech address specifically some of the points that he has raised, but I will return them in due course if he will allow me.

The restoration of the strand 1 institutions is welcome news. I am hopeful that we will soon also see the North South Ministerial Council and other strand 2 implementation bodies returned to full operation, alongside the meetings of the British-Irish Council and the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference that are already scheduled to take place in the coming months and which I have attended in the past. That three-stranded approach—that delicate and careful balance—honours the spirit and letter of the agreement, providing a fitting tribute to those brave men and women who, some 26 years ago, helped to deliver the agreement that is the bedrock of so much peace, stability and progress in Northern Ireland.

This Humble Address also rightly acknowledges the foundational importance of the Acts of Union 1800, including the economic provisions under article 6 of those Acts. The Government are clear that the new arrangements committed to in the Command Paper, including the UK internal market system, ensure the smooth flow of trade across the UK. As the House knows, we have already legislated to those ends.

The final part of this Humble Address relates to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. As Unionists, it is important that this Government emphasise how much Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom is valued and respected, both in law and in practice. Nevertheless, our appreciation of Northern Ireland within the UK is set in the context of respecting the core principles and relationships at the heart of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. At the heart of that agreement is the principle of consent. That means that Northern Ireland will remain an integral part of the United Kingdom, with the Acts of Union and the economic rights under article 6 properly respected and protected in law and with the sovereignty of Parliament undiminished, ruling out joint authority between London and Dublin, which we will not countenance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

The assurance was given on VAT, and I stand by that assurance. Before this moment, I was not aware of the particular circumstances that the hon. Member has just shared with me. I encourage him either to write to me or to come to see me—perhaps to do both—and let us get to the bottom of it. One thing I am sure of is that we want to get through all these tricky issues as smoothly, transparently and effectively as possible in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland, because it really is time to move on, get public services reformed, get the Government there on to a sustainable basis and allow people to get on with life as usual.

[Colum Eastwood]

rose—

[Mr Baker]

I must give way to the hon. Member once more, but then I think I will finish.

[Colum Eastwood]

The point is actually in the Humble Address—and the Government seem to be going out of their way both in the Command Paper and the Humble Address to make the point—that, in the Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, there is no provision for joint authority. Of course, we all know—those of us who have been around long enough—that many things have changed since then, not least at St Andrews. But, that aside, would the Minister confirm to this House that there is also no provision in the Good Friday agreement or the 1998 Act for direct rule from London?

[Mr Baker]

Strand 1 is of course a matter for the United Kingdom, and while Northern Ireland is within the United Kingdom, everyone would expect us to make Northern Ireland work within the UK. Although there is no provision for direct rule, I gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that we went to some lengths, and at some cost, not to return to direct rule at this time. We have allowed events to evolve as they have precisely because we did not wish to return to direct rule. We are extremely grateful that there is a returned Executive in Northern Ireland, but we have a responsibility to all citizens of Northern Ireland to ensure that they are governed effectively. That is why we have put in place the arrangements that we made, and I for one am grateful that we did not have to go any further.

United Kingdom Internal Market

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

We understand that point and we are listening to the hon. Gentleman and others. We are resolute that of course Northern Ireland must have proper access to veterinary medicines, and will be glad to work with him and others. He will appreciate what the priorities are and have been, and we will certainly continue to make pursuing veterinary medicines a high priority. I am personally resolute on the issue and look forward to pursuing it.

The regulations must be seen in the context of the overall package agreed between the Government and the DUP. The passage of these regulations demonstrates the Government’s commitment to taking forward that whole package and to maintaining the participation and trust of the whole community in Northern Ireland’s political processes and the Stormont institutions going forward.

If I may touch on what the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) said earlier, I, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the whole Government are completely committed to the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement in all its dimensions. As I said to one nationalist politician—about a year ago now, if I recall—it is perfectly possible to be a Unionist and support the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement in all its dimensions, just as it is possible to be a nationalist or a republican and support the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement in all its dimensions. It is the beauty and the triumph of the agreement that we can all support it and move forward.

I am trying to say this as gently as possible: I can understand a degree of discomfort from the hon. Gentleman, because this is a big breakthrough for Unionism. A Unionist Conservative Government have agreed to do Unionist things with the Democratic Unionist Party, and that is something I am very proud of. However, that does not in any way diminish our impartiality, or our commitment to governing or seeing to the government of Northern Ireland in a proper manner.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

rose—

[Mr Baker]

Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, may I just say that I think, after the experience of the last eight years—perhaps the last 14—I need defer to no one in my vociferous commitment to democratic self-determination.

[Colum Eastwood]

The Minister says he supports the Good Friday agreement in all its parts. Does he support the bit that says that the Government should be rigorously impartial?

[Mr Baker]

Yes, I—[Interruption.] I do not quite hear the comment from the leader of the DUP.

Northern Ireland

Colum Eastwood Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It has been a pleasure to work with all the party leaders over the time I have been Secretary of State. I am absolutely convinced—indeed, I have seen this on a number of occasions—that they can work together behind the scenes. It was striking last February, when Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell, a police officer, was shot by dissident republicans, how all the political leaders of Northern Ireland came together in such a strong repudiation of that attack. I have seen them work together behind the scenes on a whole host of things, and I know that, when Stormont is up and running, they will be able to deliver strong government, make the right decisions for Northern Ireland and make Northern Ireland a much more prosperous place. I thank him for his intervention, and he is absolutely right.

Again, let me say from the outset that what united the Government and the DUP was our shared determination to strengthen our Union.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

There was a memorial service on Tuesday for somebody who I think never gets enough credit for his role in the peace process. Peter Brooke once said that Britain had “no selfish strategic interest” in Northern Ireland, and that was later repeated in the Downing Street declaration. Reading the Command Paper, it seems to me that the Government have moved from that position, which I think undermines the Good Friday agreement. They seem to have moved away from the principle of rigorous impartiality. Does the Secretary of State agree with Peter Brooke’s assertion and the Downing Street declaration, or is he moving to a different place?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I disagree with what the hon. Gentleman said at the end of his intervention and completely agree with what Sir Peter Brooke said at the time and our commitment to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all of its different facets.

I want to stress our determination to strengthen the Union, and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) has powerfully argued that strong and effective devolution delivering a thriving Northern Ireland within our United Kingdom is the surest way to ensure that this United Kingdom remains united in the time ahead. In taking the steps he has taken, he is delivering far more for the future of Northern Ireland in the Union than any of his detractors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I note my hon. Friend’s point. As I said yesterday, I hope he recognises what we are doing in this statutory instrument—making Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom a strong addition to the section. As I said to him yesterday, his original clause has been a big part of the solution to this conundrum. I am grateful to him for it and completely understand the point he has just made and thank him for it.

[Colum Eastwood]

From listening to the Secretary of State and reading the Command Paper, we would perhaps think there is only the Democratic Unionist party in Northern Ireland and no people with any other constitutional preferences, but of course there are many people in the north of Ireland who want to see a new Ireland as soon as possible. Despite what might be in the Command Paper and what the Secretary of State and others have said, does he agree that the Good Friday agreement is sacrosanct and that it is absolutely clear that if people vote for constitutional change, that is what will happen—that it is not up to the British Government or anybody else; it is up to the people of Ireland, north and south?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Yes, nothing that we are doing here changes that fundamental principle. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to make that point and I hope I have clarified it for him properly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

We will give legal direction to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs on these matters. We will use other legal instruments for the deal, but it is for us to give legal direction to DAERA on that point.

[Colum Eastwood]

We all accept that the DUP had a particular issue about all this, but does the Secretary of State accept that it is not good practice in Northern Ireland to have a one Government, one party process? Will he commit in the future to having a much more inclusive process for dealing with these types of issues?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point; he makes it fairly. To be honest with him, there was one party that was staying out of government, and that party represents a community. I did try to keep him as updated as I could throughout the process, as we have done with the other political parties, but I needed to talk more to the party we needed to persuade to go back into government.

In future, I will always try to treat everybody equitably, but I hope the hon. Gentleman understands that I had to ensure there was an agreement that the Democratic Unionist party could stand behind so that I could start to rebuild the trust—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) used the word “trust”—that had been lost between the Democratic Unionist party and the United Kingdom Government. That is something we had to do between the two of us.

[Colum Eastwood]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way again. I think it has to be understood that there are more people in Northern Ireland than just the DUP and Unionism. I think nationalism feels that north-south has been undermined by the massive emphasis put on east-west. I ask him to think carefully about that. For me, the Command Paper undermines the Good Friday agreement, undermines north-south, and goes far too far in the direction of the DUP’s thinking.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

The hon. Gentleman is a friend of mine, so I hope that he does not mind my disagreeing with him on this. The Command Paper will, I hope, deliver the restoration of Stormont: the most important strand 1 institution of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It will also allow for Ministers to be appointed to the North South Ministerial Council: an important institution in a different strand of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which could then function properly. What the Command Paper does is allow for all strands of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement to start humming again as they should. He will have to forgive me, but I must disagree with him on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I need add nothing to the point made by my hon. Friend. We welcome the explicit reference in the Command Paper to Northern Ireland’s part in the economy of the United Kingdom, including the fact that we are within the customs territory of the United Kingdom. We are part of the UK internal market and it is important that that is maintained.

[Colum Eastwood]

May I put it on record that I think the right hon. Gentleman has done a lot of good work over the past couple of weeks and he has been very brave? It is not easy for a Member to face down people in their own constituency, and it is important that he did. May I also put it on record that the Social Democratic and Labour party do not support the Command Paper? We think it has moved far beyond the principles set out in the Good Friday agreement. It undermines north-south co-operation and has far too much focus on east-west co-operation. Moving on from that point, we need to ensure that any future negotiation is done with all parties and both Governments, so that everybody can feel comfortable in the result.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

The hon. Member has made his point with fortitude and determination, but he will understand that I make no apology as a Unionist for having a focus on protecting, preserving, strengthening and binding together our United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland is a proud part.

Today is an important moment for us as Unionists. The strengthening of our constitutional position within the United Kingdom is important because our primary focus has been on the protection of the Union. In that context, I welcome and draw attention to annex A, paragraph 47 of the Command Paper published yesterday:

“Northern Ireland’s place in the economic union remains the single most important factor in ensuring its prosperity”.

That is the economic union of the United Kingdom: we sell more goods to Great Britain than anywhere else in the world, and we want to maintain our ability to trade freely within our own country. These new arrangements guarantee our unfettered access to the internal market of the United Kingdom, not just now but in all scenarios in the future. The safeguards built into these arrangements will protect our place in the economic union of the United Kingdom.