Freedom of Religion and Belief in Nigeria

Debate between Fiona Bruce and Ian Paisley

Tuesday 6th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce]

I really appreciate the Minister taking these interventions. Will he refer to the high commission the atrocity that took place at Owo on Pentecost well over a year ago? Aid to the Church in Need, one of the excellent NGOs to which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will no doubt refer, has repeatedly asked for help for those who suffered as a result of that atrocity. On Red Wednesday, I brought Margaret Attah and her husband Dominic to the House. She lost an eye and two legs in that attack. Aid to the Church in Need and other Church representatives are asking for help for those who were injured in that attack. I agree that strategic structural help is important in peace building —when I was out there, I met some of the young women who are being worked with in order to engage with local communities—but there is also a need to give immediate support to those who suffer such atrocities.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady has made numerous substantial and detailed interventions— I have lost count now. I think the House would have benefited from a speech from her, as opposed to a series of interventions; I encourage her to bring us a speech next time because of her detailed knowledge of what she is presenting to the House.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Debate between Fiona Bruce and Ian Paisley

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 8th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) —we agree on so many subjects. In my brief contribution, I will pick up on one particular theme that he raised.

I am sure that all hon. Members will regret that we are here today to debate this Bill, which extends, yet again, the time for forming an Executive in Northern Ireland. We had all hoped, when we debated a similar Bill last autumn, that the Executive and Assembly would be back in place by now. I hope that the Secretary of State will therefore give us an update on, as she said last year, the

“clear goal of restoring the devolved power-sharing Executive and Assembly.”—[Official Report, 6 September 2018; Vol. 646, c. 347.]

As that has not happened, this Bill is being brought forward with the stated—and limited—intent of safeguarding the continued delivery of public services, achieved by clarifying the powers of the Northern Ireland civil service to take certain decisions in the absence of Ministers.

Like last year, numerous amendments have been tabled to the Bill to raise important points about policy in the Province. The wide-ranging scope of the amendments reinforces the need for the Assembly to be back up and running as soon as possible, but as I said last year, this short Bill should not be about deciding on key devolved policy issues, which are more properly decided by the people of Northern Ireland and their elected accountable representatives. This Bill is very narrow in scope and that narrow scope should be respected. It is not a Bill that should be used to upset the devolution position. Will the Minister comment on that when he concludes? As the House of Commons explanatory notes say,

“It is simply a series of measures to continue to manage the current period without Northern Ireland Ministers.”

[Ian Paisley]

Is the hon. Lady aware of the briefing passed out this evening by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, which indicates that the amendments tabled to the Bill are about usurping the powers placed in Northern Ireland and bringing them back here? It goes on to say that one amendment would force an oral statement to be made in the House of Commons that would normally be made in the Assembly.

[Fiona Bruce]

I shall comment briefly on that and, if necessary, in more detail in Committee.

This House has agreed that many areas of law and policy should be devolved to the different countries that make up the United Kingdom. Devolution means we accept that we have differing policies in different jurisdictions, and how money is spent can differ between them. There are amendments tabled to the Bill that seek to allow Westminster to materially alter some sensitive areas of the law. I hope the Government will continue to argue that those are matters for Northern Ireland, as has consistently been the Government’s line to date. Will the Minister confirm that? In the debate in the other place on last year’s Bill, the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said:

“the only statutory authority with authority to alter the statutes and statutory instruments is the Legislative Assembly of Northern Ireland and Ministers of that Assembly. There is no power whatsoever in the United Kingdom Parliament to interfere with that while it is devolved.”

That is the position we should uphold.

I am especially concerned about the amendments tabled to the Bill that seek to change the law on abortion in Northern Ireland. I will speak further to those amendments should they be selected for debate in Committee, although I sincerely hope they will not be, as they are out of scope. As Lord Mackay also said in that debate,

“The position is that abortion has been made a devolved subject.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 October 2018; Vol. 793, c. 1233.]

I hope that the Members who tabled those amendments will consider withdrawing them before Committee tomorrow.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Fiona Bruce and Ian Paisley

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

My views on marriage stem from my Christian faith, and I want to thank Members for the respect I have always felt I have had in this place for my faith-based views. I also thank the many constituents of faith and of no faith who have written to me urging me to vote against this Bill—some 95% of those who wrote to me have done so. In doing as they wish today, I am confident that my conscience and, in the absence of any other mandate, my role as representative of my constituents’ views will coincide.

I believe that marriage is a life commitment between a man and a woman for their benefit and the benefit of the children they may have, and for the stability of wider society, and that no Government should redefine it. Indeed, no Government can do so in a workable way, as this Bill illustrates. Let me explain.

The Government say no church minister will be forced to hold a same-sex marriage, but will the legal rights of the many lay people of sincere faith who do not wish to support marriage other than between a man and a woman be affected? What of the Christian couple who own a heritage hotel registered for civil weddings and who wish to continue holding opposite-sex weddings but do not wish to conduct same-sex weddings? I understand that they will have no legal defence whatever against being sued in the courts under the Equality Act for discrimination in the provision of goods and services, and many other businesses will be similarly affected. It is therefore simply incorrect to say that the Bill will have no detrimental effect on religious or other freedoms.

[Ian Paisley]

On religious freedoms, is the hon. Lady aware that after Denmark changed its laws, churches there were forced to conduct same-sex marriages shortly after guarantees were given that they would not be forced to do so?

[Fiona Bruce]

I note that with interest, and hope to comment on it later.

What of the church youth leader or parachurch organisation, or the faith-based charity that puts on marriage preparation classes? Will they be required to accept same-sex couples, or will they have to close their class or their organisation? If they do not, will litigation ensue, with all its attendant stress and costs, whatever the outcome? Will they face the loss of their charitable status or the withdrawal of any local authority grant or facilities because they do not have an acceptable equality and diversity policy? Can anyone guarantee that that will not happen as a result of this Bill? Or will such organisations and people decide to stay silent, and therefore have the precious right of free speech compromised as a result of this Bill?

What of the legal distinction between the public-servant role of the employed registrar, such as Lillian Ladele, in a local registry office and the public function carried out by voluntary registrars appointed by local churches as part of their membership across the country? If those voluntary registrars—those lay people—refuse to officiate at same-sex weddings, will they really be able to defend themselves successfully in discrimination actions in the courts, especially if the case goes to Europe? Without the principle of reasonable accommodation being part of our legislation—as it is in other countries with respect to matters of faith, and as it is in this country with respect to matters of disability—will not the Lillian Ladele precedent return when such cases are sent to Europe? She was unable to pray in aid the ECHR articles on freedom of thought, conscience or religion when she lost her case and her job. Why should people of good conscience risk ending up in the same position?

Charitable Registration

Debate between Fiona Bruce and Ian Paisley

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way in this important debate. She will know that the Brethren run crusades called “every boys rally” and “every girls rally” that attract tens of thousands of young people into their halls. Those young people benefit from social education, physical training and interaction with their local community. That is a major public benefit, and if the big guy is able to crush the little guy, as the Charity Commission is trying to do, that will destroy the social benefit that that church delivers to the community across the United Kingdom. I commend the hon. Lady for bringing the matter to the House.

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point in his characteristically strong manner.

General Matters

Debate between Fiona Bruce and Ian Paisley

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I am grateful for this opportunity to speak about Sunday trading. The point that I want to make is simple.

As Members may recall, on 30 April this year, the Sunday Trading (London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games) Act 2012 was passed. Its effect was to extend Sunday trading hours temporarily during the limited period of 22 July to 9 September.

During the debate on the Bill, I expressed my concerns about those proposals, and in particular about whether they would be used as a precedent for a further—or permanent—extension of Sunday trading hours. I will not repeat those concerns in detail as they are on the record, but they included: the potentially negative impact on family and community life; the need for us all—as individuals and as a nation—to have a recognised rest period each week for our health and well-being; and the potential consequential pressure to work on Sundays, especially for some of the lowest-paid workers in our society, and the subsequent strain on their families. I also referred to concerns raised by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and to the fact that for many people of faith, Sunday still has a special significance.

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Lady is raising an issue that is crucial to our nation’s trade. Was she as concerned as I was on hearing the word “temporary”, which sometimes does not mean what it says on the tin? Temporary provisions in Northern Ireland lasted 30 years, but I hope that through the hon. Lady’s speech, we can obtain absolute clarity that temporary means temporary, and that the extension to the trading laws will cease on the date that was given to Parliament when this matter was first raised.

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because obtaining such clarity is exactly the purpose of my contribution to the debate.

My concerns—and other concerns—were shared by several colleagues during the debate on 30 April. Responding to the debate, the then Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), stated:

“The concern has been expressed that this Bill is somehow a Trojan horse, preparing the way for a permanent relaxation of the rules for large stores. Let me assure hon. Members again that that is not the case.”

Referring to my particular concerns about the impact on families and family time, he stated:

“I think she is absolutely right, so let me say to her that the Bill affects just eight Sundays and the deliberate inclusion of a sunset clause means that the Bill will be removed from the statute book after 9 September. Indeed, as the Secretary of State has made clear, if a future Government were to consider a permanent relaxation, they would have to undertake a full consultation and present new legislation to this House. As the Secretary of State also pointed out, we have no such plans.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 1352-53.]

I was pleased to hear the Minister’s words and I took them as a personal assurance, although I still abstained rather than vote for the proposals. I understood, however, that many of my colleagues also took those words as a firm assurance on behalf of the Government that the temporary alterations to Sunday trading hours would not be further extended or used as a precedent, and hon. Members voted accordingly on that basis.

Some weeks later, towards the end of the wonderful Olympic and Paralympic period of which our nation is so rightly proud, suggestions circulated in the press— I know not from what source they originated—that a permanent deregulation of Sunday trading hours should perhaps be considered, following the limited extension period.

Such suggestions were completely at odds with the statements expressed by more than one Minister during the passage of the Bill. Another Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), stated at the time:

“I want to make it clear that this is a temporary measure and not a test case for a permanent relaxation of the rules in the future”,

and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills stated that the Bill was

“not a signal of the Government’s intent on the broader issue of Sunday trading;”. —[Official Report, 30 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 1293.]

In the light of recent press speculation about a possible further extension to Sunday trading hours, I seek today, either from the Deputy Leader of the House, or after the debate from the new the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), clear confirmation that the assurance given on behalf of the Government still stands, and that despite references to an extension of Sunday trading hours, the Government have no such plans. The Government’s assurance was carefully noted not only by me and many colleagues in the House, but—crucially—by many millions of people across the country.

I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House and the responsible Minister will take this point in the spirit of the utmost courtesy with which I express it, but there is an issue of integrity here. In issuing the confirmation that I seek, Ministers would put an end to continuing speculation that is a cause of concern to many. Of course, the extension of Sunday trading hours was in neither coalition party’s manifesto nor in the coalition agreement.

I turn to some comments that have been made since the summer extension of hours. The British Retail Consortium has recently announced that it does not want to lobby for permanent deregulation of Sunday trading hours. According to Retail Week magazine, momentum for a permanent change among retailers has begun to wane, which may be a result of the BRC’s announcement that retail sales fell by 0.4% in August, compared with August 2011 on a like-for-like basis, with no sign of the Olympic boost that was promoted as a reason for the temporary extension. According to the Association of Convenience Stores, independent retailers reported a loss of sales of up to 20% and a 30% drop in footfall over the Olympic period. That reported negative impact is of considerable concern to many small retailers, which often live on narrow margins, and to their employees.