Northern Ireland (Ministerial Appointments and Regional Rates) Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 24th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The clearest way is for an Executive to be formed. That is the most direct way for assurances to be given and direction to be provided. The lack of political direction at the moment underpins the need for an Executive and political decision making in Northern Ireland at the earliest opportunity. As I have indicated to the House this afternoon, the UK Government are prepared to take action should that be necessary. Our sense of responsibility as the UK Government is to provide the necessary political stability and assurance for the people of Northern Ireland.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

To be absolutely clear, is the Secretary of State stating to the House from the Dispatch Box that the choice is clear: it is devolution or direct rule? By putting in place the points that he has made about appropriations, the ground is being laid for direct rule if that is required.

[James Brokenshire]

I do not want in any way to prejudge the outcome of the coming weeks. I earnestly hope, believe and want to see devolved government re-established in Northern Ireland. That is profoundly in the best interests of Northern Ireland, so that there is local decision making. There should be a strong message across the House of wanting to put that in position at the earliest opportunity. I have been careful in what I have said in laying out the position on the budget, and I have given assurances to allow flexibility for the Northern Ireland civil service to use residual emergency powers to deal with the pressures that it is experiencing and to ensure that public services continue to be run.

I have published a written ministerial statement that sets out indicative departmental allocations which reflect the budget priorities and decisions of the last Executive. They provide a basis for allocations in the absence of an Executive. It is important to make the point that those numbers are not UK Government numbers, but reflect the advice of the head of the Northern Ireland civil service and his assessment of a position that takes account of the priorities of the political parties before the Dissolution of the Assembly, as well as further allocations that he considers are required. They are intended to give clarity to Northern Ireland Departments about the basis on which they may wish to plan and prepare for more detailed decisions, and to discharge their responsibilities in the meantime.

We should, however, make it clear that those totals would not constrain the freedom of an incoming Executive to amend spending allocations, nor would it prevent the UK Government from reflecting on the final allocations in the light of circumstances at the appropriate time. I underline the position set out in the Bill. If agreement is not reached by 29 June, the electoral duty would essentially return to the Secretary of State, who would call an election in a reasonable period. Any incoming Government would need to reflect carefully on the stability of Northern Ireland and, as I have said, the need to deal with certain financial issues. We need to be resolutely focused on the need to get an Executive into position. That is precisely what the Bill allows for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Anderson]

The right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a lot of respect, says that I am promoting what Sinn Féin is saying. I have been very clear about the issues that have led to the impasse—they are not just Sinn Féin issues. I am raising these issues for this House, and for the people outside in the rest of Great Britain who might not have the inside knowledge that he has, to try to identify where the problems are and to point out that people can negotiate their way out of things if they want to.

On talking to the right hon. Gentleman’s party, I met his leader last week to discuss these very issues. I am very pleased that she is prepared to have discussions across the board. We are trying, as we always have, to work in a non-partisan way.

On the armed forces covenant, I am pleased that the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Committee, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), is in the Chamber. We worked together on the covenant. We agreed a report that called on all parties to do the right thing by the people who have served our country, so I do not need to take any lectures from the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) on the armed forces covenant.

I welcome the discussions that the parties have been having. I believe that we can reach an agreement that is not only beneficial to the Irish language community, but—this point has been raised with me by the right hon. Gentleman’s leader in Northern Ireland—that gets more support and respect for the needs and heritage of the Ulster Scots community. I believe that that could be negotiated if people were serious about trying to find a way forward. I understand why some of the parties in Northern Ireland are against legislating on this: it is seen as a side deal that was done by Tony Blair many years ago. That might have been right or wrong at the time, but things have moved on. This is another relatively small step in the right direction that could be made today to try to resolve the outstanding issues.

[Ian Paisley]

Does the hon. Gentleman honestly believe in his heart that any of the things that he has read out today have led to the breakdown of the Assembly? If so, he is really saying that he does not believe in devolution, and that no region of the United Kingdom should have its differences recognised, which devolution allows for, because everything should just be the same across the United Kingdom.

[Mr Anderson]

As somebody who has been a passionate supporter of devolution for many years, I do not accept that criticism.

We have a situation that is at breaking point, and we need to find a way forward. Before I came to this House, I spent all my life in negotiating situations and conflict resolution as a trade union representative. It should be possible to resolve the situation, but that will not happen as long as people are saying that they are not prepared to move on this, that or the other. I am talking about people on both sides, as I shall set out later in my speech. Unless people are prepared to move, the reality is that this House will probably have to take back direct control in Northern Ireland, which would be in nobody’s interests. It would not be in the interests of devolution or of people governing themselves.

I want to move on to the legacy situation. Clearly one of the biggest issues facing all of us—this has been the case for many years—is how we deal with Northern Ireland’s tragic past. The truth is that we have all collectively failed the victims of the troubles, and their ongoing suffering is only compounded by our lack of action. Regardless of the background, or whether they served in uniform, we are depriving them and their families of the truth and the closure that many of them want. The truth, regardless of how hard it is, must be heard.

During my many visits to Northern Ireland, I have heard details of many cases from families who lost loved ones, but one in particular has stayed with me: the case of Samuel Devenney. When I met his family last year, I was informed by them of the details surrounding his death in 1969. I would like the House to bear in mind that date—it is almost 50 years ago. That family have never had access to all the relevant files, which are now held by the Metropolitan police. They were due to be released into the national archives but, yet again, they have been reclassified and are being retained by the police service until at least 2022. That cannot be anything other than a travesty.

I ask Members to think about 1969—it was a very different world. I was a 15-year-old boy starting work as a coalminer. England had won the world cup a few years earlier. We had not joined the Common Market—[Interruption.] I thought that would get a cheer. We were two years away from decimalisation—perhaps that will be the subject of the next campaign. The Beatles were still friends, Brian Jones was still in the Rolling Stones, and Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and Jim Morrison were still alive and making great music—[Interruption.] Yes, Labour was indeed in office, and doing great things.

At that time, however, on 19 April 1969, Mr Devenney died at the hands of Royal Ulster Constabulary officers, who were never prosecuted due to a lack of evidence. Mr Devenney was seen as one of the first victims of the troubles and still today his family are pleading for justice. This is just one of the many cases in Northern Ireland. The lack of progress made by countless Governments—Labour and Conservative—shows a dereliction of duty from us here in Westminster. I am not making a special case for Mr Devenney, other than to point out how long his family have gone without closure. That is completely and utterly unacceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Anderson]

The hon. Gentleman and I have worked together on these issues, and he knows my view that it is obvious that the vast majority of the things done by our forces were not murder. But the process of investigation has fallen apart, and we need to put it back together again so that we can get to the bottom of things. If there are some cases that could be construed as murder—this is quite clear in the agreements that people have signed to try to make the process work—we have to get to the root of them and get them aired out in public. That is all we are saying. I agree with him that the vast majority of things that were done by the forces were in no sense murder. In the interests of all the parties in Northern Ireland, and of the Government, we must get the legacy stuff properly resolved, and that must be properly resourced.

We in Labour accept that there may well be some genuine issues on the national security front, but I say respectfully to the Government that national security must never, ever be used as a cover-up for wrongdoing by Governments and other agents of the state. I include in that my former colleagues in Labour Governments as well as the Secretary of State’s colleagues in former Conservative Governments.

[Ian Paisley]

Before the hon. Gentleman moves off the legacy issue, may I challenge him, because he has spent some time detailing a legacy case, to detail any other case that involves listing a Unionist grievance? That would balance the books in the way that the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) suggested. Does the hon. Gentleman know of any Unionist grievances?

[Mr Anderson]

I do, but I am not prepared to detail such cases today, because I prepared that one, and as I said at the beginning—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to speak, I will tell him exactly why. I used that case because it was so long ago. He probably was not listening—he usually listens, but perhaps he was not doing so—but I made it very clear that I make no differentiation between victims. Whoever they were, however they died or however they were injured, they all deserve the right to have a system in place that enables a trial to be won. That is what the politicians in Northern Ireland are failing to do: they have failed to have a system that works properly. We have to build genuine openness, as well as confidence and trust, because if we do not, people will never be able to move this country forward.

Another issue that I want to raise—I am moving on from the legacy issue—is the abuse of the petition of concern, about which discussions with the political parties have taken place during the past few months. That process was put in place in the original agreements to allow a space for remedying issues, including the abuse of power, raised by one community against another. It was to make sure that that such things could not happen in the institutions, but it is now being used as a veto over progress. This was not the intention, and we must try to get back to the original intention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Anderson]

I have no doubt that people who may want to use the process for the purpose I have described—as a veto, rather than as a genuine way of resolving problems —would say that. Of course they would. However, I am relating to the House the things I am being told as part and parcel of my trying, in my little way, to say that we should find a way to get the Executive up and running again. That is what this is all about; it is not about scoring points, or making points about what happened 40 years ago. I am relating the issues that people are telling me are the reasons why they cannot sit down with each other, and I am saying that any reasonable human being should be trying to find a way through this.

Another issue that I want to address—the renewable heat incentive—is again one on which a reasonable position could be reached. We were all told it was the straw that broke the camel’s back. The Government should work with the parties there, saying that we should get the inquiry going, and when its report comes out, we will work to make sure that any funding shortfall is not laid directly at the feet of the people of Northern Ireland, unless that is done in a way that can be managed over a period of time. That is very important if we are not to end up losing funding for vital public services while this matter is cleared up.

We need the parties to begin to trust each other and to move away from entrenched positions. I say clearly to Sinn Féin from the Opposition Dispatch Box that it should drop its demand for the leader of the DUP to stand aside while the inquiry is going on. It should seek assurances from her—I believe she has given such assurances—that she will co-operate fully with the inquiry, accept its outcomes and will not hinder its progress in any way. That would be a huge step in the direction of rebuilding the trust and confidence that have allowed sworn enemies to govern in Northern Ireland during previous years.

I hope that Members will take what I have said today in the spirit in which it is meant. I have laid before the House the issues that people are telling me are the reasons why the system has fallen apart. Some may be cynical and say that those are not the reasons—we will no doubt hear that over the next few hours—but I am reporting back to the House what I am being told about what we should do to move forward.

I am sad to be in the situation of having a general election. Sadly, the Government’s failure to recognise the impact of that on reaching a resolution in Northern Ireland is symptomatic of the approach they have taken during the past seven years. The lack of direct, meaningful engagement by both the present and the previous Prime Ministers has done nothing but show the people of Northern Ireland that they are little more than an afterthought in this Government’s mind. It is no way to act in a situation that is still one of conflict resolution. The “job done” attitude just does not work.

I welcome the Bill, because it provides more time for the parties to engage in discussions about the formation of an Executive. With a general election looming, it is apparent that the Government did not think of the effect it would have on Northern Ireland. Thankfully, the Bill does not represent direct rule, which it may well have done, so I am pleased that that is out of the way, in the short term at least. It sets a regional rate, which is necessary to fund vital public services in Northern Ireland, and fills the gap in the short term.

I call on all parties to do what the Secretary of State said: when the Bill receives Royal Assent, hopefully on Thursday, they should sit down on Friday and start working it out, and look at the reality of what they are saying they cannot resolve. I suggest that every one of the points I have laid out today can be resolved if people want to do so. If they do not, we will be back here—well, I won’t be, but others will—in a few weeks’ time with things possibly in even worse shape. Sadly, I believe that what we saw yesterday in Northern Ireland may well be repeated, as a way of people saying, “We’ve tried for 20 years to work together. It isn’t working and it’s never going to work. The only way is to go back to where we were.” None of us should want that and none of us who has any say in this should let anything get in the way of stopping it happening.

[Ian Paisley]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The shadow Secretary of State indicated in his speech that he was going to list a number of grievances and a number of issues in relation to legacy. Can you confirm for us what time we have left for this debate? The shadow Secretary believed he was running out of time, but he has sufficient time to make those lists available to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. I can answer part of it. I would expect the Second Reading debate to last until 8.16 pm, so there is plenty of time. As to the content of the valedictory speech made by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) from the Dispatch Box, that is not a matter for me but entirely a matter for the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that if he has something further to add to what he has already said, he will find an opportunity in the next three hours to say it. Later today, after Second Reading, we will hopefully have the Third Reading debate, when I would expect to hear more speeches from both sides of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robertson]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and it goes back to the point I was trying to make earlier: we either accept that we have to work with people we do not like and do not want to work with, or we do not, and if we do not accept that, there is no power sharing. It is as simple as that.

I am afraid it is a very good point that parties on both sides have had to work with people they do not want to work with. There are accusations about certain Members of the Assembly, and if they were in this place and we had to work very closely with them, maybe we would not like that either, but it has had to happen for the sake of devolution and the institutions.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw our attention to some of the terrible crimes that have been committed. The shadow Minister has been questioned on the issue of citing crimes from across the board; I know that he very much condemns crimes wherever they come from.

The Select Committee is concluding its report into Libyan-sponsored IRA activity, and I was rereading the proposed document this morning. I will not go into the details as the Committee has not considered it, but in that draft report are many examples of IRA violence—of the way the IRA has torn lives apart. Rereading some of those things this morning in the car as I came down to Westminster served as a reminder of what has gone on in Northern Ireland and how unacceptable it was.

I do not want to get into the issue of the prosecution of the soldiers at this point as that strays from the central part of our debate, but of course one side in the conflict always referred to it as “the war.” They did so because that excused the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children. So one side had a “war” and the other side was expected to go by the book—or the yellow card, to be precise. That is a very unfair way of looking at this whole situation and the whole legacy issue.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way—and I do count him as a friend for the support that he has given to Northern Ireland over many years. Does he accept that the Bill before the House will tip the scales in favour of direct rule? Tonight, people in Ulster will be watching their televisions and learning that it will be this House that is setting their rates. For the past 10 years, that has been done in the Northern Ireland Assembly. If that balance is tipped, each piece of legislation that comes forward will make it harder and harder to get back to devolution.

[Mr Robertson]

My hon. Friend puts his finger on the problem. Yes, this is a slippery slope, but in some ways the Bill offers an opportunity for people to get together and re-form the Executive. It would allow that to happen. However, my hon. Friend is right. Indeed, it would probably not be the whole of this House that decided the rates; that would be done by the Secretary of State. With respect to him, that is the only way he could do this. This goes back to what I said about direct rule earlier. Hon. Members will not get a say on the details, whereas if these decisions were being taken in Northern Ireland, there would be much more involvement by local people. That would be far better.

I really hope that the Secretary of State will somehow be able to get the parties together in Northern Ireland so that we can avoid having Committees upstairs here running Northern Ireland, which would be most unsatisfactory. Whether he succeeds or not, we really need to look at the Belfast agreement and the legislation to see whether they need updating. I do not wish to undermine the principles of power sharing in any way, but we need to make an attempt to make it work. At the moment, it is not working. If it were, we would not be sitting here now and we would not have been in crisis 18 months ago. I do not want everything to be set up again, only to find that we are in crisis again after six or 12 months.

The shadow Secretary of State mentioned the petition of concern issue earlier. I, too, raised that matter, and I was told at the time that the parties were happy with the situation. That, and an awful lot of other issues, need to be looked at. We need to modernise and update the arrangements so that they can deal with the situation that we find ourselves in now, rather than the one that we were in 20 years ago. Without doubt, a lot of progress has been made in Northern Ireland. We cannot deny that, and we should not want to, but we have to get the political process right as well. If we do not, people will completely lose faith in it, and that would be in nobody’s interests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I intervened on the shadow Secretary of State to make that very point. While he was busy listing all the groups that he says he has met, who are demanding rights and equality, the one group he missed out were the 150,000 men and women in Northern Ireland who have served in our armed forces. That number is far greater, by far, than the number of people who speak the Irish language or any other minority group that the shadow Secretary of State bothered to mention. Add to that the fact that the armed forces covenant also covers the families of those 150,000 people, and the figure comes to half a million people. That is not my figure; it comes from Northern Ireland Office statistics.

Half a million people out of a population of 1.8 million would benefit from the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland. It would be nice to hear the shadow Secretary of State and his colleagues say, for once, “Yes, this is something that we would want included.” I sincerely hope that the outcome of the negotiations will be that all parties, if they are genuine about respect and equality, sign up to the full implementation of the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland.

[Ian Paisley]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Sinn Féin are so committed to the Irish language that Carál Ní Chuilín, the party’s previous Minister in the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure in Northern Ireland, cut Foras na Gaeilge’s budget by £700,000 for the past three financial years? Sinn Féin claim that we do not show respect to the Irish language, but they could not even find enough areas to spend the money on.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

My hon. Friend’s contribution stands on its own feet. I endorse what he said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

In following the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), I should say that I was struck by the number of times he condemned Sinn Féin for using a veto—that from the DUP, the most veto-holic of all the parties, not least in relation to the abuse of the petition of concern, which other hon. Members referred to earlier.

Let me join others in referring to the grave attack at the weekend—the attempt to murder police officers and to use the precincts of a school to create disruption in a community and set up a situation where, yet again, officers of the PSNI, who serve and represent our whole community, would be under threat. However, I cannot join the attack by the hon. Member for East Antrim on the BBC for somehow making an untoward reference to that incident. He seemed to omit the fact that, in a debate I was part of on the BBC yesterday, his own colleague, the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), referred to the attack in the context of the political vacuum that exists and that could continue to exist. That linkage was made by one of his own parliamentary colleagues, so for him to turn round and use it as an excuse to have yet another go at the BBC just seems bizarre and out of place.

[Ian Paisley]

In his opening comments, the hon. Gentleman said there was abuse of the petition of concern. Does he agree that the biggest abuse came when the SDLP and Sinn Féin joined together to stop Gerry Kelly from being suspended from the Assembly for five days in line with the recommendations of the Commissioner for Standards?

[Mark Durkan]

No. The biggest abuse of the petition of concern comes whenever it is used to prevent motions in the Assembly—even non-binding motions and valid and credible motions of censure—from having any standing whatever. If people are going to use the petition of concern in relation to motions of censure in one way, they should recognise that others are going to say, “If you are going to veto things in one way, you are creating the rules, and you are going to have to live by them.”

As on so many things, we need to return to what was originally provided for in the Good Friday agreement. The petition of concern was not included in the agreement as a veto; it was provided as a trigger mechanism for an additional form of proofing by a special committee in relation to concerns about rights or equality—that is all it was provided for. Unfortunately, the legislation did not properly reflect that, and it left things up to the Standing Orders in the Assembly, but those Standing Orders have never been right. Sinn Féin and the DUP have always been happy to leave the petition of concern as a dead-end veto under the Standing Orders of the Assembly. That was never in the agreement, as people will see if they care to look at the relevant paragraphs. Let us return to the petition of concern as an additional proofing mechanism for rights and equality, not as a prevention mechanism against the advancement of rights and equality in areas such as equal marriage.

The hon. Member for East Antrim excoriated the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and told him that devolution is the opportunity to best make the laws that reflect the views of society. I absolutely agree with that. I am quite happy for the Assembly to make the laws that apply to abortion and to equal marriage. The Assembly is showing a clear wish and a clear intent there, and there have been clear indications of where the support of the people of Northern Ireland lies—it is similar to that in the south, as shown by referendum. The problem is that the DUP is vetoing and stopping the devolved Assembly having that legislative power. The DUP is criticising Sinn Féin for not allowing the government function to be created in circumstances where the DUP itself is regularly using a veto to prevent the legislative function of the Assembly. It is a “Whose veto trumps whose?” situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

My cousins and our family have been waiting 46 years for such a matter to be addressed. The families of the four UDR men about whom we recently had a debate in the House—Members on these Benches took the time to attend and offer their support—have been waiting some 27 years for justice for those people. We are looking for justice, we want to see it coming, and we want to hear people saying that throughout the Chamber—[Interruption.] I am quite happy to respect everyone else, and if there is a case to be answered, let us answer it, but to be honest, if there is a case involving our side, I want to hear people talking a wee bit more about it. I want to hear about inquiries for Unionist people who have endured some 35 years of terrorism—[Interruption]—and, yes, ethnic cleansing. Down by the border, people were murdered. Why? Because they were Protestants and Unionists. Why did others do that? Because they wanted to get the land. That is an example of what has happened, but we never hear about it from certain elements in this House. We are going to talk about it tonight, because it is a fact that has to be heard.

[Ian Paisley]

As my hon. Friend has heard, we have been chastised for representing certain traditional values. I have a letter from a parish priest in my constituency thanking me for the work our party does—

[Dr Alasdair McDonnell]

Name him.

[Ian Paisley]

No, I will not name him, but I will show you the letter, Alasdair. If the hon. Gentleman wants to see it, I am happy to share it with him.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. I have a couple of things to say. Interventions are getting extremely long. Members are also referring to each other directly—we do not do that; we speak through the Chair. The whole tone of the debate until now has been very good, and I really do not want that to disappear. I understand the passions and the tensions, and I understand the importance of these matters, but the tone of the debate should be maintained as it has been so far. I call Jim Shannon.