Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I am very confident that HMRC will be able to provide the support and the work that business needs to be ready for when we leave the European Union’s transition period at the end of December this year.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

What support he is providing to help attract major sporting and cultural events to Northern Ireland in 2021.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)]

Northern Ireland has a rich sporting and cultural heritage and is a great setting for any event, as proven by the success of the Open last year. While any decision to bid to host major events is a matter for the Executive, my officials are in regular contact with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and their devolved counterparts to support UK-wide events.

[Ian Paisley]

The United Kingdom’s involvement in next season’s world rally championship is currently very uncertain: nine of the 11 rounds have already been chosen and GB is not currently part of that choice. The WRC promoter has previously spoken about the need to rotate Rally GB into Northern Ireland, where most of the competitors wish to participate. Can the Secretary of State save WRC? Will the Secretary of State assist by co-funding the event with the Northern Ireland Executive during our centenary year?

[Mr Walker]

The hon. Gentleman in a consistent and passionate advocate of hosting a round of the world rally championship in Northern Ireland. We can safely say that if it does come to Northern Ireland, he will have been a driving force. In the “New Decade, New Approach” agreement, the Government have already pledged up to £2 billion to help the Executive to deliver on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, but I would be very happy to support the Executive to foster closer ties and better collaborative working across sectors of the UK to attract the WRC and a portfolio of other events to Northern Ireland.

Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Regulations 2020

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2020 General Committees

[The Chair]

Colleagues, we meet in extraordinary circumstances, but an awful lot of effort has gone into preparing this room. If anyone is puzzled, the purple cards showing a tick indicate where you can sit. No members of the general public will be coming into the room, so you can sit anywhere at the back. However, if you intend to speak, either project your voice or ask a colleague to swap seats with you so that you are near a microphone. I appreciate that a few colleagues have never served on a Delegated Legislation Committee before, and I am sure that everyone will bear with those Members as they seek to catch my eye.

The room has been assessed by Public Health England to be able to hold 22 people. As I have said, spaces are already clearly marked. Unmarked spaces must not be occupied. The usual convention of a Government side and an Opposition side is waived on this occasion, so Members may sit anywhere. Hon. Members are welcome to use the marked spaces in the Public Gallery and will be able to participate from there. For that reason, members of the public and the media are not permitted in the room. However, our proceedings are being broadcast over the internet on parliamentlive. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to arrange for video in a room of this size, so the broadcast is audio only. If you are not a member of the Committee but wish to speak, I ask that you leave the room after making your contribution, to allow others in to speak. You can follow the debate on the broadcast.

As the debate comes to a close, only members of the Committee, who are able to exercise a vote, should be present in the room. Let me explain what will happen if the number of people present in any part of the room exceeds a permitted number. I do not know whether some colleagues who are now in the Chamber, waiting to ask questions, will be waiting outside. What you see at the moment may not be what is happening outside, so you will just have to bear with us. I have been allowed to have one Doorkeeper as well. But if social distancing measures break down—no colleague wants to be criticised for that—I will briefly suspend the sitting until we sort things out.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

On a point of order, Sir David. Is it in order for such major regulatory changes to be debated in a DL Committee? Already you have indicated that they cannot be properly debated because access is restricted for many colleagues who would like to have full participatory rights to be here to attend to these matters, to listen to every word that is said, and to be able to respond to every word that is said. Surely the appropriate place for this debate, if not the Floor of the House, must be a Northern Ireland Grand Committee, rather than a standard DL Committee. Should these proceedings not be brought to a halt until that Grand Committee is established?

[The Chair]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for notifying me of his intention to raise a point of order. Frankly, had he not done so, I would have been in the dark as to how we had arrived precisely where we are today, but I have sought advice, and this is the advice that I have been given. First, this is not a matter for the Chair. However, in order to be helpful, particularly to people in Northern Ireland who want to know why this is the position, I will explain that the scheduling of delegated legislation is a matter for the Government and the usual channels. Unless the Whip wants to say something, I really cannot comment further on that. The House made a decision on delegated legislation procedure, and Standing Order No. 118(5) states that I am to put the Question after two and a half hours of debate. Again, it is not within my authority to change that, and I trust that hon. Members will consider sharing out the time if we are to occupy proceedings for two and a half hours.

[Ian Paisley]

Further to that point of order, Sir David. Thank you for your leniency in allowing this further point of order. When this matter came before the House, it was given 17 minutes after it came back from the House of Lords, on a major piece of legislation that affects criminal law and law relating to everyone in Northern Ireland. Today we are being restricted to a DL Committee, so the maximum amount of time possible for debate today is less than two and a half hours, and of course the Government and the Opposition have to make their statements. Surely it is not appropriate for such a major issue of constitutional change in Northern Ireland to be shunted into a private room at the top of the stairs in Parliament, for a debate that is not even televised and so has minimal coverage, and these major laws are being changed. That cannot be in order for major constitutional change of this kind.

[The Chair]

I recognise how strongly the hon. Member feels on the issue, and those on the Government Front Bench will have heard what he has said, but I say again that this is really not a matter for the Chair. However, I am sure that the Government will reflect on the point that he has made—[Interruption.] Order. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley needs to occupy a seat with a tick on it, which I am afraid will be down there.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)]

I beg to move

That the Committee has considered the Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 503).

I welcome your chairmanship, Sir David, and I thank the House staff for the work they have done to make this Committee Room safe for Members in the current difficult circumstances.

In proposing this debate, I recognise that this issue is a contentious and difficult one, and that there are strong opinions on all sides. I respect the deeply held views that Members will bring to this debate, and I am glad that the decision of the usual channels to allow a free vote on the issue will allow all Members to vote according to their conscience. However, I remind colleagues that in carrying out the instructions of this House of Commons from another vote last year, the Government are doing no more than meeting their legal duty.

We previously made the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020, which came into force on 31 March 2020, to set out the new legal framework for the provision of abortion services in Northern Ireland. Those regulations were also made under the affirmative procedure, and were required to be debated by 17 May 2020 to remain in force as law. However, the unprecedented situation created by covid-19 has impacted on parliamentary processes, and virtual voting systems were not yet fully implemented. We therefore took the decision to remake the regulations and give Parliament an additional 28 days to consider and scrutinise them properly, given the nature of this policy. This approach has ensured that the law on abortion in Northern Ireland continues to apply, with no risk of a gap or legal uncertainty, and that services in Northern Ireland can continue on the same legal basis as they have started operating within the new legal parameters.

[Ian Paisley]

The Minister has stressed that he is following a legal duty. If that is the case, I would like him to put on the record which treaty obligations he is in breach of if he does not pursue the implementation of a Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women recommendation. I believe that we are in breach of no treaty, and that he is under no legal obligation to do what he is doing.

[Mr Walker]

The hon. Gentleman mentions treaties, but I did not; I mentioned a legal obligation, under which the House of Commons has placed us through section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019. As he will know, as a result of an urgent question last week, we debated at some length the fact that we were bringing this forward, and I provided answers as to why we were doing so, rather than—as some in his party suggested—repealing section 9. I think this is a perfectly rational approach to delivering on the commitments that the House has placed on us under the 2019 Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

Is it not disingenuous to say that the regulations mirror what happens in GB? In GB, if what the Minister describes were to occur, a person would face imprisonment from up to five years to life. In the Republic of Ireland, that person would face up to 14 years’ imprisonment. In Northern Ireland, the very maximum that anyone would face for breaching this criminal law would be a fine of level 5, which is about £2,500. Is it not the case that the regulations do not mirror legislation, but liberalise that legislation?

[Mr Walker]

As I said, we set out in our response to the consultation the detail of how each of the decisions in this process was reached. We recognise that the situation ante this regulation in Northern Ireland was that the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 had already removed the criminal sanctions, so we were under an obligation to create a framework, then reimpose criminal sanctions outside of that framework. That is the way in which we have addressed this.

We are clear that this is a situation in which CEDAW requires us to ensure that women and girls cannot be prosecuted for these regulations, and the regulations should not have—as, unfortunately, it was clear from some of the consultation responses, the criminal law previously did have in Northern Ireland—a chilling effect on availability, nor erect any barriers to access.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

Thank you, Sir David; It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I was reminded that it was just over a year ago that the Women and Equalities Committee published its report on abortion in Northern Ireland after colleagues and I spent an extensive period looking at the issue. I am really grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate.

The Government have introduced regulations that put into place the decisions of this Parliament, which were democratically agreed very recently. The regulations also right a wrong that long predates this Parliament and devolution, and has been sidestepped by all political parties. It is absolutely clear that the Government have a legal obligation to act, not only because of the recent decision of Parliament, but because of the decisions of the courts in recent years. While abortion is a devolved matter, that is clearly a fudge, because there are clear and specific obligations that the Northern Ireland Assembly must adhere to when it passes legislation—that it cannot be contrary to the UK’s international obligations or contrary to human rights law. It is a fudge, because this law predates that devolution, and it was not tackled at the time of devolution itself. However, devolution does not remove the UK Government’s responsibilities to ensure that all the law in the United Kingdom complies with international obligations, and it does not remove the Government’s obligation to ensure that all law is compliant with human rights law as well.

The United Nations committee on the elimination of discrimination against women found “grave violations” in relation to abortion law in Northern Ireland as it stood previously, particularly regarding fatal foetal abnormality, rape and incest, and “systematic violations” in the criminalisation of abortion and the restricted access to the ability to end pregnancies for many women, because of the need to travel outside Northern Ireland to secure it.

That is something that we should all be concerned about. We undertake international obligations so that we can comply with them. Those in Northern Ireland cannot simply have special pleading to sit outside that framework. What is more, at home, the UK Supreme Court identified very clearly that there was a breach of women’s article 8 rights in the law as it stood. The highest court in the land identified that the law breached human rights, and that is not something I believe any Government should ignore.

On top of that, if the Democratic Unionist party Members argue that this is something that is being foisted upon them, I would be interested to understand why, in October last year, the High Court in Belfast itself, in the heart of that community, found that the law as it stood was incompatible with article 8 rights.

[Ian Paisley]

The right hon. Lady should know that the European convention on human rights case that was brought by the ECHR was dismissed by the Supreme Court in Northern Ireland. It was not upheld. It was dismissed.

[Mrs Miller]

And the hon. Gentleman will know that some of the problems in that case related to the standing of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which I will come on to later, if I may. I hope that in raising that point, he was not seeking to try to mislead people who are following this debate. It is important that we stick to the facts of the debate, because—[Interruption.] If I may finish my point, in our visits as a Select Committee to Northern Ireland, the one thing that was overwhelming was how confused people were about the law.

[Ian Paisley]

I do not attempt to mislead anyone. It is stated in the documents that are before us. The fact is that, whether we like it or not, no matter the reasons or the deliberations of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland, it dismissed the ECHR case because the plaintiff had no standing. End of story. That is a fact. That is what I said.

[Mrs Miller]

Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman, and we will not fall out over this, but I will gently remind him that it has been widely accepted that the reason the case was not accepted either in Northern Ireland or in the Supreme Court just over the road was because of a technical error in the drafting of the legislation when the standing of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission was drawn up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

It is a pleasure to serve under your experienced chairmanship, Sir David.

This is an issue that is vastly controversial and provokes much thought; in some quarters it provokes concern, anger and frustration, and in other quarters it provokes much happiness. Those are the differences we are in. This divides parties, it divides families and it divides homes. I think everyone recognises the controversial and difficult nature of this.

However, hon. Members should be under no illusion whatsoever: today’s proceedings, when they are voted for—there is no doubt that they will be passed, given the Government’s majority—will not stop the confusion. The promise that this will end the confusion over regulations and all the rest of it in Northern Ireland is complete and total nonsense, as the Chairman made clear when he was addressing the issues to do with points of order. He said he was in the dark about how we got here.

If a Chairman as esteemed as you, Sir David, is in the dark about how the Government got themselves into a position where they are pushing through important regulations about criminality, social and constitutional change and the right to life of the pre-born in a two-and-a-half hour, crammed-in session, in an Upper Committee Corridor in this House, when we were only allowed 17 minutes on the Floor of the main Chamber last year in a previous Parliament—not this Parliament—to deal with the amendments that came from the House of Lords, if that is the fact of how we are going to deal with legislation that affects Northern Ireland in such a massive way, there is zero respect being paid not only to hon. Members from Northern Ireland, whatever their different opinions, but to women in Northern Ireland. This is not the way we should be legislating for anyone or any matter in that regard.

That is why I reiterate the points I made earlier and agree wholeheartedly with the speech of the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who said that the way this has been carried out is an affront to the people of Northern Ireland. The hon. Members who are privileged to vote on this matter today, while the vast majority of Members from Northern Ireland are completely denied a vote on the issue, will have to ask themselves whether they are content that, by the end of these proceedings, they will have helped to pass the most permissive abortion regulations in the whole of the United Kingdom.

The abortion regulations that are being passed for Northern Ireland, as we have already heard in the to and fro, do not mirror what occurs in this part of the United Kingdom, but are completely different. Hon. Members have spoken in the past in this House about having to ensure that English laws represent English votes, and we have English votes for English laws procedures in place to do that. Northern Ireland Members have a right to ask, “Will this House make laws that reflect the character of Northern Ireland?”

The strength of this Union is that it is made up of very different component parts: peoples who have different views, peoples who are divided in many ways. The House should at least respect those differences. If it is good enough to have English votes for English laws, this House should recognise that the changes to be brought about should at least reflect the views of the people in Northern Ireland. As I have already indicated, the regulations are not a mirror image of the law in Great Britain. I hope that I am not being unfair to the Minister, who is an absolute gentleman and always deals with us courteously, but it is wrong to help Members through the Lobbies to vote for this legislation by suggesting to them that, “It mirrors what happens in the rest of the UK, so it is okay—we can push it on through and those Paddys will just have to accept it because it is the same as in the rest of the United Kingdom.”

The regulations do not mirror what happens in the rest of the United Kingdom in four key and distinct ways. The rules and regulations that would be introduced are much more permissive in terms of the gestation time limits that are allowed for abortion. They are more permissive on the issue of sex selection, which is outlawed in the United Kingdom and cannot now be protected in my part of the United Kingdom because no reason has to be given for a termination. They are more permissive in allowing abortion and termination on the basis of disability; and they are more permissive on the social reasons that have to be given, but not the medical reasons on the question of mental wellbeing.

The regulations do not mirror the law in the rest of the United Kingdom. People have talked about having two doctors’ opinions; zero doctors’ opinions are required in Northern Ireland by the regulations. Medical opinion can come from a midwife, a nurse, or anyone with a medical qualification, but the regulations do not specify that a doctor’s opinion is required in Northern Ireland. The 1967 abortion law was brought in on the basis that a doctor’s opinion was key to allowing the decision, and that has been completely done away with. On that key point, the suggestion that the regulations mirror GB is completely and totally erroneous.

Under the regulations, in Northern Ireland no reason has to be given for the termination to take place up to 12 weeks’ into gestation—no reason whatever. That is not the case in the rest of the United Kingdom, where reasons have to be given. In Northern Ireland, that opens the door to sex selection; it opens the door to other social reasons and to other issues that do not form any part of the regulations and practice in the rest of the United Kingdom. That goes well beyond even what CEDAW requires. CEDAW made it clear that there was a deficiency in the Northern Ireland regulations as they stood, because of rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormality issues. That no reason has to be given means that the laws in Northern Ireland would be at variance with and completely different from what happens in the rest of the United Kingdom. That does not mirror the United Kingdom.

On the highest sanction for illegal termination, the practitioner may decide that they are or are not satisfied with the reasons that are given, but are wrong in coming to that decision. If that person is eventually brought to court, the highest sanction that that person will face is a level 5 fine, meaning that, for something that is criminal law in the rest of the United Kingdom, a person can buy their way out of that problem with less than £5,000. That is the fact. The regulations do not mirror those here, where, if someone breaks that law, they face anywhere between five years to life in prison. That really makes a significant change in terms of how the regulations would be interpreted and applied in Northern Ireland. Even the Republic of Ireland, which has changed its abortion regulations, recognised that the punishment had to be by way of imprisonment of up to 14 years. Allowing people to buy their way out of that problem does not mirror what happens in the rest of the UK.



As I have already said, sex-selection terminations will be permitted, as it is not an offence to terminate for any reason. The regulations fail to mention sex selection. The Government have had ample opportunity to include sex selection and make it clear that it is not allowed, but they have been silent. As the Government have failed to mention it, how will the laws that outlaw sex selection in GB extend protections to unborn life in Northern Ireland? Maybe someone does not want a girl or a boy and then decided, “That’s a good enough reason.” It is a travesty, and it is wrong. It does not mirror what happens in the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Carla Lockhart]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point about sex selection. Does he agree that it is normally girls who are aborted? We talk so much about women’s health and women’s rights, yet it is girls who are aborted in the womb.

[Ian Paisley]

My hon. Friend makes the point exceedingly well, and we should listen to her words. This legislation does not protect the rights of women and girls, or of the unborn. It dismisses their rights—that is the fact.

The Attorney General for Northern Ireland has claimed that the Secretary of State has exceeded his authority. That is why the regulations, if and when they are passed, will unfortunately run into further controversy—no doubt they will be challenged. They will not bring an end to a difficult argument or suddenly solve it. We are in the process of dealing with difficult issues all the time, and the suggestion that the regulations end a difficult problem is just complete and total nonsense. If it was so easy, most hon. Members would welcome that. However, in claiming that the Secretary of State has exceeded his authority, the Attorney General for Northern Ireland made the following comments:

“It is doubtful that the legislation gives adequate ECHR protections to the rights of those opposed to these regulations, whether on conscience or philosophical grounds.”

He went on to say:

“It is inappropriate for the provision. In light of the political context that now exists in Northern Ireland, these provisions are actually lawful.”

Let me just complete the quotation. He goes on to say:

“It is disproportionate, contrary to article 9 of ECHR as well as article 8, to require those who undertake ancillary, administrative or managerial tasks to act contrary to their conscience.”

[Sir John Hayes]

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle suggested that the regulations might be made lawful by reference to a treaty. Will the hon. Gentleman let the Committee know, perhaps by way of a confirmation, that the regulations cite no treaty and relate to no treaty?

[Ian Paisley]

It is absolutely clear that we are not breaching any treaty; indeed, the Minister said so himself when I intervened on him earlier. No treaty is being contravened, and we are under no obligation whatever. We are doing something because it is politically expedient to do something. We are genuflecting to a committee that does not have the standing that the Minister and the Government give to it. That is why there will be many people who echo your words, Sir David—I hope I do not quote you incorrectly—by saying, “I’m confused about how we’ve got ourselves into this position.” If that is the case, these little committees all around Europe—

[The Chair]

Order. The Chairman is entirely impartial, and I am not sure the hon. Member should have interpreted my words in that way. I gently remind him that there is one more person waiting to speak, and I am sure the Committee wants a full response from the Minister.

[Ian Paisley]

I certainly would not want to put words into your mouth, Sir David. I think the words were “in the dark about how we got here.” I reiterate that people listening to the debate should take out of those comments whatever they wish.

The regulations discriminate against the disabled and against the sex of the child. How have they tested whether these regulations comply with the current laws against sex selection of the unborn? Do the Government accept that these regulations open the door to sex selection terminations? I believe they do. How will sex selection terminations remain illegal under these regulations given that the Government have been silent on that key matter?

The Government can repeal section 9. Since the election in December and the introduction of this law, there have been significant constitutional changes. We now have an Assembly operating in Northern Ireland that is opposed to these changes. Several hon. Members have cited the votes. Even members of the Alliance party voted against some of these regulations. One Parliament cannot tie the hands of another Parliament. Yet, it appears the Minister is quite willing to have his hands tied today because of what happened in a previous Parliament. He and the Government do not have to do that.

The Minister also said that he listened carefully to the people of Northern Ireland. Some 21,244 people responded to the consultation, 79% of whom stated their opposition to these regulations. The Minister did not listen to them. If that was the case, there would be a different outcome. Consultations are a joke. Let us be clear about this: this consultation was one of the biggest catastrophic jokes ever played on the people of Northern Ireland. Some 21,244 out of 1 million adults in Northern Ireland responded—one of the biggest responses ever—in a matter of weeks. The Government did not listen. Do not kid yourself. Do not play the game with us and say, “We listened to the people of Northern Ireland.” I’ll tell you what happened: the people of Northern Ireland were ignored in that consultation.

In the Assembly vote last week, 76 out of 90 Members, including members of the Alliance party and the Social Democratic and Labour Party, the sister party of the Labour party, voted not only with matters that my party brought forward but with other amendments that rejected these regulations—76 out of 90. They were ignored. They were thrown to the side.

Whenever medical professionals in Northern Ireland are asked to bring an opinion on whether a life should be terminated, they only have to act in what is called “good faith”. The grounds for termination do not require any diagnosis whatsoever, but just to act in good faith. That is different from what happens in the rest of the United Kingdom, and that alone will bring further controversy to this matter and more concern to the people around this House.

I believe this is an affront. I appeal to hon. Members to recognise that this should go to a Northern Ireland Grand Committee or the Floor of the House. Irrespective of what side of the argument they are on, this is not the way to make such significant changes to the laws in Northern Ireland. I appeal to hon. Members to think tonight before they vote.

DRAFT LOCAL ELECTIONS (NORTHERN IRELAND) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2020 DRAFT REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND AMENDMENT) (NORTHERN IRELAND) REGULATIONS 2020

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2020 General Committees

[Mr Walker]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I apologise to the Committee for arriving a few moments into the sitting, having just come from a Division down the corridor. With your permission, we are taking both these election-related statutory instruments together. I hope that as neither is particularly contentious, we will not detain the Committee too long.

The draft Representation of the People (Electronic Communications and Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020 will amend the existing legislative framework for canvass in Northern Ireland to allow electors to respond to the canvass digitally, using the existing online registration system. Registration applications and canvass returns require substantially the same information, but because online registration is a relatively new development in Northern Ireland, our existing canvass regulations do not allow the use of electronic returns.

The Northern Ireland canvass is not an annual event and is not as light touch as it is in Great Britain. When a full canvass is conducted in Northern Ireland, it is not sufficient for an individual to note that their registration details have not changed; each individual must complete a full registration application or canvass form.

It makes sense that the law is now changed to allow the chief electoral officer to accept registrations made on the UK online registration system rather than requiring all individuals to fill out a paper application form. It is worth noting that online registration is already hugely successful and popular in Northern Ireland. The option to register online was extended to Northern Ireland in 2018, and since then over 80% of people registering have chosen to register using the digital service, rather than using a paper form. That compares favourably with Great Britain, where the most recent figure was about 75% of applicants using the online service.

However, I can reassure hon. Members that people will not be required to use the digital system. Nothing in this legislation will remove the paper-based canvass regime that we have always used, and that system will remain for those who wish to use it. Nevertheless, we know that a growing majority of people now expect to be able to interact with public services online. These regulations allow people the option of using the online registration service if they wish to do so.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the Minister agree that for these provisions to really take good effect, what has to follow them is investment in our electoral offices around the country? I am talking about investment in training of staff, in access to staff and in more telephone availability when people ring up with queries. The Minister is absolutely right that the measures have been a partial success, but there have been glitches. It is important that those glitches be ironed out, and they cannot be ironed out on the cheap, but only with investment in our electoral offices.

[Mr Walker]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. Of course we need to ensure that these services are properly supported. I will come to the fact that of course part of what these reforms will achieve is to make the service more efficient. That should in itself release funds for the investment that he speaks about.

These changes make administrative sense. The register for Northern Ireland stands at 1.3 million people, and not having these regulations allowing people to use the online service to register would mean posting out 1.3 million paper forms with return post envelopes—a huge undertaking. Reducing the number of forms issued will save money, streamline the administrative process and save a good deal of wasted paper.

Importantly, the changes will make canvass more efficient and allow the chief electoral officer and her staff more time to focus on encouraging under-registered groups to engage with canvass and get on the register. I hope hon. Members agree that the changes, which will make it easier for people to register, allied to increased efficiency, are very welcome.

The draft regulations make provision for a slight amendment to the stages to be undertaken by the chief electoral officer as part of the next canvass, which will take place in 2021. Under the new provisions, a new first step will apply in the canvass process. From no earlier than 1 July in a canvass year, the chief electoral officer will send out a leaflet to all homes explaining the importance of canvass and asking people to go online and register. It will also explain that forms will be posted shortly for those who want to apply on paper. In this way, we hope to encourage a good many of the public to simply register online.

Following that first leaflet, the usual chasing cycle of canvass will proceed as it has previously. Addressed forms will be sent to every individual who has not already responded, chasing letters will be issued and, finally, canvassers will be sent door to door to non-responders. Every effort will be made to explain the importance of being on the register and to capture as many registrations as possible.

I should also say that current legislation allows the chief electoral officer to retain on the register, for up to three years, individuals who fail to respond to canvass, if she is content that data-matching shows their details have not changed. That provision was originally for a two-year retention after the 2013 canvass, but it was extended to three years to cover the 2016 Assembly election. The regulations move the retention period back to the original two years.

In addition, the regulations also make a number of more minor technical amendments in relation to canvass, such as ensuring that an individual’s unique digital registration number is issued or reissued, as appropriate, to people registering for the purpose of canvass.

Finally, the regulations also make a small technical amendment in relation to recall provisions. During the recall petition held in Northern Ireland in 2018, it became clear that there was an inconsistency in provisions concerning the marked register and how it could be accessed. The draft provisions mirror the position for parliamentary elections, enabling the chief electoral officer to allow access to the marked register when appropriate.

Registration and canvass are the foundation of our democratic system, and I am happy to tell the Committee that the implementation of digital registration for canvass is fully supported and welcomed by the Electoral Commission and Northern Ireland’s chief electoral officer. I should also say the regulations have been approved by the Information Commissioner’s Office. I hope that hon. Members agree that the introduction of digital electoral registration for canvass is another step towards modernising the delivery of elections in Northern Ireland and that they will support the regulations.

The draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2020 will amend the existing legislative framework for local elections in Northern Ireland so that it is no longer a requirement for a candidate’s home address to be disclosed and published during an election.

It used to be an accepted part of local elections across the UK that candidates standing for election to local councils would be required to disclose their home address; that address would be printed on the ballot paper. The provision was designed to demonstrate the local connection of a candidate, which has always been an important aspect of our local government system.

Sadly, however, we are all too aware that intimidation and threats are now part of the lives of too many elected representatives. As a consequence, it is no longer proportionate to require candidates to make public their home address in order to stand for public office. It is already the case that there is no requirement to disclose publicly home addresses at parliamentary or Assembly elections in Northern Ireland, nor in most other elections across the UK. The draft order will provide consistency by removing the requirement for all candidate home addresses to be published for local elections in Northern Ireland. Candidates will be able to choose whether they wish their home address to be included on nomination papers, consent to nomination forms and the ballot paper.

The hon. Member for Rochdale, who is not able to join us today, raised this issue with the Secretary of State at the time of the last local government elections. I hope he in particular will welcome this provision.

Nevertheless, when voting for candidates in local elections, electors have a right to know that each candidate has a tie to the local area. To balance that right with the aim to provide protection for candidates, the draft order will ensure that candidates are required to provide their home address on a separate home address form. The home address form will not be made public and will be used by the chief electoral officer to confirm that the candidate has the required local connections.

Hon. Members will wish to note that the provisions do not alter the requirements for a local connection. As has always been the case, anyone wanting to stand as a local councillor in Northern Ireland must be on the electoral register for that council area or, broadly speaking, have owned or rented land or lived or worked in the area for the preceding year.

If a candidate indicates on the home address form that they do not wish the address to become public, it will not be included in any published documents. In such cases, the ballot paper will show the area that the candidate’s address is in. For the vast majority of candidates, that will be the local government district in which their home is situated. That is a small change, which will do nothing more than bring local elections in Northern Ireland into line with other elections. However, as I am sure hon. Members will agree, it is an important change. It is critical that, where possible, we remove any barriers that can inhibit individuals from engaging in the public democratic life of our country.

In addition to removing home addresses from ballot papers, the order also makes provision to remove the legislative requirement that candidate’s surnames be printed in all capital letters on ballot papers. That will ensure that a candidate’s name on the ballot paper can appear as the candidate would normally spell it. So, for example, where a capital letter is not usually at the beginning of the name, as is sometimes the case with Irish names, that can be accurately reflected on the ballot paper.

Finally, the order will remove the requirement that local councils be described as district councils on the ballot paper. It will provide instead that the council can print its official name and describe itself as, for example, a borough or city council, as appropriate.

The draft order is about engagement and helping to ensure that as many people as possible feel able to be part of the democratic process without feeling intimidated. It is about letting people who stand as candidates have their names spelled as they would usually spell them and allowing councils to describe themselves on ballot papers by the name they are commonly known by. I hope that members of the Committee agree that the provisions, while technical, are important, and that both statutory instruments are, in their way, a step towards modernising the delivery of elections in Northern Ireland, and that they will support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I just want to make two or three brief points, to which I hope the Minister can respond. He has already responded positively on the issue of increased investment in electoral officers. That is important and I welcome the comments he has already made that, hopefully, with increased efficiency, funding will ultimately be released. As to training and access, the officers are very competent but are sometimes let down by the fact that there is not sufficient money, or sufficient investment in them. That is not their fault, and it is important that that assistance be given.

There should also be reassurances about measures to protect against fraud in the use of the website. Too often, Northern Ireland elections have been characterised by the expression, “Vote early, vote often.” While that was often said with tongue in cheek, unfortunately in some constituencies the result could be distinctive changes, if someone personated a number of electors on a number of occasions and stole their votes.

That could be possible with website registration and I want significant safeguards so that a person who does not have access to the web will not find that their vote is taken by someone else who is mysteriously able to personate them on the website and steal it. That would be an absolute travesty. Technology should of course make registration easier; it should not be about creating opportunities for the criminal to steal a person’s vote. I hope that the special provisions can be put in place to protect against fraud and to punish those engaged in it, if that happens.

I would also like a reassurance that we are not in any way whatever moving towards electronic voting. Again, it is important for people to see election day as something they participate in by physically turning up and playing their part in the democratic process. That is absolutely key and important.

I feel rather experienced in and able to speak about the electoral petition, given that in 2018 I was the subject of such a petition. There was the point to do with access to certain information, and it is the case that after a re-election a person is able to get the marked register. With an election petition, the marked register shows absolutely everyone who voted the one way—the only way in which they could vote—so it would be completely wrong for that petition to be made available to the public, because it highlights people who took a particular point of view. That would breach anything to with the notion of the secrecy of the ballot.

A number of people, however, were questioned by the police after that petition. I discovered that, ultimately, the police found that they did not have the necessary power to proceed with prosecutions, so that is something the Government will have to look at again, in that the law is deficient in that ensuring against personation—fraud—in an election is not properly managed in that regard.

With regard to the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order, it is absolutely correct to bring this matter into alignment with the situation for candidates in a general election, as the Minister outlined: they do not have to give out their home address. Instead, they can say, “The candidate from County Whatever”—that is sufficient identification—and that should be the case for people running in a local government election. It is only fair that they should feel safe and comfortable, and that they will not come under any sense of intimidation whatever.

Victims of the Troubles: Payment Scheme

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend is spot on, and it is really important to recognise that the way in which this scheme has been set out has taken account of all shades of opinion. It has engaged with all communities and with victims’ groups on all sides, and our response to the consultation reflects that. It is one of the reasons why any hurdle at this stage is really unacceptable, and we should be getting on and delivering it.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I congratulate the shadow Secretary of State on getting this important matter on to the Floor of the House today. There was no Northern Ireland Government from 1972 until 1998. These victims were made during a period of extended direct rule, and these victims were made all across the United Kingdom. I welcome the letter today that the Minister has referred to: it blames Sinn Féin. For the first time, the Government have called Sinn Féin out on an issue. I welcome them doing that, but it would be completely incompatible with reality if—as I understand Mr Shawcross has recommended—payments were made to victims of Gaddafi-sponsored terrorism and yet our victims, who have a piece of legislation made in this place, cannot have money drawn down to them that they are completely entitled to. So I plead with the Minister to stop using Sinn Féin as an excuse now, break the logjam, push Sinn Féin out of the way and administer this money to victims all across the United Kingdom immediately.

[Mr Walker]

As always, the hon. Gentleman makes his case very powerfully, but he will recognise that the Executive committed to delivering a scheme of this nature six years ago and received a generous financial contribution connected to New Decade, New Approach and other provisions. It has revenue-raising capabilities, and it must make funding available for this scheme, which everyone agrees should exist. As I said earlier, the Shawcross report is being analysed by my colleagues at the Foreign Office, and I cannot go into any detail on its contents at this stage. But we all agree that we want to move this forward, and we all agree that the money should be made available as quickly as possible. That money can be made available as soon as the designated Department is sorted.

Abortion Regulations: Northern Ireland

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

I absolutely respect my hon. Friend’s views, but I disagree with him about the regime being more liberal than in the rest of the UK. We set out the detail of that in our response to the consultation and the detailed reasoning that the Government have provided in that respect. However, it is in the hands of the Assembly to propose reforms and a way forward on the regulations, so long as it can do so in a way that is CEDAW compliant. I would be very happy for it to take that opportunity. There is nothing to prohibit it doing so, and it is a matter of regret that, having been in place for a number of months before the regulations came into force, it has not. However, my firm understanding of the advice that the Government have received is that the legal obligations on us to ensure a human rights-compliant model in every part of the UK, including Northern Ireland, remain in place.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The Minister has to be absolutely clear about this. CEDAW does not require legislation for a full-term terminations. CEDAW does not require regulations for disability terminations. CEDAW does not require regulations for sex-selection terminations. That is that what is going to happen in Northern Ireland as a result of what has occurred in this place. On Tuesday, 78 MLAs, from a total of 90, rejected the CEDAW recommendations in a series of votes in the Assembly, whether the Minister likes it or not. They were right to do that, and if the Minister really wants to respect the Assembly, and indeed this place, he should urge the Assembly to go back, give it the space it needs and allow it to legislate on these matters and come to its own conclusions. That is the democratic thing to do, the right thing to do and the appropriate thing to do, and it is in line with what the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) said when she addressed the House on 9 July last year. I urge the Minister to allow that to happen and not brush this hideous vista under the carpet.

[Mr Walker]

Again, I respect the hon. Gentleman’s view, but the Government have been clear about what we are legally required to do under the EF Act. That has not changed. We have to bring in a set of regulations that comply with CEDAW, which specified that in cases of severe foetal impairment there would have to be the ability to have terminations. As the hon. Gentleman will recognise, many of those cases become apparent only late in term. It was therefore necessary to address that CEDAW requirement in the way that we have. However, I encourage the Assembly to engage with this issue and ensure that it can in future assess details of the framework and look at aspects of the issue to meet the rights obligations constructively. Any consensus that can be built in the Assembly on those matters would be extremely welcome

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. As he will know, the Prime Minister announced new funding to overhaul bus links in England and made a commitment to at least 4,000 new zero-emission buses. We want to work with the industry to ensure that those buses are flowing through to orders to all those UK companies, including, as he says, Wrights in Ballymena.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I agree whole- heartedly with the question that has just been asked. On an immediate strategy for bus builders and bus operators, the Government could underwrite Transport for London, Birmingham buses, Translink and National Express, encourage them to make the orders that they have already indicated that they wish to make over the next year, and put at least £100 million of liquidity into manufacturing in Northern Ireland and across the UK overnight. That would cost the taxpayer nothing— they are paying for this anyway—but it would allow manufacturers to continue and employees to have surety of employment and the ability to put bread on the table. I urge the Government to adopt this strategy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Julian Smith]

We have said—and the Prime Minister could not be clearer on this—that we will end vexatious claims, for both the police and the armed forces. We look forward to bringing forward legislation in that regard in due course.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome that the Secretary of State just said he is going to end vexatious complaints against police officers. In the light of that, will he commit to meet Mark Lindsay, the chairman of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland, and officers from the Retired Police Officers Association, so that they can put to him their grave concerns about the non-criminal charges that it has been suggested should be levelled at former serving brave police officers in Ulster?

[Julian Smith]

I will, of course, meet those the hon. Gentleman mentioned as soon as possible.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons & Committee: 2nd sitting
Wednesday 8th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Farry]

I rise primarily to address amendment 35 in my name and its intersection with clause 38. I do not intend to press it to a Division, but I want to highlight some of the issues that arise from it.

More generally, on the point of parliamentary sovereignty, I want to make a couple of comments, as other Members have, about the irony with respect to the level of delegated powers that the Bill will create, as well as the lack of scrutiny of the future relationship, which is of particular importance to us in Northern Ireland but also, of course, for all colleagues across the United Kingdom. The Northern Ireland/Ireland protocol, which is of such importance to us in Northern Ireland and has almost bedevilled the process of Brexit for many years, was only in effect programmed for two hours today. Many of the Northern Ireland voices were not properly articulated on that.

The concern of my amendment is the rights protections under the Good Friday agreement. The Good Friday agreement is, of course, an international agreement, but its implementation in domestic law falls to the UK Government. The agreement sets out a comprehensive set of rights, including the political participation of women, the right to freely choose one’s residence, freedom from sectarian harassment, a statutory equality duty and, perhaps most significantly, the requirement for the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into UK domestic law.

Most of the debate in Northern Ireland and beyond around Brexit, as it pertains to our situation, has focused on issues around borders, including the business community, the economy, trade and what the future holds in that regard. But people are also deeply concerned about rights issues, for a whole range of reasons. Article 2(1) of the protocol on Northern Ireland/Ireland provides a commitment that there will be

“no diminution of rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity”.

That is very much welcome, but we have seen a gradual weakening of the level of commitment to rights protections since the original draft of the joint report in December 2017. The European Union is very clear that it falls to the United Kingdom Government to ensure that the rights under the Good Friday agreement are protected as part of the future relationship.

The specific concern that I am trying to raise through amendment 35 is that there seems to be an inconsistency between section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and clause 38 of the Bill, which is the focus of this section of our debate. Clause 38 stresses parliamentary sovereignty notwithstanding section 7A, which is used to give some degree of reassurance that there will not be any threat to rights, but there is the potential that section 7A could be overridden in some shape or form. There are several reasons why we have some concern in this respect. First, not all Good Friday agreement rights relate to the European convention itself; some are broader than what the convention contains. Some of the proposed legislative commitments apply only to Northern Ireland Departments and public bodies, and do not extend as far as the UK Government themselves, and in that there may well be some potential danger.

There are also concerns about whether the UK Government have, to date, fully respected some of the rights under the Good Friday agreement. As Members will appreciate, identity is a very complex issue across these islands, but it has been managed to date through a number of different forms—for example, the common travel area; more recently, the Good Friday agreement; and hitherto, of course, the joint membership of the European Union by the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Up until now, both jurisdictions have moved in tandem on issues involving the European Union, including on matters such as the Schengen agreement, which the Republic of Ireland has also opted out of. We are now faced with the fact that, for the first time ever, we are going to see the UK and Ireland move in different directions in terms of the European Union. That may well throw up a whole range of issues, challenges and anomalies that will need to be managed successfully.

Brexit strips away a lot of those protections, and perhaps does create a certain degree of risk. If I may, I will take one example in that regard. Members may well be aware of the Emma DeSouza case regarding immigration. It drew attention to the fact that the UK Government have not reflected in UK domestic law, particularly in relation to revision of the British Nationality Act 1981, the right of someone born and resident in Northern Ireland to identify solely as Irish, and to have Irish citizenship. What the law currently says is that anyone born in Northern Ireland is, by birth, automatically British, and to many that goes against both the letter and the spirit of the Good Friday agreement.

As long as that case, and indeed other situations, go unresolved there is a latent fear of these anomalies persisting and, indeed, potentially growing, particularly if there is greater divergence between the UK and the rest of the European Union, including the Republic of Ireland in particular. That has implications for what is a very complex situation, which has been managed by the Good Friday agreement—on a faltering basis over the past 20 years, but none the less managed—and we may well be in very difficult and rocky territory. It is important that the Government reflect on some of the fears that are being expressed in Northern Ireland. Although I am not going to press the amendment today, I think it is important that the Government reflect on the matter.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Member must of course reflect that the fact of the matter is that the Republic of Ireland is an independent country in its own right. By being independent it is entitled to go its own way, and if it wants to go a different way with Europe it is entitled to do that. We would not want to restrict it and say it has to come with Britain. I would be delighted, whenever we leave the EU and Europe increases its bill of membership to the Republic of Ireland—when the Republic sees how costly it is to be a member—if those in the Republic of Ireland had a national conversation about their role as Irish citizens in the EU. Ultimately, however, that is a choice the Republic of Ireland has made—that it wishes to remain within the EU—and we should not try to restrict its hands, either.

[Stephen Farry]

I am always grateful to hear comments from my counterpart in Northern Ireland, but I think it is worth stressing for the record that there is no significant movement or debate whatsoever in the Republic of Ireland about any form of “Irexit”, as it might be framed. There is deep commitment to membership of the European Union in the south of Ireland, as indeed there is, on a majority basis, in Northern Ireland and in Scotland and other parts of the UK as well.

While Ireland will make its decision to remain part of the European Union, it is of course the UK that is diverging. That debate has been had, and I recognise the outcome in that respect. None the less, it is important to recognise that Northern Ireland is a complex society, and it only works on the basis of sharing and interdependence. A very careful set of balanced relationships has been built up over the past number of years, with the support of those on both Front Benches in this House over that period. Brexit does potentially strip away some of the sticking-plaster over some of the cracks and we do not know exactly how things will work out. It is important that the Government pay regard to, and are sensitive to, the very particular implications in rights terms for Northern Ireland as the Brexit process unfolds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. If there has been any lack of clarity let me make it clear that I am saying that we are in the EU at the moment and obviously do lots of trade with the EU—44% of it—and we do quite a lot of trade through the EU indirectly with America and elsewhere, so we are in a reasonable position. If we come out of the EU and suddenly find that we need to make up for lost trade, we will be under a lot of pressure to do a deal quickly with the US. We will also be in a much weaker position, because we will be standing alone.

The US is a big player and knows it, so it will try to get what it wants, as has been pointed out on sugar, fracking and other examples. What is more, it has ISDS powers as part of its normal bilateral trading agreements, and that is already recorded in trading relations. The idea suggested by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), which I respect, is that we could in theory say, “No, we don’t want this. We won’t go ahead with that.” but there would be a huge economic cost. There would also be enormous pressure, while doing all these other trade deals, to agree.

The assumption is that we could just carry on as before with all the other bilateral trading agreements with small countries such as Chile. If you were Chile, Sir Gary, you would think, “Hold on. Instead of negotiating with the big EU, I’m now negotiating with a relatively smaller UK, so I want a better deal.” Therefore, our sovereignty, in terms of our power to deliver what our electorate wants, is reduced. Our sovereignty has therefore been intrinsically undermined, rather than enhanced, which is contrary to what is being spun out here.

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Member speaks as if trade is all one way. One of Germany’s biggest trading partners is the United Kingdom. Does he think that it wants to go down the road he is describing? The Germans will want to ensure that they continue to have a good trading relationship with the United Kingdom no matter whether Britain is within or outside the EU.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Gary Streeter)]

I call Geraint Davies to talk on sovereignty and clause 38.

Historical Institutional Abuse (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Ian Paisley Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 5th November 2019 Commons Chamber

[Julian Smith]

I could not agree more.

I thank my colleague Lord Duncan of Springbank, Lord Hain and other noble lords and baronesses for their work in the other place last week. Many Members in the Chamber today have played a role in making today’s debate happen, particularly DUP Members, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), the Chairman and members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and many, many more.

The desire and push from Northern Ireland has been significant. On Sunday night, a number of members of the Government received a letter from a Catholic priest who represents the diocese of Down and Connor, which was the location of two of the children’s homes at the centre of the inquiry. He said that it is

“a matter of deep personal shame for me and for the Diocese that both homes were found by the Inquiry to have fundamentally failed the children in their care, enabling regimes of horrific and systemic emotional, physical and sexual abuse of children, as well as neglect. In the period before the Inquiry, I came to know some of the former residents of these homes and publicly supported them in their calls for justice and an Inquiry. Over the years of the Inquiry and since, I have watched as those who led this campaign and the hundreds of former children in care who took part in the Inquiry relived the horrors of their time in these institutions and the abuse they suffered there. As children, they arrived at these homes frightened, disorientated and with the simple hope of every child that the adults in their lives would respond to them with affection, understanding, tenderness and care. Instead, they were met so often with hard-hearted coldness, harsh regimes of sterile adult routine and lovelessness, as well as indescribable sexual and physical abuse. It is difficult to overstate the suffering that the former residents of these homes have endured and continue to endure as a result of their experience.”

On the final day of one of the most divided Parliaments in British political history, we can say, hand on heart, that we have all come together, worked together and pulled together to deliver this Bill.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

It would be wrong if we did not pay tribute to the Secretary of State and his efforts to deliver this Bill. This has not been easy to achieve, and I know all the work done behind the scenes by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds), my party’s leader in Westminster, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), our Chief Whip, and others to cajole and get this over the line. It is a fitting tribute to the Secretary of State, on this last day of Parliament, that the Bill will come into law. On behalf of the victims, their groups and people like Marty, Margaret and Gerry who contact us regularly, I thank the Secretary of State.

[Julian Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. He was at his most tenacious over the weekend in trying to make this happen.

There are many more people to thank. Unfortunately, Sir Anthony Hart, who led the inquiry, passed away earlier this year, but through his widow, Lady Mary Hart, I thank him and his team for their tireless work. I thank the other inquiry members, the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland civil service, Northern Ireland Office civil servants, the Executive Office, the leaders of the Northern Ireland political parties and my predecessors, my right hon. Friends the Members for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) and for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire). They have all played an important part in getting to today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

When the Secretary of State made his poignant remarks to the House today, he quoted from Corinthians on the views and perspective of a child—what children see. The beginning of that chapter says that faith is so powerful that it can move mountains, but without charity, compassion and love, it is nothing. This House today, through the actions of this Government that have been brought here, has demonstrated that through compassion it has been able to move bureaucratic mountains. It has been able to move those things that stood in the way, and it is not as nothing; today this House is something. It has done something incredibly powerful and incredibly important for victims across Northern Ireland, those here on the mainland, and, indeed, those who are located across the world as a result of the abuse that took place in these locations in Northern Ireland.

It is important that the Secretary of State is able to set out, and this legislation sets out, the schedule of when moneys will be paid, because that is a practical issue. It is also important that we make sure that help is given to the victims groups going forward from now on, because they have been brought to the top of the mountain. Today is, if I can use the word appropriately, an exciting day in that they have now achieved this, but there will then be the cliff edge of what happens next. Those victims groups will have to be wrapped in compassion, charity, help and assistance so that they can then move to the next phase of this, because it is not going to end very quickly. There will probably now be a process put in place, and it is important that practical help is given to take the groups through that to make sure that they can get the other end of this as quickly and expeditiously as possible. I hope that we will see that. I hope that we mark this very poignant and historic day with an appropriate mark of respect and an appropriate celebration that this House is not as nothing; it has achieved something today.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 Section 7

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 30th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Julian Smith]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s summary of the work undertaken by the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on this issue. I would be very happy to meet her and others to discuss it. It is, again, up to the Northern Ireland Assembly, but let us meet and see how we can work further to move things forward.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Normally there is another contingent in this House that is very interested in a one dimensional aspect of things to do with Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State must be aware of the 850 medical practitioners—doctors, nurses and midwives—who have written publicly about their absolute outcry at the failure regarding the decision of this House to impose abortion regulations in Northern Ireland, abortion regulations that cannot be met. That has put undue pressure on GP services, nursing staff and doctors’ staff. What is he going to do about that to protect our doctors and nurses in Northern Ireland?

[Julian Smith]

If I can, I will come to my hon. Friend’s point slightly later in my remarks.

Since my appointment in July, I have met public servants from a range of sectors who are doing an incredible job in the absence of support from local political leaders at Stormont, but they cannot of course take the proactive decisions that are needed on public services, the economy or the areas that we have already heard about in today’s debate. If we cannot secure the restoration of an Executive, we will pursue the decision-making powers that are needed at the earliest opportunity. In addition to the reporting requirements, the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 requires the UK Parliament to introduce laws on same-sex marriage and opposite-sex civil partnerships, abortion and victims payments. This House has spoken, and the duty to legislate will come into effect if the Executive are not back up and running before 21 October. My Department will shortly begin an awareness campaign to ensure that women and citizens across Northern Ireland are clear as to how we plan to proceed to regulate for these new legal duties.

I recognise that these are sensitive issues, and this Government’s preference is that they are taken forward by a restored Assembly and Executive, but to those who now lobby me and others in Government to somehow change the law I say that the only way for these laws to be changed and shaped in the best interests of Northern Ireland is for the Northern Ireland party leaders to form an Executive and get back into government. To that end, following the frustratingly slow pace over the summer caused by a range of factors, I will this week work urgently with the Northern Ireland parties and the Irish Government to do everything I can to break the logjam and to get Stormont up and running. The time for that is now. The party leaders need to show leadership and do the right thing for the people of Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Smith]

I honestly do not think that it is productive for me to get involved in pointing any fingers. I think I stated earlier in my speech that I view the lack of progress as being down to a variety of factors, and I now want to be as proactive as possible in moving back to getting the Assembly up and running, as do the Irish Government and many parties, including the Democratic Unionist party and others.

[Ian Paisley]

The Secretary of State must know that his words, as they are spoken from the Dispatch Box today, sound like a punishment to every single party in Northern Ireland except Sinn Féin. That is the only party holding us up in getting back into the Assembly, yet we are all being punished, even by what he says.

[Julian Smith]

I am happy to restate that I do not think that any one party or any particular issue has held things up, but it is time that we move on. I call on each party to play its part in getting Stormont up and running, and I hope and expect that they will.

On the matter of historical institutional abuse, I want to say first that victims in Northern Ireland have shown incredible courage and dignity through their engagement with the Hart inquiry and their campaign for redress. Without their willingness to speak up about the trauma of what happened to them, we would not have been able to forge a path from the inquiry to the consultation on the draft legislation, and to the present position where there is a commitment to introducing a historical institutional abuse Bill in Westminster by the end of the year in the absence of a Northern Ireland Executive. I know that colleagues will join me in restating today our collective determination to see progress made in delivering redress to the victims as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Lloyd]

That puts into context the unfortunate remarks last week of the Attorney General, who told us that this Parliament had no moral basis. This Parliament has enormous moral compass, no more so than when we examine the kind of issues that we are now examining. This is the message that ought to go out. There can never be a time when the House of Commons is irrelevant, and that is certainly not the case when we are debating the justice and urgency that victims are entitled to have. Members of the House of Commons must be here to do that.

There are things in the report that I strongly welcome. I strongly welcome, for example, the appointment of Brendan McAllister as the interim advocate, as that is an important step forward. From 12 August, I think, Mr McAllister has been engaged in work that he can achieve. In the end, we want a permanent commissioner to be appointed so that they can work across the piece, particularly with victims of abuse.

I do not need to speak for an awful lot longer, as I simply want to make one point. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is absolutely right that we need a firm timeline. I would strongly welcome the return of devolved governance in Stormont. Every Member of the House ought to want that. If it can be done and the legislation can expeditiously be put through that Stormont process, we welcome that. However, in the absence of Stormont we need a definitive view that this can be completed in the House of Commons.

[Ian Paisley]

I share the absolute commitment of the shadow Secretary of State—let us see the Assembly back up and running. Would he therefore make a request on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition to the Secretary of State to call a meeting of the Northern Ireland Assembly tomorrow at 10 am, and see who turns up and wants to do business?

[Tony Lloyd]

I think that, regrettably, things are more complicated than that. I will say to the hon. Gentleman, however, that if the commitment is there to see Stormont back in operation, we will all, like him, do everything we can to support the process. One of the interesting aspects of the report is a recognition that all parties come together in agreement on this important issue. That is a lesson that ought to be taken back: when there is the will to move things on, there is political agreement, even between parties that are otherwise divided.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Where are they, Madam Deputy Speaker? Why is the House empty? Where are they? Where is the choir of people who are normally so interested in Northern Ireland and who wish to introduce the most damaging legislation in the history of Northern Ireland? Where are they today? They are hardly at the Tory party conference. They tell us that they want the House back and sitting because they need to hold the Government to account. Where are they? Where are their probing questions about the protection of vulnerable lives? They are quick to be here when they want to destroy the unborn life, but they are absent today, when we want to ask questions and scrutinise the Government on the protection of innocent victims in institutional care in Northern Ireland. It is a disgrace that they are not here. Their absence speaks thousands of words to the people of Northern Ireland about how much they really care. Are they even really interested in abortion rights in Northern Ireland and the rights of woman in Northern Ireland? No, they are interested in one thing: pursuing their own agenda. They use this House and abuse this House to get those things done.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that there has been a lot of discussion about the use of language and the tone that we are setting. I do hope that he will bear that in mind.

[Ian Paisley]

I will bear it in mind, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will take your ruling—but I think people are right to be angry. People are right to be angry on behalf of the unborn and on behalf of the innocent victims of institutional abuse, whose rights are brushed under the carpet every moment. When someone dares to speak up for them, they are told that they have to calm things down—“Don’t say things about the victims. Don’t upset people who have challenged the lives of innocent victims or the lives of the unborn.” Oh no, we cannot have anything rough said; it might upset their sensitivities. It might be awful for them. No, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is about time that people did speak up for the voiceless and for the abused—for those who see this place, which should be a champion of their rights, being silenced on their rights, because that is effectively what has happened.

I reiterate my challenge to the Secretary of State. He really needs to do more when it comes to the issues that have been brought to the attention of the House. Last week, on 26 September, 815 doctors, nurses, midwives and other health and social care workers felt so deeply concerned about what this House had done in relation to the people of Northern Ireland that they decided to write publicly about that abuse. They said:

“The concept of taking human life at any stage is inimical to us, and the concept of taking a human life in the womb especially so.”

They went on to make demands of the Government here, saying:

“Healthcare in Northern Ireland is in such a parlous state, due to chronic underfunding, understaffing, and the lack of a sitting Government. Imposing abortion on our healthcare system risks destabilising our GP service, many of whom are contemplating retiring… It risks burdening our hospitals with unnecessary procedures, extra complications, divisions within departments and lengthening of waiting lists—all of which will likely have a negative effect on the population of Northern Ireland who rely on healthcare services from medical problems.”

That is the problem that is being impacted on Northern Ireland. That is the problem that the Secretary of State needs to address. If he really wants the Assembly back to deal with this issue before 20 October, I reiterate my call to him: call a meeting tomorrow morning of the Northern Ireland Assembly and see how many Members turn up. He will find that the only party that runs away will be Sinn Féin. The Secretary of State has that power in the Belfast agreement—I am not asking him to do anything outwith his powers. There are two people who can call a meeting of the Assembly, and he is one of them. I urge him to do that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. There is a very specific subject of discussion here, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be returning to as quickly as possible—by which I mean now.

[Ian Paisley]

I understand that we are speaking about the Northern Ireland Executive formation and the reports flowing from that. The Secretary of State introduced his comments tonight by referring to the lack of an Assembly. The Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee emphasised that issue as well. I am trying to get the Assembly back, and I am outlining the way in which the Secretary of State could take active measures this evening by phoning the 90 Members of the Assembly and getting them back in the Assembly tomorrow morning. That could bring about the changes that the Secretary of State wants to see—that I want to see and that people in this place want to see—but I fear that that call will land on deaf ears. I hope that he decides to do that, and I hope that he takes up that chance.

I welcome what the Secretary of State said in his remarks. I believe that he is passionate and that he does care about the victims of institutional abuse. Indeed, I know, following on from the meetings that he had with them in August, that many of them meet regularly with Government Members, and they reported back to us the enthusiasm and the genuine concern that he has. I happen to think that it is important that we put that on the record, but it is also right and proper that he is pushed on a few areas. I ask him to give us a time, to give us a specific date and to tell us when this will happen. He should not let this slip any further. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly) made the point in her excellent speech that we cannot allow this slippage to continue. These people are dying. These victims need immediate help and there is nothing to stop the Secretary of State from providing that.

I wish to leave some very specific questions with the Secretary of State: who is ultimately going to pay the compensation? The hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) made the crucial point that this abuse was carried out vastly during a period of direct rule. Therefore, the responsibility and the onus must fall on this place to come up with the compensation. The Northern Ireland budget could not cope with—probably—the extent of that payment.

[Emma Little Pengelly]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on that important point. It is undoubtedly the case, when one reads that report, that there is a direct rule implication—an implication for this place. Does he agree that there is also a significant obligation on the institutions, including the Roman Catholic Church? They have contributed to compensation schemes in relation to these inquiries in all other jurisdictions as far as I am aware, so does he agree that the Secretary of State should engage in those early conversations with the institutions to ensure that that contribution is made?

[Ian Paisley]

I am more than happy with that. Indeed, I have spoken in this House in the past about that very point. One of the ways that this could be addressed expeditiously is by the institutions actually making amends—by way of payment, by way of apology and by way of an actual practical measure. I think that, without doubt, that is the case. There should be something that the Secretary of State can do to facilitate such a process. I know that there are ways that he can facilitate that, and I encourage him to take them up. There is a crucial point here. Ultimately, if the Government pay money in compensation, they may, later on, get that money back through the institutions. They should be pursuing those institutions for the abuse inflicted on those innocent victims.

Professor Patricia Lundy, who gave evidence to our Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on these issues, spelled out what she believed the costs could run to, and they are staggering. It is essential that the Government grapple with this issue immediately. There should be no surprises when they come to legislating. We do not want to have to delay legislation further, because we have now discovered what the costs are. The costs are mammoth. The costs will have to be dealt with.

May I also speak for some of the survivor groups? All of those who have given us evidence and spoken to us directly have said that they run their organisations on a shoestring. Clearly, they will have to keep up the momentum by informing their people, encouraging their people and being a shoulder for their people. Therefore, some sort of assistance in the interim period—until the legislation is actually enacted—would be very beneficial indeed. Finally, it would be brilliant if the Secretary of State published the Bill, put it out there and brought it into this place so that we had the opportunity to enact it without any further delay.